acoggan said:
"Peers"? You're talking about two newly-minted PhDs from a highly-controversial laboratory, only one of whom holds an academic position and who have only a handful of papers between them. I'd hardly consider their views/opinions on any subject related to exercise science as representative of the mainstream.
Those aren't insults, just statements of fact: the two guys responsible for that website are quite new to "the game", and only time will tell whether they will be able to develop reputations as independent scientists that would truly qualify them as peers of individuals who have been around much longer. (So far, I'd say that it isn't looking very good, i.e., I think that their blogging activity - presumably inspired by Noakes' approach to the field - is going to come back to bite them in the ****. However, since it isn't clear that either really aspires to a career in academia, perhaps they don't care.)
As for rebutting their arguments, I take it that you haven't read the comments that I left on their blog? Everything that I care to say specific to the topic I've already said there...
Ross Tucker here, one half of the above-mentioned "newly-minted PhDs from a highly controversial laboratory", and authors of the site in question.
After this thread was brought to my attention last night, I was going to reply immediately, but rather slept on it and woke this morning to discover an apology from Dr Coggan about his statements that we had deleted his comments on that post. This is, as he says, completely untrue. Our policy is to allow every comment with the exception of those with vulgar language or aggressive, defamatory comments. I have deleted comments before, but only if they meet these criteria. I therefore did not delete his comments to the post as he is perfectly entitled to his opinion. Now that it has been cleared up, apology accepted, thank you.
However, I am not posting to debate the Coyle issue - that is what the posts were about. I will however say that the opinions on Coyle were
not merely ours, but reflect what was being debated in the scientific literature around that paper - you may have noticed for example, that a complaint of scientific misconduct was brought against Coyle in order to obtain some of the data. Letters were written and the research was widely criticised. Those complaints were brought not by us, but by another group of scientists altogether, presumably also not part of this "mainstream" that Coggan refers to.
In any event, what bothers me most about Coggan's response are the above statements, quoted from his replies on this thread. So, to set the record straight:
"Newly-minted" - yes.
"New to the game" - guilty as charged
Inexperienced - afraid so
"only a handful of papers between them" - untrue, as Coggan can confirm through a Pubmed search. Given that we've only been in the "game" since 2006 with our PhDs, I'd say we're doing OK at "establishing ourselves". Unfortunately, that may not be good enough and perhaps we should hold our opinions for fifteen years. Or maybe not...
However, more to the point, Coggan implies that years in the game and experience are the requirements to possess a credible opinion. He would thus have one believe that education is the same thing as intelligence, or more seriously, that
age, experience and education entitle one to a credible opinion. Coggan also confuses "credible opinions" with being part of the mainstream.
These are his beliefs, which he is entitled to, but they are unfortunate, because I've read this thread and others on this site and I believe many people here have even more valuable opinions than mine or those of Coggan. I have read and thoroughly enjoyed this thread because people have posted intelligent, well thought out arguments, which are certainly worthy of serious consideration!
Though it seems that
Coggan's view is that serious, credible opinions belong only to those who have established their reputations through years of being part of the mainstream. According to that approach, I'm not sure that everyone here is "qualified" - I wonder what Dr Coggan makes of those who are not even "newly-minted"? Gosh, how dare they have opinions! And how dare anyone listen to them!
This is quite ridiculous, and so to attack our writing on the basis of our age and years in the field is so biased and arrogant, I'm pleased that the readers of this forum have picked it up.
Perhaps the background to Coggan's comment is important - you have probably all noticed that Coggan published extensively with Coyle about 10 to 20 years ago.
Tim Noakes, who supervised my PhD, was highly critical of Coyle (and thus Coggan), and in particular, his work on dehydration and heat illness during exercise. One of the first presentations by Noakes that I ever saw used a 1992 study by Coyle and Coggan as an illustration of how science was being applied incorrectly to the public and contributing to a growing problem of hyponatremia and over-drinking. Noakes has offended many, often excessively, but always in pursuit of what he believed to be the truth (and as I mention below, that "truth" is now becoming evident and may one day be part of the "mainstream")! But the point is that there is therefore
substantial water under the bridge when it comes to Coggan, Coyle and Tim Noakes.
Fortunately, the "mainstream" are now gradually coming to accept that Tim Noakes' arguments had merit (they were not always 100% correct, of course, such is the nature of science), and research from all around the world has contributed to the position. Even the ACSM have begun the change their fluid replacement guidelines, as a cursory comparison between the 1996 guidelines and the most recent ones will reveal.
Unfortunately for us, we are now being painted by the same brush, which is why Coggan is quick to label the laboratory as "controversial", not worthy of "the mainstream", and to make snide remarks about our inspiration for our site and how it will "bite us in the ****", as though this impacts on the credibility of our statements. What a pity that this educated, well published scientist cannot distinguish his personal biases from his newer readings. I take consolation in the fact that for every Coggan or Coyle, there is a younger (shock! "newly minted" and inexperienced) scientist who, freed from baggage, views things differently. And more important, that those not in academia enjoy reading - I believe people are quite capable of forming their own opinions without being told what to believe.
And just to set the record straight, the site Science of Sport was created because Jonathan and I both love coaching and applying sports science. I also did a Post-graduate in Marketing and Management, and began to see the value of communication and translation of science, and if that could be done in a news-type site, all the better. The site has nothing to do with Noakes' approach to the field, as Coggan implies, but everything to do with our personalities and desire to see sports science made readable. It is indeed a great pity that such immediate resistance is created by his history and biases.
Of course, all are entitled to their opinion. But I feel it necessary to respond to the accusation that we're not worthy of an opinion because of our age or our 'origins' with Tim Noakes. That is arrogant and childish. And to dismiss our contribution because one of us (me, in this case) does not hold an academic position is also very bitter and arrogant - I have, in the last 18 months, had numerous publications - I have just been fortunate to consult in the field of sports business and management as well.
As for comments biting us in the ****, perhaps they already have. But winning over scientists like Coggan, who know everything already is not our objective. Perhaps we will never be part of the mainstream, but when I look at what resides in the mainstream and how it operates, I'm happy to pursue "truth" and not pander to the masses in the middle.
There is still much to be said, of course, but not about this topic any longer - it began as a thread about Lemond, and has turned into a good debate about Armstrong,efficiency and EPO. Hopefully it returns there. Apologies for "hijacking" it to respond to this side-debate!
Thank you to all those who read and provide the incentive for us to write - it is much appreciated.
Ross Tucker (The Science of Sport)