acoggan said:
I stand by my comments: as a casual observer (albeit one who has been around the block a few times), I don't believe that the opinions that you and Jonathon have expressed are representative of the mainstream of the scientific community. If they were, then, e.g., Coyle's papers wouldn't continue to be cited at the same high rate they were previously. Furthermore, I think that you are doing both yourself and the field a disservice by the way you have approached the issue at hand...there are mechanisms in place in science for dealing with controversial data and publications, which were strongly pursued by, e.g., Ashenden but nonetheless came up short. As I told Dave Martin in some rather lengthy emails we exchanged following the most recent Cyclingnews.com article, at this point it is all really water under the bridge, and to continue to try to fan the flames of controversy does not reflect well on anyone involved. The latter is what I meant by "bite you in the ****", i.e., it seems to me that the attitudes and opinions you have expressed, and the means in which you have expressed them - an approach, I can only assume, inspired by your mentor - are only going to make some journal editor or grant reviewer somewhere look less favorably on your submission, if only unconciously. (Really, the situation is no different what an attorney encounters in daily life, i.e., no matter how hotly they feel about an issue, they must temper their comments so as to not tick off the opposing counsel and/or judges that they must continue to work with in the future.)
As for your claim that I have leveled any "vitriolic attacks" on anyone (especially Noakes), I challenge you to find one instance where I have said anything that even approaches the sort of tone that he has used (or that you have used above). I've definitely always been someone who is free with their opinion, but personal attacks just aren't my style (which is why I would have been a very good attorney, i.e., I've always been able to argue without having it impact me emotionally).
Time will tell - it hasn't affected submissions so far, touch wood! And amazingly, editors still ask me to review papers! Luckily, I get a lot of positive feedback from within academic circles (I guess they don't feel as strongly about the opinions). It seems to me (inspired by my mentor, no doubt) that the kinds of biases that result in less favourable reviews happen independently of facts - I'm sure every scientist encounters that! In fact, I recall an article in Nature about that, actually.
So we shall see. As for doing a "disservice to the field of sports science", I guess we have different paradigms there for sure. Once again, as I said, I do use the "mechanisms at hand". I also appreciate that we cannot be sole custodians of "knowledge".
I do believe the interest in this thread (it's actual topic, not these tangents!) indicates that plenty of people are very interested in this topic, even though you might think it is water under the bridge - on Page 19, elapid's post and his pointed questions makes very clear that the "mechanism" of science has
apparently failed him, and as result, he has to resort to fanning the flames of controversy. Of course this is not true - he is taking an interest in his sport, and turning to science, to ask some very pointed questions.
In fact, you should be commended for being here and responding to all these posts, because you are engaging with people just as Jonathan and I are trying to through the site. Where we disagree is on our opinion - I believe, like many on this forum (digger, elapsid, escarabajo and others), that Coyle's work has a lot to answer for.
elapsid pretty much hits the nail on the head there, so does digger's post above. The issue about gross efficiency vs delta efficiency is actually one of many issues - tried to make that point in the website, but the one that seemed to garner most attention was the actual formula.
And I'm sorry, it's simply not good enough to say that the issue should be dealt with by the "mechanism" of science, because that means 99% of the population never have the chance to discuss it. People are interested, and I think this is commendable, as I'm sure you do. Therefore, to suggest that our overall approach of communicating that science to non-scientists is doing a "disservice" to sports science is a claim I can't believe you actually mean - what you mean is that you disagree with my (Jonathan didn't write the post in question, I did) assessment of the Coyle research and criticisms of it, and the way I wrote it.
So perhaps what it boils down is the approach - you disagree with it, and specifically that post. I wonder what your thoughts are of our marathon analyses or the tennis insights or the running technique posts? Or has the baby gone out with the bath-water? Maybe "doing a disservice" is limited only to posts where our opinions differ. I also will not apologize for allowing passion and emotion into those posts. Sports analysis is dry enough already. And I think most are intelligent enough to discern between a journal debate (which Ashenden and co certainly had - why would I pursue that six months later?) and a discussion to take sports science to a wider audience.
So I am sorry that you feel those posts were poor and will one day bite me in the ****. I guess I should hope you are never the editor of a journal to which I submit an article....!
But, I can't be concerned with that, I believe the site provides a service, and is quite distinct from pursuing a publication record in journals (which, to repeat, I am, as you will see on PubMed, and I would like to think it's going OK
)
In any event, the users on this forum have asked some telling questions in their posts above - elapid, digger, unsheath and co - which really does suggest that something has fallen through the cracks. The day that science starts to ignore those people is the day the whole field does itself a disservice!
in fact, the fact that you contribute to this and other forums indicates the same belief. So all we have is a difference in opinion around that one single post. Seems a shame to get personal about it - and really, I don't see how you can say that your first responses were not - criticizing us as reckless, young, heretic, anti-mainstream, from a controversial lab and attacking us and our character (not to mention Tim's inspiration) - that felt pretty personal. Which it needn't be.
Lastly, I've always found it best to let other people decide what one would be good at - people's perceptions have a way of surprising you!
P.S. SOrry to all of you for the dialogue on this thread - no other way to express my responses to Dr Coggan! I'll try to stick to the topic from now on!