swampy1970 said:I stopped racing 13 years ago. Peter Keen had his 4 levels and people were amazed by the speed of Chris Boardman and how "scientific" it all was.
... I come back to the sport and I'm wondering if I get a power meter next year will it tell me which one of several different "level scales" (that all seem to have almost twice the number of levels of Keen's) I'm using and spit the information out after downloading into a "cool r0x0rs acroYm" forum text for me. You average Joe in the cycling store spits out more "scientific verbage" than Peter Keen did at the BCF coaching conference followings Boardmans Olympic gold.
I read some of these training posts and wonder how I can actually ride my bike without falling over from being distracted by having to follow all the info....
Yes, I write this mostly in jest, but I get the feeling that most are making this way harder than it really needs to be.
I suspect Peter Keen knew the acronyms but chose not to use them as the audience's knowledge at the time was perhaps less than a similar group now.
Calculus and relativity used to be hard once too, now it's high school stuff.
We move on.
Training methods have adapted but in many ways the science has either:
- exploded some myths, or at least made us think carefully about methods used "because we've always done it that way"
- confirmed empirically derived knowledge (hence much of what used to be done is still valid - just now we have a far better appreciation of why)
- opened up new, more effective means to an end (and with the accompanying, relatively affordable and practical to use technology, these new means are now available to a much wider group of people)
Advances in Formula 1 car racing trickle down to the family sedan. Why not the same for endurance athletic pursuits?
Acronyms invade all areas of human endeavour. It's a short hand communication tool. If you don't know, either look it up (first) or ask.
