Originally Posted by
Bacciagalupe
And no one has given a biomechanical reason why all that data, collected under different conditions, that all produce the same force curves, has relevance whatsoever to sprinting.
Is it the rider position? Cadence? Levels of power output? Anaerobic or max effort?
#249
Nope.... Bad data is bad data.
...
Data is data. There is no such thing as "bad data" (unless you are talking about falsified data). What you don't believe in is
unquantified data from natural experiments. It is smart to not put too much stock in unquantified data; that said, if you restrict your worldview to only quantified data from controlled experiments, you miss out on a lot. Millions of sport cyclists through the last half century (maybe more) have chosen foot retention
for some reason. A true scientist will ask
why. There are clear advantages to power transfer; everyone who rides much knows this. Now then, is that advantage always present? Perhaps not; these studies suggest that retention doesn't do much for steady state power. Fair enough. On the other hand, there are modes of cycling where it is clear to the practitioner that foot retention is essential to maximum power production. What say you to this data point? Is a half century of cycling history wrong? Or perhaps is your model a little over-simplified?
__________________
Cat 2 Track, Cat 3 Road.
"If you’re new enough [to racing] that you would ask such question, then i would hazard a guess that if you just made up a workout that sounded hard to do, and did it, you’d probably get faster." --
the tiniest sprinter