No, we can't agree on that. It is easiest to detect changes in physiological parameters when the changes in said parameters are large...as is the case when studying untrained subjects who then begin training. If you can't detect any improvements under those conditions, it is highly unlikely that you'll be able to detect a change in an individual who is already training.ScienceIsCool said:I think you can agree that for the purposes of discussion in this forum, when we talk about increases in efficiency the only relevant studies are for trained athletes in their respective sport.
Now wait a minute...first you're complaining because studies to date haven't firmly established the mechanism, now you're saying we should avoid thinking about such details because they are "highly irrelevant"??ScienceIsCool said:Otherwise we get lost in details of adaptation and mechanical efficiency which are highly irrelevant.
1. I take it that you didn't take my suggestion to read Hopker's work completely to heart. If you had, some of your questions would be answered.ScienceIsCool said:For that, I have seen one paper that studies this directly - and for cyclists no less! Highly relevant.
However, I have questions. Legitimate or not, attack those or answer them as you see fit. Science is indeed cool. I'll accept, follow, believe and proselytize anything it teaches us.
2. Your questions are all ancillary to the primary issue.