Pseudo-science

[sniper]

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.

this of course.

scientists are being quoted in newspapers and TV programs on a daily basis.
Should all that be discarded as "it's not science, it's journalism"? facepalm
So all of Froome's physiological data published in the Esquire article isn't science either? It's just journalism? double facepalm.
So if a journo calls me tomorrow in my capacity as scientist, I can tell him the earth is flat, he can print it, and yet nobody can hold me accountable for it, because it's just journalism? triple facepalm.

Then Jacques De Molay goes for the quadruple facepalm by suggesting that because Swart didn't repeat that nonsense in the podcast we should pretend he never said those words in the first place.

Look, Swart has had multiple opportunities to distance himself from those words.
To my knowledge, he hasn't. Neither on twitter nor in any of the podcasts. (and I'm sure Jacques will correct me if wrong).
In fact, the words have been re-quoted in several larger newspapers, and again, Swart has allowed that to happen, he hasn't distanced himself from that.
And on twitter he has explicitly endorsed and lauded the article, so that would include his quotes at the bottom of the article.
Yes, he's been more nuanced in the podcast. But I don't see how that should deflect from those statements in the Esquire article. Those statements are either awfully bad and sloppy science, or deliberately misleading. Again, choice is yours.

 

[Davesta]

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.

Exactly - we also don't know the context or the original quote; only how it was placed by Moore in his own narrative.

I won't repeat my original post, but to reiterate the point - I suggest we exercise caution & patience; wait until Swart publishes the full study in a peer-reviewed journal before we attach too much significance to a short quote published by a journalist.

 

[gillan1969]

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.

bloomin' eck...

the whole sorry exercise was a PR stunt...Swart and his mate might have so many brains they can't find hats big enough but they obviously didn't realise they were being played......they have been played....

what did you think Froome/Sky wanted to get out of the exercise??? When they 'reached-out' to Swart....


he better get down the hat shop...its two for one...he and Burnley can downsize together

 

[gillan1969]

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.

Exactly - we also don't know the context or the original quote; only how it was placed by Moore in his own narrative.

I won't repeat my original post, but to reiterate the point - I suggest we exercise caution & patience; wait until Swart publishes the full study in a peer-reviewed journal before we attach too much significance to a short quote published by a journalist.

again...bloomin 'eck...the ship has sailed, the headlines written...Moore has been on the today program

its all very clear...Froome like Paula is clean

the actual paper will not receive the same attention and neither do podcasts...

The Cound/Froome axis must be amazed at how easy it all was....one old dodgy fax....

 

[sniper]

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.

Exactly - we also don't know the context or the original quote; only how it was placed by Moore in his own narrative.

I won't repeat my original post, but to reiterate the point - I suggest we exercise caution & patience; wait until Swart publishes the full study in a peer-reviewed journal before we attach too much significance to a short quote published by a journalist.

no need to reiterate that point, because nobody has argued otherwise.

fact remains: awful, bad, sloppy science there from Swart. Not sure why you and two others are trying so hard to refute that or somehow trivialize it. You spoke about the need of setting high standards just a few posts ago. Are Swart, Moore and GSK guys somehow exempted?

 

[Davesta]

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.

Exactly - we also don't know the context or the original quote; only how it was placed by Moore in his own narrative.

I won't repeat my original post, but to reiterate the point - I suggest we exercise caution & patience; wait until Swart publishes the full study in a peer-reviewed journal before we attach too much significance to a short quote published by a journalist.

no need to reiterate that point, because nobody has argued otherwise.

fact remains: awful, bad, sloppy science there from Swart. Not sure why you and two others are trying so hard to refute that or somehow trivialize it. You spoke about the need of setting high standards just a few posts ago. Are Swart, Moore and GSK guys somehow exempted?

So if nobody has argued otherwise...Would I be correct in thinking that you (and others) accept that we don't have the full information to hand? That we don't have the full study, and that there is more data, information & clarifications to be published?

Because many posters here are posting conclusions about Swart & his work with limited information available (because it hasn't all been published). Which, ironically, is exactly the accusation they're making against Swart!

 

[sniper]

Re: Re:

So if nobody has argued otherwise...Would I be correct in thinking that you (and others) accept that we don't have the full information to hand? That we don't have the full study, and that there is more data, information & clarifications to be published?

sure that's correct.

Because many posters here are posting conclusions about Swart & his work with limited information available (because it hasn't all been published). Which, ironically, is exactly the accusation they're making against Swart!

we've discussed (a) the esquire statements; (b) swart in a wider context.
the statements themselves are sloppy science, regardless of what that may or may not tell us about swart's work as a whole.
not sure what you're getting at.

Also, Swart made his statements in a (popular) scientific context in his capacity as a scientist.
It is only logical that we hold him accountable for those statements (unless he would have distanced himself from them, which however he hasnt). Not sure where the irony is.

 

[thehog]

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.

Exactly - we also don't know the context or the original quote; only how it was placed by Moore in his own narrative.

I won't repeat my original post, but to reiterate the point - I suggest we exercise caution & patience; wait until Swart publishes the full study in a peer-reviewed journal before we attach too much significance to a short quote published by a journalist.

Exactly indeed. No matter how much you attempt to water it down, Swart said what he said, conclusively. Period.

It's fairly obvious Swart was in no position to say what he said or under torture from Moore!? Swart offered the conclusion knowing full well an article was being written and published in Esquire. Simple.

Nice try.

 

[Merckx index]

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.

So you believe that the author of the article did not run it by Swart before publishing? Swart never got a chance to read the article and say, yes, this is what I said, and what I meant, you can publish it?

I don’t know if he did or didn’t, but if I had been in Swart’s shoes, and I didn’t think it was at all clear that the key to Froome’s transformation was just weight loss, I would have been upset.

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.

After the article was published, and after he was subjected to a lot of criticism for that quote.

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 first strongly implies the other. If the engine was there all along, weight loss is the logical reason for improved performance. All those other factors subsequently mentioned in the podcast—going from dom to leader; better tactics; improved position on the bike; whatever—really are marginal gains. A rider doesn’t go from pack filler to one of the greatest GT riders of all time just because of those factors. Weight loss is where a really large difference could be made.

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.

Is that motivation, or is it just being given a better notion of the best pace? Motivation as a performance improver hasn’t fared very well in the sports where it has been studied the most intensively. E.g., in baseball, there is very little evidence that players can perform better in the clutch, in important games or in important (high leverage) situations. In fact, if they could, it would imply they weren’t trying as hard as they could in other situations.

I can understand that some athletes are more motivated towards success than others, and thus may train harder. But for a given professional athlete in competition, I’m dubious that there is such a thing as being specifically motivated at a certain time to perform better. All aspects underlying a specific performance, including the emotional desire to perform well that we associate with motivation, appear to fluctuate randomly, and are largely out of the control of the athlete. The variation may be less extreme in endurance sports like cycling as opposed to more skill-based sports such as baseball, but no doubt it still occurs.

 

[Davesta]

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.

Exactly - we also don't know the context or the original quote; only how it was placed by Moore in his own narrative.

I won't repeat my original post, but to reiterate the point - I suggest we exercise caution & patience; wait until Swart publishes the full study in a peer-reviewed journal before we attach too much significance to a short quote published by a journalist.

Exactly indeed. No matter how much you attempt to water it down, Swart said what he said, conclusively. Period.

It's fairly obvious Swart was in no position to say what he said or under torture from Moore!? Swart offered the conclusion knowing full well an article was being written and published in Esquire. Simple.

Nice try.

Because no journalist ever twists the context of a quote to suit their story? Really?

 

[gillan1969]

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.

Exactly - we also don't know the context or the original quote; only how it was placed by Moore in his own narrative.

I won't repeat my original post, but to reiterate the point - I suggest we exercise caution & patience; wait until Swart publishes the full study in a peer-reviewed journal before we attach too much significance to a short quote published by a journalist.

Exactly indeed. No matter how much you attempt to water it down, Swart said what he said, conclusively. Period.

It's fairly obvious Swart was in no position to say what he said or under torture from Moore!? Swart offered the conclusion knowing full well an article was being written and published in Esquire. Simple.

Nice try.

Because no journalist ever twists the context of a quote to suit their story? Really?

Well done…you are slowly getting there……what is it exactly you thought Moore was engaged to do???

 

[Davesta]

Re: Re:

Well done…you are slowly getting there……what is it exactly you thought Moore was engaged to do???

I fear you've misunderstood my point.

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Well done…you are slowly getting there……what is it exactly you thought Moore was engaged to do???

I fear you've misunderstood my point.

i thinketh not...

 

[thehog]

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.

Exactly - we also don't know the context or the original quote; only how it was placed by Moore in his own narrative.

I won't repeat my original post, but to reiterate the point - I suggest we exercise caution & patience; wait until Swart publishes the full study in a peer-reviewed journal before we attach too much significance to a short quote published by a journalist.

Exactly indeed. No matter how much you attempt to water it down, Swart said what he said, conclusively. Period.

It's fairly obvious Swart was in no position to say what he said or under torture from Moore!? Swart offered the conclusion knowing full well an article was being written and published in Esquire. Simple.

Nice try.

Because no journalist ever twists the context of a quote to suit their story? Really?

Seeing as you have a high bar for evidence, in this instance where is the proof that Moore twisted the quote?

Looking forward to the link

 

[Davesta]

Re: Re:

Seeing as you have a high bar for evidence, in this instance where is the proof that Moore twisted the quote?

Looking forward to the link

It'll come (or not) when the study is published in a peer-reviewed journal. That's been my point all along!

 

[gillan1969]

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.

So you believe that the author of the article did not run it by Swart before publishing? Swart never got a chance to read the article and say, yes, this is what I said, and what I meant, you can publish it?

I don’t know if he did or didn’t, but if I had been in Swart’s shoes, and I didn’t think it was at all clear that the key to Froome’s transformation was just weight loss, I would have been upset.

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.

After the article was published, and after he was subjected to a lot of criticism for that quote.

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 first strongly implies the other. If the engine was there all along, weight loss is the logical reason for improved performance. All those other factors subsequently mentioned in the podcast—going from dom to leader; better tactics; improved position on the bike; whatever—really are marginal gains. A rider doesn’t go from pack filler to one of the greatest GT riders of all time just because of those factors. Weight loss is where a really large difference could be made.

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.

Is that motivation, or is it just being given a better notion of the best pace? Motivation as a performance improver hasn’t fared very well in the sports where it has been studied the most intensively. E.g., in baseball, there is very little evidence that players can perform better in the clutch, in important games or in important (high leverage) situations. In fact, if they could, it would imply they weren’t trying as hard as they could in other situations.

I can understand that some athletes are more motivated towards success than others, and thus may train harder. But for a given professional athlete in competition, I’m dubious that there is such a thing as being specifically motivated at a certain time to perform better. All aspects underlying a specific performance, including the emotional desire to perform well that we associate with motivation, appear to fluctuate randomly, and are largely out of the control of the athlete. The variation may be less extreme in endurance sports like cycling as opposed to more skill-based sports such as baseball, but no doubt it still occurs.

back in the day Robert Millar used to perform well in the Pyrenees (TDF)...more so than the Alps...he used to say he was motivated by them...maybe similar phenomenon psychologically??? Or did he just underperform in the Alps....

 

[gillan1969]

Re: Re:

Seeing as you have a high bar for evidence, in this instance where is the proof that Moore twisted the quote?

Looking forward to the link

It'll come (or not) when the study is published in a peer-reviewed journal. That's been my point all along!

it's like pulling teeth.....

let's start at the beginning

1. Why did our hero want to do the testing?

2. Did our hapless hero (froome that is, not the hapless Swart/acolytes) have an interest in the outcome of his 'tests'?

3. Did our hero then instigate the testing itself and the journo?

 

[Davesta]

Re: Re:

it's like pulling teeth.....

Tell me about it!

 

[thehog]

Re: Re:

Seeing as you have a high bar for evidence, in this instance where is the proof that Moore twisted the quote?

Looking forward to the link

It'll come (or not) when the study is published in a peer-reviewed journal. That's been my point all along!

So you're surmising that it is coming? You don't actually know it.

I'm also fairly sure the peer reviewed report is not going to give a view on Richard Moore and whether he twisted a quote or not but knock yourself out.

Again, we come back to evidence to hand, Swart said conclusively 'the engine was there all along... he just lost the fat"

 

[Davesta]

Re: Re:

Seeing as you have a high bar for evidence, in this instance where is the proof that Moore twisted the quote?

Looking forward to the link

It'll come (or not) when the study is published in a peer-reviewed journal. That's been my point all along!

So you're surmising that it is coming? You don't actually know it.

I'm also fairly sure the peer reviewed report is not going to give a view on Richard Moore and whether he twisted a quote or not but knock yourself out.

Again, we come back to evidence to hand, Swart said conclusively 'the engine was there all along... he just lost the fat"

Yes, Swart's full conclusion is coming. Of course it is. In the peer-reviewed study. We can then understand his quote from the Esquire article in its full context, and judge whether he was misquoted to fit Moore's narrative.

It may be the same conclusion, in which case we can judge it accordingly. It may be different, or more nuanced, or caveated in various ways, in which case we can judge it accordingly.
At the moment we have very very little from Swart, so let's not make too many judgements. Once again, that's been my point all along!

 

[sniper]

The level of stupidity of this thread has now matched that of the Froome data thread.

Congratulations.

if this is the case, it's largely due to the fact that you and two or three others are not addressing any arguments.
I've said 5 times already: Swart hasn't distanced himself from the quotes in any way, in spite of ample opportunity to do so. It suggests he endorses them. So yes, he's to be held accountable for them.
See also what Merckx Index said above in response to your post. Again, you didn't reply.

 

[djpbaltimore]

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.

You never addressed my argument either. I have yet to see a coherent argument in this thread for why the science was sloppy, bad, or pseudo. Mostly opinion stated as fact by people who don't like the conclusions drawn from the data.

 

[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.

You never addressed my argument either. I have yet to see a coherent argument in this thread for why the science was sloppy, bad, or pseudo. Mostly opinion stated as fact by people who don't like the conclusions drawn from the data.

Can you cite another 'study' where the subject has instigated the study, had a vested interest in the outcome (to the tune of millions), chosen the scientist and chosen the method of dissemination to the public?

 

[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.

You never addressed my argument either. I have yet to see a coherent argument in this thread for why the science was sloppy, bad, or pseudo. Mostly opinion stated as fact by people who don't like the conclusions drawn from the data.

Can you cite another 'study' where the subject has instigated the study, had a vested interest in the outcome (to the tune of millions), chosen the scientist and chosen the method of dissemination to the public?

With an Esquire article no less! That's some awesome study...

Brailsford has even written to Cookson about the release of data. Brian replied! Sky/Froome/Swart leading the way with print media testing.

 

[djpbaltimore]

That is not that different from how the NIH (National Institute of Health) works here in America with their RFAs (requests for applications), albeit more formally than what the Froomes did. I would dispute your argument about the financial gain. I think you overrate what this stunt will have on his endorsement potential? I think his bottom line is mostly predicated on what he achieves on the bike and whether he can continue to elude sanction from the UCI.