Pseudo-science

[sniper]

Re: Re:

Moore said that he vetted the documents before publication. Dr. Swart has not put his name to anything that requires him to vet anything. Dr. Swart took Vayer's erroneous data at face value as well until it was shown by Dr. Burnley to be false. The paper is another story and it appears that there is a collaboration between the two labs in this regard. That is how science works, despite the false claims of pseudo or bad science.

Was I dreaming that Swart said Froome "just lost the fat" and "had the engine all along"?
No I wasn't. http://chrisfroome.esquire.co.uk/
Swart made those statements based on data that he had not checked and in his capacity as a scientist (or "world-renowned physiologist", as Moore cited him).
If it isn't bad science, it's pseudo-science. Your choice.
Or do you really wanna shift all the blame for that faux-pas on Moore?

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Those responses aren't exactly the responses of people who want to get to the bottom of things. Rather the opposite.

You left out that Dr. Swart was in contact with the lab to get to the bottom of things. The fax is largely irrelevant compared to the source data.

You mean that's the part Swart and Moore left out to make their assertion "he just lost the fat".

Moore didn't even realize he was dealing with two faxes until he was informed by the Clinic. Then they dismissed any claims and stated "we are talking with the lab".

Appears the bar is not very high in terms of verification for both Swart and Moore.

Moore said that he vetted the documents before publication. Dr. Swart has not put his name to anything that requires him to vet anything. Dr. Swart took Vayer's erroneous data at face value as well until it was shown by Dr. Burnley to be false. The paper is another story and it appears that there is a collaboration between the two labs in this regard. That is how science works, despite the false claims of pseudo or bad science.

that's 'Dr' Burnley to you..

now...where are my sausages...

 

[djpbaltimore]

There is no blame to shift, sniper. Go to any scientific convention, people are making comments about other scientists's unpublished data that they have seen just seen glimpses of all of the time. Often times, these proceedings get published in scientific journals (obviously not in esquire admittedly). It is good science, because that is how science works. The vast majority of scientists would behave in the exact same manner if roles were reversed. Just because you don't like the conclusion doesn't make it bad science or pseudo science.

 

[gillan1969]

Re:

There is no blame to shift, sniper. Go to any scientific convention, people are making comments about other scientists's unpublished data that they have seen just seen glimpses of all of the time. Often times, these proceedings get published in scientific journals (obviously not in esquire admittedly). It is good science, because that is how science works. The vast majority of scientists would behave in the exact same manner if roles were reversed. Just because you don't like the conclusion doesn't make it bad science or pseudo science.

steady DJP you are the grist for sniper's mill....

that's the problem....he didn't have enough information to come to a conclusion and yet he did.....very, very publicly

 

[Davesta]

Re: Re:

If it isn't bad science, it's pseudo-science. Your choice.

To reiterate my prior point - it's not science, it's journalism. It'll be science once a scientific study has been posted in a peer-review journal, and then we can judge the full conclusion accordingly. As of now, the full scientific process has not been completed, and thus we can't claim anything to be bad or pseudo science.

That's not to say that allowing the publishing of that quote wasn't a mistake, however, as I've previously stated.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

There is no blame to shift, sniper. Go to any scientific convention, people are making comments about other scientists's unpublished data that they have seen just seen glimpses of all of the time. Often times, these proceedings get published in scientific journals (obviously not in esquire admittedly). It is good science, because that is how science works. The vast majority of scientists would behave in the exact same manner if roles were reversed. Just because you don't like the conclusion doesn't make it bad science or pseudo science.

steady DJP you are the grist for sniper's mill....

that's the problem....he didn't have enough information to come to a conclusion and yet he did.....very, very publicly

Why should I accept your opinion as a fact? Small sample size is always an issue with N = 2, but that needn't prevent one from making a hypothesis about the data set. Some scientists would not go on record in that situation, but that is a pretty subjective decision that you are trying to falsely make black and white.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

There is no blame to shift, sniper. Go to any scientific convention, people are making comments about other scientists's unpublished data that they have seen just seen glimpses of all of the time. Often times, these proceedings get published in scientific journals (obviously not in esquire admittedly). It is good science, because that is how science works. The vast majority of scientists would behave in the exact same manner if roles were reversed. Just because you don't like the conclusion doesn't make it bad science or pseudo science.

steady DJP you are the grist for sniper's mill....

that's the problem....he didn't have enough information to come to a conclusion and yet he did.....very, very publicly

Why should I accept your opinion as a fact? Small sample size is always an issue with N = 2, but that needn't prevent one from making a hypothesis about the data set. Some scientists would not go on record in that situation, but that is a pretty subjective decision that you are trying to falsely make black and white.

You are really reaching here, a good scientist would always caveat their hypothesis;

Rather than stating “he just lost the fat” - which is conclusive.

you would state:

“it appears between the two data points, set 8 years apart that fat loss was the key driver to enhanced performance. However that is difficult to determine without having corresponding and conclusive data in the 8 year period of wattages and weight from confirmed sources”.

A good scientist would go on to state:

“Whilst the power output is similar between the two data points, the fat loss is lower, Froome race performance has increased dramatically over this given period, specifically in the September 2011 period. Therefore its hard to determine if the loss of fat was the key driver in improved race performance”.

 

[The Hitch]

Re: Re:

There is absolutely nothing about what you wrote that applies to the clinic in particular.

I never said it did apply to the clinic in particular.

But wouldn't it be nice to try to hold ourselves to higher standards than any other group on the planet, especially as the raison d'etre of the clinic is, arguably, to evaluate evidence?

Ourselves? From what I can see, you've made 16 posts over a period of one off season month. But you are acting like a founding member of the clinic who speaks for all it's posters.

My apologies in advanced if you have more history on this forum than I have given you credit for. But if it's only 1 month, I don't understand the tone.

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

You are really reaching here, a good scientist would always caveat their hypothesis;

Rather than stating “he just lost the fat” - which is conclusive.

you would state:

“it appears between the two data points, set 8 years apart that fat loss was the key driver to enhanced performance. However that is difficult to determine without having corresponding and conclusive data in the 8 year period of wattages and weight from confirmed sources”.

A good scientist would go on to state:

“Whilst the power output is similar between the two data points, the fat loss is lower, Froome race performance has increased dramatically over this given period, specifically in the September 2011 period. Therefore its hard to determine if the loss of fat was the key driver in improved race performance”.

I would kindly suggest that you don't put words in my mouth. Also, please link to a verifiable authority that states that hypotheses need caveats, or that it is the mark of a good scientist. I'll be waiting.

Good hypotheses are ones that can be tested in the lab. Caveats are added frequently for non-scientific reasons, often involving the fear of subsequently being proven incorrect. Your second example isn't even a hypothesis, so I'm not sure what your point is about that one. It is purely descriptive.

Hypothesis definition: a supposition or proposed explanation made on the basis of limited evidence as a starting point for further investigation.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

There is no blame to shift, sniper. Go to any scientific convention, people are making comments about other scientists's unpublished data that they have seen just seen glimpses of all of the time. Often times, these proceedings get published in scientific journals (obviously not in esquire admittedly). It is good science, because that is how science works. The vast majority of scientists would behave in the exact same manner if roles were reversed. Just because you don't like the conclusion doesn't make it bad science or pseudo science.

steady DJP you are the grist for sniper's mill....

that's the problem....he didn't have enough information to come to a conclusion and yet he did.....very, very publicly

Why should I accept your opinion as a fact? Small sample size is always an issue with N = 2, but that needn't prevent one from making a hypothesis about the data set. Some scientists would not go on record in that situation, but that is a pretty subjective decision that you are trying to falsely make black and white.

goalpost and shift...he never made a 'hypothesis'...he made a 'conclusion'...

and that's not an opinion...that is a fact...he said it "he just lost the weigh" (my emphasis )

and its not simply the small number of data points...its their asymetric nature...

1. Fully controlled lab with numerous personell on hand to control and record
2. a 'doctored' fax 'magiced' from the test subject's girlf...and....eh...that's it....

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

There is no blame to shift, sniper. Go to any scientific convention, people are making comments about other scientists's unpublished data that they have seen just seen glimpses of all of the time. Often times, these proceedings get published in scientific journals (obviously not in esquire admittedly). It is good science, because that is how science works. The vast majority of scientists would behave in the exact same manner if roles were reversed. Just because you don't like the conclusion doesn't make it bad science or pseudo science.

steady DJP you are the grist for sniper's mill....

that's the problem....he didn't have enough information to come to a conclusion and yet he did.....very, very publicly

Why should I accept your opinion as a fact? Small sample size is always an issue with N = 2, but that needn't prevent one from making a hypothesis about the data set. Some scientists would not go on record in that situation, but that is a pretty subjective decision that you are trying to falsely make black and white.

goalpost and shift...he never made a 'hypothesis'...he made a 'conclusion'...

and that's not an opinion...that is a fact...he said it "he just lost the weigh" (my emphasis )

and its not simply the small number of data points...its their asymetric nature...

1. Fully controlled lab with numerous personell on hand to control and record
2. a 'doctored' fax 'magiced' from the test subject's girlf...and....eh...that's it....

Exactly. Swart states it conclusively. He is not hypothesising.

He has other interesting news: Michelle has finally managed to track down the report from the tests carried out on Froome in Lausanne on 25 July, 2007. It’s the missing link in the Froome story. Is he an athlete who underwent a dramatic — and suspicious — transformation, or were there clues in 2007 that he could become a champion?

The latter, says Swart. What is striking is how similar the two reports, eight years apart, are. Apart from one thing. Froome was 75.6kg: more than 8kg heavier than his current race weight. His body fat was 16.9 per cent. “Frankly, for an elite cyclist that’s chubby,” says Swart. “But he produced better figures: peak power of 540 [15 watts higher than in August 2015], threshold of 420 — we made it 419, so it’s one watt less.” His V02 max in 2007 was 80.2.

“The engine was there all along,” says Swart. “He just lost the fat.”

http://chrisfroome.esquire.co.uk/

 

[djpbaltimore]

I disagree. I think the main conclusion was "The engine was there all along," and 'he just lost the fat' was the hypothesis for how he turned from an also ran to TDF champion. You can disagree with what he said, but there is no scientific reason IMO to criticize him for merely saying something based on the information he was examining.

The two sets are less asymmetric than you think. Both were acquired in controlled environments with trained scientists present. There is no indication that the data on the faxes was inaccurate or a misrepresentation of what occurred in the tests, so bringing up Michelle is a red herring.

 

[thehog]

Re:

I disagree. I think the main conclusion was "The engine was there all along," and 'he just lost the fat' was the hypothesis for how he turned from an also ran to TDF champion. You can disagree with what he said, but there is no scientific reason IMO to criticize him for merely saying something based on the information he was examining.

The two sets are less asymmetric than you think. Both were acquired in controlled environments with trained scientists present. There is no indication that the data on the faxes were inaccurate or a misrepresentation of what occurred in the tests, so bringing up Michelle is a red herring.

I sense you are clutching at straws here.

Considering Dr. Phill Bell & Matt Furber at GSK took the 2007 results with a "degree of caution" perhaps Swart should have stated similar in the Esquire article.

or

maybe the intention was to get across the "he just loss the fat" theorem at the expense of the truth?

*Results taken from original report from Swiss Olympic Medical Centre in July 2007. No protocol or test equipment information provided in report, therefore direct comparisons should be interpreted with a degree of caution.

https://www.gskhpl.com/dyn/_assets/_pdfs/ChrisFroome-BodyCompositionandAerobicPhysiology.pdf

 

[Davesta]

Re: Re:

There is absolutely nothing about what you wrote that applies to the clinic in particular.

I never said it did apply to the clinic in particular.

But wouldn't it be nice to try to hold ourselves to higher standards than any other group on the planet, especially as the raison d'etre of the clinic is, arguably, to evaluate evidence?

Ourselves? From what I can see, you've made 16 posts over a period of one off season month. But you are acting like a founding member of the clinic who speaks for all it's posters.

My apologies in advanced if you have more history on this forum than I have given you credit for. But if it's only 1 month, I don't understand the tone.

There is no tone. Only a statement and a question.

But I'm enjoying the irony of an ad hominem response in a thread about bad science. Top work!

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

I think its more interesting that you suggest that I have accused Swart of "misconduct". Unsure why you wish to point fingers at me rather than apply that same judgment to the article/Swart. Odd that you wish get personal rather than deal with the data/article.

Now you are the one clutching at straws. Odd that you still haven't addressed any of my earlier points. Discussion is a two way street. Please answer the bolded...

'Good hypotheses are ones that can be tested in the lab. Caveats are added frequently for non-scientific reasons, often involving the fear of subsequently being proven incorrect. Your second example isn't even a hypothesis, so I'm not sure what your point is about that one. It is purely descriptive.'

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Now you are the one clutching at straws. Odd that you still haven't addressed any of my earlier points. Discussion is a two way street. Please answer the bolded...

'Good hypotheses are ones that can be tested in the lab. Caveats are added frequently for non-scientific reasons, often involving the fear of subsequently being proven incorrect. Your second example isn't even a hypothesis, so I'm not sure what your point is about that one. It is purely descriptive.'

not sure Hog's point but here's mine...since you asked nicely...

It's Esquire...the whole sorry affair is a PR exercise...the celebrated doctor (and his merry chums) do not seem to have grasped that...He did not have to make either a conclusion or a hypothesis...he needed to make perhaps a descriptive statement as would befit a magazine such as Esquire...but he never...he made a very black and white statement about why Froome was once crap but is now brilliant......and it goes (sing after me).... 'he just lost the fat' (again...my emphasis )

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Now you are the one clutching at straws. Odd that you still haven't addressed any of my earlier points. Discussion is a two way street. Please answer the bolded...

'Good hypotheses are ones that can be tested in the lab. Caveats are added frequently for non-scientific reasons, often involving the fear of subsequently being proven incorrect. Your second example isn't even a hypothesis, so I'm not sure what your point is about that one. It is purely descriptive.'

Not going to bite, sorry.

Truth be told it is Swart who is clutching at straws by attempting to make a conclusive statement to why Froome improved so dramatically in a 3 week period in 2011.

Which was;

"he just lost the fat"

I wouldn't mind seeing how he came to that conclusion. A guess? A stab in the dark? or on the basis of a scratchy looking fax from 8 year prior to his testing with unconfirmed testing equipment?

Its all very WMD-esque and we know how that one ended up

 

[djpbaltimore]

Re: Re:

Now you are the one clutching at straws. Odd that you still haven't addressed any of my earlier points. Discussion is a two way street. Please answer the bolded...

'Good hypotheses are ones that can be tested in the lab. Caveats are added frequently for non-scientific reasons, often involving the fear of subsequently being proven incorrect. Your second example isn't even a hypothesis, so I'm not sure what your point is about that one. It is purely descriptive.'

not sure Hog's point but here's mine...since you asked nicely...

It's Esquire...the whole sorry affair is a PR exercise...the celebrated doctor (and his merry chums) do not seem to have grasped that...He did not have to make either a conclusion or a hypothesis...he needed to make perhaps a descriptive statement as would befit a magazine such as Esquire...but he never...he made a very black and white statement about why Froome was once crap but is now brilliant......and it goes (sing after me).... 'he just lost the fat' (again...my emphasis )

I don't agree with you, but thank you for answering.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

Exactly. Swart states it conclusively. He is not hypothesizing.

OR...

It was the author of that article, one Richard Moore, who chose to highlight that one quote, and use it a closing line to his piece, thereby giving it more emphasis than Swart ever intended.

But don't be distracted by Jeroen Swart's own take on the use of that exact quote, when he directly spoke about it in the podcast.

Because that wouldn't suit your agenda.

(I know, I know, you have no agenda. Of course. )

You'll have to do the heavy lifting on this one and figure out just which of the two podcasts I'm referring to, and where.

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Exactly. Swart states it conclusively. He is not hypothesizing.

OR...

It was the author of that article, one Richard Moore, who chose to highlight that one quote, and use it a closing line to his piece, thereby giving it more emphasis than Swart ever intended.

But don't be distracted by Jeroen Swart's own take on the use of that exact quote, when he directly spoke about it in the podcast.

Because that wouldn't suit your agenda.

(I know, I know, you have no agenda. Of course. )

You'll have to do the heavy lifting on this one and figure out just which of the two podcasts I'm referring to, and where.

Nice try but...

Sadly Moore didn't use the "he just lost he fat" as the closing line to his piece, sorry. He had another section on Froome's blood to write about, titled "Nothing to hide — Froome’s blood tests uncovered", the "tests" was one test from the Tour, so not sure I know what you're talking about. Might have helped if you read the article prior to posting.

What was that about agenda?

I listened to one of Swart's podcasts, no heavy lifting required. Swart made some claim about "consistent riding" which meant Froome and Wiggins could climb fatser than doped times, lol. Clearly Swart hadnt watched Froome race, Ventoux anyone?

Too funny.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

Exactly. Swart states it conclusively. He is not hypothesizing.

Nice try but...

Sadly Moore didn't use the "he just lost he fat" as the closing line to his piece, sorry. He had another section on Froome's blood to write about, titled "Nothing to hide — Froome’s blood tests uncovered", the "tests" was one test from the Tour, so not sure I know what you're talking about. Might have helped if you read the article prior to posting.

What was that about agenda? :roll eyes:

Fail.

I did read the entire article. In fact, I quoted the final "final" line of that article previously (can't use the "quote" feature because that thread has been locked.)
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=1845111#p1845111

My point still stands. The "piece" refers to the main article which was being discussed. The final quote from that "piece" was given emphasis by Richard Moore as a closing argument.

The bit about the blood work was an addendum added after a graphic. Yes, you had to scroll down to read it, and it is clearly separated from the main work of the article.

Again, I made reference to it previously.

Nice try though.

http://chrisfroome.esquire.co.uk

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Exactly. Swart states it conclusively. He is not hypothesizing.

Nice try but...

Sadly Moore didn't use the "he just lost he fat" as the closing line to his piece, sorry. He had another section on Froome's blood to write about, titled "Nothing to hide — Froome’s blood tests uncovered", the "tests" was one test from the Tour, so not sure I know what you're talking about. Might have helped if you read the article prior to posting.

What was that about agenda? :roll eyes:

I did read the entire article. In fact, I quoted the final "final" line of that article previously (can't use the "quote" feature because that thread has been locked.)
http://forum.cyclingnews.com/viewtopic.php?p=1845111#p1845111

My point still stands. The "piece" refers to the main article which was being discussed. The final quote from that "piece" was given emphasis by Richard Moore as a closing argument.

The bit about the blood work was an addendum added after a graphic. Yes, you had to scroll down to read it, and it is clearly separated from the main work of the article.

Again, I made reference to it previously.

http://chrisfroome.esquire.co.uk

So you knew the "he just lost the fat" quote wasn't the final line? Then why state as such if you already knew?

Maybe because you were making up a story to get a very weak point across? There was no emphasis. No bolding, nothing.

Swart said what he said, conclusively.

Addendum, lol!

 

[Dear Wiggo]

Re: Re:

If it isn't bad science, it's pseudo-science. Your choice.

To reiterate my prior point - it's not science, it's journalism. It'll be science once a scientific study has been posted in a peer-review journal, and then we can judge the full conclusion accordingly. As of now, the full scientific process has not been completed, and thus we can't claim anything to be bad or pseudo science.

That's not to say that allowing the publishing of that quote wasn't a mistake, however, as I've previously stated.

It would be science if he followed a scientific methodology. Publishing means diddly squat in terms of "is it science". There are enough examples around to prove this point, let me know if I need to post any.

ie it does not have to be published in a journal to be "science".

This new "published in a journal" religion is as revolting as all the others.

 

[Alex Simmons/RST]

Re:

Peter Sagan says that "someone has said that just looking at the rainbow jersey gives you an extra 50 watts of power." Others say that the yellow jersey gives you wings. I'm not sure what powers have been asserted for other iconic jumpers in cycling but there's probably others. So. We've got these claims. Where's the science? Has anyone ever looked at this? Someone out there with tables of watts must have the evidence necessary to back these claims up.

It's a commentator's loose reference to the fact that a rider with a given status in a race (often signified by their jersey) may have or be able to maintain a greater level of motivation to ride harder than they might otherwise do. Motivation does matter when it comes to performance - plenty of examples of that, only have to see how some riders perform solo vs when they have a rabbit to chase. As to what wattage it's worth, well that really depends on what mental state you are making the comparison.

 

[Jacques de Molay]

Re: Re:

There was no emphasis.

Of course there was--by where it was placed in the article, which is clear for anyone to see.

Swart said what he said, conclusively.

LOL
The only thing "conclusive" about it was how, and where, it was placed by the author, Richard Moore.

Swart may have carried on with seventeen other points during the interview for all we know. Moore chose that one quote as a conclusion.

Simple.