Originally Posted by
rgconner
Maybe so, but you would have a hard time constructing a null hypothesis with just those two options and have it stand up to scrutiny.
For example, if your NH was "100% Carbohydrates is the best source of energy for cycling" and then all you tested was 100% fat as an alternative, I would question the validity of your results.
Then again, I am discussing the scientific method on a bike forum... so what do I know?
People would probably think it is a valid test, just as you do.
No, that would only show if one were better than the other as a sole fuel, nothing more. But that was not what I was suggesting. It wouldn't even be an interesting result because to become efficient in the use of either fuel requires quite a bit of time and effort. That's what's wrong with so many athlete studies: they don't allow for training effect.