The "Evidence Based Â…" thread

[twothirds]

Come on, all of these individual decisions are based upon a coaches anecdotal prior experience and not on any research as far as I know. It is why coaches sometimes have great success with one athlete and then fail miserably with other athletes that follow. If you can point me to some data that suggests otherwise I am anxious to see it.

There are plenty of coaches out there who have used research to be quite successful with their athletes time and time again.

Maybe look at what these guys do.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/olympics/19253531

Charles Poliquin

Mike Burgener

Glenn Pendlay.

The list goes on.

Don't let your own experiences cloud your judgement.

 

[FrankDay]

There are plenty of coaches out there who have claimed to have used research to be quite successful with their athletes time and time again.

Maybe look at what these guys do.

http://www.bbc.com/sport/0/olympics/19253531

Charles Poliquin

Mike Burgener

Glenn Pendlay.

The list goes on.

Don't let your own experiences cloud your judgement.

Fixed that for you. Saying you are an "evidence based coach" and demonstrating what the difference is between you and "ordinary" coaches are two completely different things. I started this thread asking what the difference is and asking for those of you who believe there is special research out there that these coaches use yet no one has come here and provided any answers to those specific questions. I suggest you stop letting your bias cloud your judgment. Or point me to a single research study that evidence based coaches use that ordinary coaches wouldn't know about or use. Based upon the "evidence" that has been presented so far it seems Jay Kosta has concluded the "term is just being a 'sounds good' marketing label".

 

[elapid]

I started this thread asking what the difference is and asking for those of you who believe there is special research out there that these coaches use yet no one has come here and provided any answers to those specific questions.

There is enough evidence out there. As per usual, you just chose to ignore it. You are like the little kid with his hands over his ears yelling "la, la, la".

 

[FrankDay]

There is enough evidence out there. …

If you say so. The problem is the evidence is not here. Surely it isn't too much to ask for someone to find just one study. No, it seems to be so back to resorting to personal attacks.

 

[sittingbison]

...Really not trying to be a troll here but to, rather, ask a serious question or two.

...PowerCranks. Most likely the evidence suggests possibly 1 but, more likely 3 (there isn't a single study suggesting worse outcome from using them)....

Hmmmm.....are you sure you only want to ask a serious question or two FrankDay?

BTW some coaches use whatever evidence that is available to them, others choose to to rely on past experience or the results achieved by the athletes they have coached.

 

[Tapeworm]

I think one definition of an evidence based coach would be one that would advise their athletes to ditch their powercranks given every study performed on them has shown no benefit to their use. And ignoring all forms of anecdotal evidence too.

You know, just as a completely random example I just chose. At random. Totally.

 

[elapid]

If you say so. The problem is the evidence is not here. Surely it isn't too much to ask for someone to find just one study. No, it seems to be so back to resorting to personal attacks.

Evidence ... numerous scientific studies have been cited in the pedalling and power threads. You know they're there and you are just trolling again.

 

[elapid]

I think one definition of an evidence based coach would be one that would advise their athletes to ditch their powercranks given every study performed on them has shown no benefit to their use. And ignoring all forms of anecdotal evidence too.

You know, just as a completely random example I just chose. At random. Totally.

Love it!

 

[FrankDay]

Evidence ... numerous scientific studies have been cited in the pedalling and power threads. You know they're there and you are just trolling again.

Earlier you posted this in answer to my question

To make a comparison, the definition of evidence-based medicine is "the use of mathematical estimates of the risk of benefit and harm, derived from high-quality research on population samples, to inform clinical decision-making in the diagnosis, investigation or management of individual patients."

Sam Leahey's website details the level of scientific evidence that is considered "high-quality research" (i.e., meta-analyses = level 1; randomized and controlled studies = level 2; and non-randomized and controlled studies = level 3; etc.). Most of the published studies on cycling performance are level 2 or 3.

Based on the long-held definition of evidence-based medicine, which goes back decades, evidence-based coaching should be coaching based on high-level scientific research. Anything else, such as proposed by Sam Leahey, is a load of rubbish.

Now I know lots of studies get posted in the various threads all the time but I am simply unaware of any that help the coach in "decision-making in the diagnosis, investigation or management of individual patients." Therefore, if you could point me to an example of a study that, if used, would turn a coach into an evidence based coach (per your description) I would be appreciative.

 

[twothirds]

Now I know lots of studies get posted in the various threads all the time but I am simply unaware of any that help the coach in "decision-making in the diagnosis, investigation or management of individual patients."

For this you need a How-To manual. Plenty of information on how to apply an evidence based approach to anything you like. You wouldn't look for studies on "How to become better at applying the Scientific Method". "Evidence Based" and "scientific Method" are exactly that, methods, not a level of achievement. Studies look at how something can be better achieved. All the answers you could possible want are outlined in the first link you posted. You want to learn how to apply the method, go to a seminar, read a book on the subject. And even if you are really good at applying the method, doesn't mean you will become successful. It just means that you are following through with the method.

Therefore, if you could point me to an example of a study that, if used, would turn a coach into an evidence based coach (per your description) I would be appreciative.

The study you are looking for most likely doesn't exist and here is why. It is too broad of a question to be answered within the scope of a single study. Studies focus on one facet within a system. You are asking a question that is exactly like "What makes an elite athlete and how can I become one?" or "What makes a great artist and how can I become one?'. Every case subject is individual and blanket cookie cutter techniques do not apply equally to every person. The studies outlining proven methods for sprinters are not applicable to endurance athletes and vice versa. Which medium of art are you looking to improve in. Refining your painting techniques doesn't work for sculpture. These things all involve a combination of skill, experience, good judgement, and creativity, all in the right proportions.

Evidence based also has varying degrees. A coach who recognizes a positive or negative effect, and takes the appropriate action (use it or lose it), is applying an evidence based approach. Another coach who looks into why it didn't work/work, and takes the appropriate measures is just using the evidence based approach to a greater degree to garner more information.

If you're not getting the "right" answers, consider if you are asking the right question in the first place.

 

[Oldman]

I think one definition of an evidence based coach would be one that would advise their athletes to ditch their powercranks given every study performed on them has shown no benefit to their use. And ignoring all forms of anecdotal evidence too.

You know, just as a completely random example I just chose. At random. Totally.

Excellent coaching advice. Perhaps someone close also manages the aftermarket sale exchange for that hardware. Anyone have a name? Anyone?

 

[FrankDay]

For this you need a How-To manual. Plenty of information on how to apply an evidence based approach to anything you like. You wouldn't look for studies on "How to become better at applying the Scientific Method". "Evidence Based" and "scientific Method" are exactly that, methods, not a level of achievement. Studies look at how something can be better achieved. All the answers you could possible want are outlined in the first link you posted.

I thought that a pretty good link also but Elapid called his thoughts rubbish so it appears there is no generally accepted definition as to what "evidence based coaching" means.

You want to learn how to apply the method, go to a seminar, read a book on the subject. And even if you are really good at applying the method, doesn't mean you will become successful. It just means that you are following through with the method.

Go to a seminar? Wouldn't all you learn is the that particular philosophy? Even so, no one has come here and given a single example of a single philosophy using a single study.

The study you are looking for most likely doesn't exist and here is why. It is too broad of a question to be answered within the scope of a single study. Studies focus on one facet within a system. You are asking a question that is exactly like "What makes an elite athlete and how can I become one?" or "What makes a great artist and how can I become one?'. Every case subject is individual and blanket cookie cutter techniques do not apply equally to every person. The studies outlining proven methods for sprinters are not applicable to endurance athletes and vice versa. Which medium of art are you looking to improve in. Refining your painting techniques doesn't work for sculpture. These things all involve a combination of skill, experience, good judgement, and creativity, all in the right proportions.

Then, you are saying that evidence based coaching can be nothing more than marketing hype. In fact, it isn't clear to me that there are any studies that outline proven methods for sprinters or any other group. Studies usually answer very narrow questions. Usually, it is the job of the coach to analyze the studies and then interpret them as best they can to apply them to their practice. This is how coaches have always used scientific evidence. What does it mean now when a coach tries to distinguish themselves by saying they use "evidence based" coaching techniques. To me it seems nothing more than hype and because of that I would tend to steer away from anyone who used that term who cannot define what they mean by it.

Evidence based also has varying degrees. A coach who recognizes a positive or negative effect, and takes the appropriate action (use it or lose it), is applying an evidence based approach. Another coach who looks into why it didn't work/work, and takes the appropriate measures is just using the evidence based approach to a greater degree to garner more information.

That is simply what separates two coaching philosophies. Both could claim they are evidence based. The term, as it applies to coaching, simply defies definition.

If you're not getting the "right" answers, consider if you are asking the right question in the first place.

No, I am getting the right answer. It is clear there is no answer because the term has no real life meaning except to each individual. Unless each person specifies exactly what they mean when they use the term it seems they may as well be speaking gibberish.

 

[twothirds]

Usually, it is the job of the coach to analyze the studies and then interpret them as best they can to apply them to their practice. This is how coaches have always used scientific evidence. What does it mean now when a coach tries to distinguish themselves by saying they use "evidence based" coaching techniques. To me it seems nothing more than hype and because of that I would tend to steer away from anyone who used that term who cannot define what they mean by it. That is simply what separates two coaching philosophies. Both could claim they are evidence based. The term, as it applies to coaching, simply defies definition. No, I am getting the right answer. It is clear there is no answer because the term has no real life meaning except to each individual.

What does it mean now when a coach tries to distinguish themselves by saying they use "evidence based" coaching techniques.

It means they are saying that they go beyond the scope of applying a single template to every athlete and leaving it at that, because there are coaches out there that still coach in that manner.

Then, you are saying that evidence based coaching can be nothing more than marketing hype.

If a coach applies the method, then it isn't hype. They're actually doing it. How well they do it is a different matter. It's up to the client to discern whether they are good or not. If I ride a bike then I'm a cyclist. how good of a cyclist is determined by other factors, but I'm still a cyclist. Results and reputation are a good indicator for both. That's not hype.

In fact, it isn't clear to me that there are any studies that outline proven methods for sprinters or any other group.

There are plenty Frank. You just choose to ignore them for the sake of making your argument seem more valid. Funny thing is, a myopic blanket statement like that also says that Powercranks are not a proven method for any type of athlete.

Studies usually answer very narrow questions

So you already know this. Then why did you ask for a study on something that in no way can be defined through the scope of a very narrow, controlled experiment, you know, they way studies are conducted? Again, asking the wrong questions.

 

[elapid]

Earlier you posted this in answer to my questionNow I know lots of studies get posted in the various threads all the time but I am simply unaware of any that help the coach in "decision-making in the diagnosis, investigation or management of individual patients." Therefore, if you could point me to an example of a study that, if used, would turn a coach into an evidence based coach (per your description) I would be appreciative.

The answer to your question is this:

The study you are looking for most likely doesn't exist and here is why. It is too broad of a question to be answered within the scope of a single study.

If you are seriously asking this question other than just to stir up your usual merry-go-round arguments, then what you are asking is akin to asking is there a study that provides western medicine is superior to non-traditional medicine.

 

[FrankDay]

The answer to your question is this:



If you are seriously asking this question other than just to stir up your usual merry-go-round arguments, then what you are asking is akin to asking is there a study that provides western medicine is superior to non-traditional medicine.

It really doesn't seem to me too broad a question to ask "what do people mean when they talk about evidence based coaching?" From this post I think I got the answer, it means whatever they want it to mean and, as a consequence, it is really is a meaningless term since it is impossible to know what they are intending to mean unless they specifically tell us.

 

[elapid]

It really doesn't seem to me too broad a question to ask "what do people mean when they talk about evidence based coaching?" From this post I think I got the answer, it means whatever they want it to mean and, as a consequence, it is really is a meaningless term since it is impossible to know what they are intending to mean unless they specifically tell us.

You are truly an idiot or a troll, take your pick.

What are you asking? What is evidence-based coaching, or for a scientific publication showing coaching technique A is better than coaching technique B? Make up your mind, because you're obviously confused about what you are asking?

If you are asking the first question, the this has been answered. There is no unanimous agreement, but there is certainly a trend. That's life ... most things are rarely cut and dry yes/no answers. Deal with it and move on to your next inane thread.

If you are asking the second question, then this too has been answered. Your question is too broad and this will never be answered by a single paper. So stop wasting everyone's time and stop being so obtuse.

 

[FrankDay]

You are truly an idiot or a troll, take your pick.

What are you asking? What is evidence-based coaching, or for a scientific publication showing coaching technique A is better than coaching technique B? Make up your mind, because you're obviously confused about what you are asking?

If you are asking the first question, the this has been answered. There is no unanimous agreement, but there is certainly a trend. That's life ... most things are rarely cut and dry yes/no answers. Deal with it and move on to your next inane thread.

A trend? I (and Jay Kosta) must have missed it. Perhaps you could elucidate it for me.

If you are asking the second question, then this too has been answered. Your question is too broad and this will never be answered by a single paper.

All I have asked for is a single example of a paper that would seem to fit what some seem to have put forth as their definition (where research allows one to individualize training for athletes.)

So stop wasting everyone's time and stop being so obtuse.

Do you have particularly bad reading comprehension skills or do you just like to misrepresent my posts. You see people talking or posting about "evidence based" coaching all the time. I was curious as to what they meant.

 

[elapid]

I'll pick for you ... troll.

 

[Tapeworm]

You see people talking or posting about "evidence based" coaching all the time. I was curious as to what they meant.

I'll reply with a counter-question. What is evidence based medicine?

You seem to know a bit about that, if you can answer?

 

[FitSsikS]

Is this thread closed yet?

If there was enough evidence to base that action on......it would be.

 

[twothirds]

Is it just me, or does this thread seem hypocritical? They guy who dismisses the studies that show there is no effective improvement from using a certain product, is now asking for a study to prove that something is better than something else. So the question I have to ask, if said "acceptable" proof come along, are you just going to dismiss it Frank, and stay with your beliefs? I have a feeling the answer is it will be dismissed, and therefore continuation of this thread is pointless.

 

[FrankDay]

I'll reply with a counter-question. What is evidence based medicine?

You seem to know a bit about that, if you can answer?

Elapid posted a definition of evidence based medicine in post #4 of this thread. Here is how Wikipedia defines it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence-based_medicine

You won't find a similar wikipedia article on evidence based coaching.

Evidence based medicine is a method to help the individual physician to improve patient outcome by helping them to better analyze the massive amount of literature out there as few (zero) practicing physicians have the time to do little more than read a few journal articles a day let alone do their own meta-analysis of the data.

It seems the use of the term evidence based coaching is an attempt to appear modern even though no similar method seems to exist to help the individual coach. It seems (based on the responses to this thread) it is a term with no generally accepted meaning in the real world.

 

[FrankDay]

Is it just me, or does this thread seem hypocritical? They guy who dismisses the studies that show there is no effective improvement from using a certain product, is now asking for a study to prove that something is better than something else. So the question I have to ask, if said "acceptable" proof come along, are you just going to dismiss it Frank, and stay with your beliefs? I have a feeling the answer is it will be dismissed, and therefore continuation of this thread is pointless.

I don't dismiss any study. They are what they are. I do, however, point out how inadequate some studies are in demonstrating what some claim they demonstrate. If the claim is it takes 6-9 months of exclusive use to see a certain benefit I don't see how that claim can be disproven using a study lasting 5-6 weeks of part-time use. But, some of you don't see it that way.

In this thread I only asked what people mean when they say they do evidence based coaching. It is clear they don't mean anything other than what they alone think it should mean which will remain undefined.

 

[Tapeworm]

You won't find a similar wikipedia article on evidence based coaching.

There's not an entry on wikipedia?? Then surely it must not exist!

It seems the use of the term evidence based coaching is an attempt to appear modern even though no similar method seems to exist to help the individual coach. It seems (based on the responses to this thread) it is a term with no generally accepted meaning in the real world.

The generally accepted meaning is the use of *evidence* for the basis of *coaching*. I didn't think it could get much more simple than that.

 

[sittingbison]

Is this thread closed yet?

If there was enough evidence to base that action on......it would be.

there is.

enough of the trolling and spruiking

Thread closed

cheers
bison