I remember reading this in high school and it blew my mind, I should revisit it too-wonder how much has held upDavid Yang said:High responder type - but you also need someone that is mentally engaged + less prone to injury to go beyond "amateur with nutty numbers." The book is pretty old now and I'm sure the studies it's based on are outdated, but The Sports Gene remains an annual reread for me.
I mean it was deliberate for sure. I think that's why he led with the pro baseball sluggers vs collegiate softball pitcher story to set the tone of trying to find reasons why elite athletes succeed outside of just raw performance. He also originally wrote these chapters serially for Sports Illustrated (I think?) so I found the level of detail appropriate for the medium/channel.mugwump said:to me, The Sports Gene is incredibly flawed. While there was some interesting stuff, his blindness to doping seemed almost willful.
So he does +/- 8 hours or solid workouts a week, well monitored by medical staff. With good consistency, few bad habits and a not too injury/illness prone body I’m not too surprised by his ftp to be fair.Jules said:Sounded like it was almost 50%LennartZandbergen said:He didnt say anything about the amount of crosstraining he did, right?
I prefer to think that Jules just hadn't trained up to his potential then. And now he is.Mark Taylor said:Let’s move this to the dopers thread 😂
https://media4.giphy.com/media/1Be3Fx2eqU5sX19XXT/giphy.gif?Mark Taylor said:Let’s move this to the dopers thread 😂
https://youtu.be/O6mgcCgbiQM?si=VcroBXMKbfX64rPy
There is Late to the Party and then there is Late to the Party. Good lord.KevinWomack said:Strava is the last good form of social media
https://thespectator.com/life/strava-last-good-form-social-media/
Isn't enshittifcation already beginning?David Yang said:I mean besides the spammy spamming spambots, they're not wrong? Late to the party, but hopefully not just before enshitification happens?
mugwump said:Hoping someone has some insight on Garmin's "training effect" technology.
https://www.garmin.com/en-US/garmin-technology/running-science/physiological-measurements/training-effect/
I've been talking with a young guy about training. I've made some interval suggestions. They seem to be working. All the same, he will do two identical indoor rides, and one will be classified as "endurance" the other "tempo." Same speed, same time, same heart rate (doesn't have power yet). I've read a bunch of posts on various peoples experiences, and there seems to be no understanding of the algorithm Garmin uses to get to its determination.
Apparently, the programming was from a company called First Beat. Garmin licensed it, then bought it. Various message boards seem to suggest the metric was meh from the start and there was a hope Garmin could improve it. Doesn't seem like they have, nor that it's terribly helpful on a day-to-day basis. Maybe its value is over weeks and months.
ANyone have an understanding of it?
https://youtu.be/i3O1cpQqFhw?si=y4WsEE6Nmz84PquW
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TuRSwEZBH4
https://youtu.be/7rW6qDp9cSw?si=i8SXqIL3XIL71rNL
https://youtu.be/D9MsfMSvkOE?si=lsJSouc0_UJN2rGL