Article from "The Week"
John Everett
share it. I'm probably violating all kinds of copyright protection, so
don't tell anyone. ;-)
A friend of mine sent me a really good article on the rigors of
bicycle racing. It's from "The Week" magazine. Since he sent it as a
pair of scanned jpeg files, it was either print them out, scan them
in, OCR them, correct the OCR errors, and send a really long email; or
post the .jpgs on my web site. I chose the latter.
To see them go to:
http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3/Pictures/peloton.jpg and
http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3/Pictures/peloton2.jpg
They do take a while to load at 56Kb, and they'll look unreadable at
first glance, but if you use the "blow up" feature of your browser
they're quite readable. :-)
jeverett3<AT>earthlink<DOT>net http://home.earthlink.net/~jeverett3
k.papai
-Ken
Jet
>It's an excerpt from Coyle's new book (it came out in June).
>-Ken
I thought it seemed familiar.
It didn't sink in until now, just how much of a premium cyclist place on
being thin and light; some, anyway.
It seems they -know- they're going to be immunologically compromised (not
opening the car windows, hitting elevator buttons with their elbows, etc.).
Also didn't quite understand the supercompensation phenomena where a rider
seems to get stronger (or some do) as an adaptation to the stress. (I think
this is different from the normal 'hypercompensation' that all cyclists get
in training - at least in scale if not different in mechanism). I remember
one of the diaries talking about some riders just seem to get stronger and
these types can be potential GC winners. That also brings into sharper
focus, for me, how a 'rest day' can make a rider feel off, if he indeed
rests. What these guys call rest though is to only ride two or three hours
- but this might be enough in some to kick them out of this
supercompensation phenomena.
I wonder how he gets that LA's lasts 40 days...
This part is pure poetry:
<snip>
Stepping out on the razor is a journey into physiological irony. On the
bike, riders feel invincible; the pedals seem to float. Off it [the bike]
they move slowly, delicately. Body fat plummets to malnutritive levels,
they are hollow cheeked and paper-skinned; they might get out of breath
climbing a short flight of stairs. ... They live on the boundary pathetic
sickness and intoxicating power. They push like Icarus to see how high they
can fly. (*)
<snip>
(*) Lance Armstrong's War, D. Coyle.
Even marathon runners are not tuned this tight that I'm aware.
jj
k.papai
Nice little write-up JJ.
The best shape of MY life was when I ran my best marathon.
No beer or bad drinks 6 weeks leading up to the event.
Even when I could almost hang in hilly (bike) road races I was never in
that sort of shape.
Dallas White Rock Marathon, 1991. Cold weather, I thrived.
To survive RBR you also need to be a GC player; you get stronger and
more immune to the newbies, trolls, the always negative people, the far
left-wingers, and the "can put on a kick-ass show French but we sure
pay like shit for the Tour".
-Ken
Jet
>"Even marathon runners are not tuned this tight that I'm aware. "
>
>Nice little write-up JJ.
>
>The best shape of MY life was when I ran my best marathon.
>No beer or bad drinks 6 weeks leading up to the event.
>
>Even when I could almost hang in hilly (bike) road races I was never in
>that sort of shape.
Have you ever had a day where 'there is no chain'?
I haven't yet, but I can sense it. Every once in a while I really exceed
myself. I'll just zip up a series of small steeps in the saddle like
they're not even there, pedaling a ridiculous gear.
But it's pretty easy to be strong when you're carrying some weight - I bet
it's really tough when you're cut to the bone like that - even though
you're dragging less weight up the hill. Must be a matter of very carefully
timing your peak. This is what I find so awesome about pro racers - they
seem to be able to make a series of peaks throughout a fairly long season
some of them doing it repeatedly from Spring until October.
jj
Philo
Yes! Sort of. I have had "super" days when I can carry a higher HR
and higher power for a long time. Other days I'm dragging. I can't
quite figure it out. On the days I've been "super" I am often tired
from insufficient sleep, hungry from insufficient food, and I often
don't even want to ride. But pretty quickly, I can feel that I'm on a
good day and the power meter confirms. What's up with that? Other
days I'm rested, full fuel tank, and I know I have decent form, but I
have a crappy day and can't generate any power.
I guess if I were a pro, or more dedicated, I'd be on a schedule and be
able to predict and control these mini-peaks. But until my life
rearranges itself to accomodate my riding, these peaks will continue to
seem as random as chaos theory.
-Philo
k.papai
be
able to predict and control these mini-peaks. But until my life
rearranges itself to accomodate my riding, these peaks will continue to
seem as random as chaos theory. "
Qualifier for the intelligent POTM.
"Chaos Theory and Training/Peaking" in the same sentence. Bravo.
NOW it makes sense.
Pure Genus.
-Ken
Mad Dog
>Have you ever had a day where 'there is no chain'?
42k TT, long ago. There was no chain till about 8k to go. Then reality made up
for the fantasy. I still won, but every time I stood up for the next 2 days, I
nearly passed out.
Mad Dog
>"Chaos Theory and Training/Peaking" in the same sentence. Bravo.
>NOW it makes sense.
>Pure Genus.
Do you really understand the fundamentals of Chaos Theory?
Roger Zoul
:: Jet says...
Damn...
Philo
Vaguely. But I think most people would get the point.
Today - definitely a chain. A rusty, seized chain. But tomorrow, who
knows?
k.papai
I think I understand the basics, so yes.
Why do you think I wouldn't? (Math has always been one of my favorite
subjects)
I even programmed some fractal generating graphic routines in C about
15 years ago.
I doubt you have done similar since no has a clue (or cares?) who you
are going around with an adolescent non de plume label like you do.
-Ken
Mad Dog
>> Do you really understand the fundamentals of Chaos Theory?
>Vaguely. But I think most people would get the point.
Common misconceptions.
gwhite
>
> "Do you really understand the fundamentals of Chaos Theory?"
>
> I think I understand the basics, so yes.
> Why do you think I wouldn't? (Math has always been one of my favorite
> subjects)
>
> I even programmed some fractal generating graphic routines in C about
> 15 years ago.
Did you just copy the code? (I did):
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1558510389/
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/1558510974/
Fractals have real-world apps:
http://www.fractenna.com/faq/faq.html
There used to be some nice graphics there, but I can't find them.
But here...:
http://www-tsc.upc.es/eef/research_lines/antennas/fractals/fractal_antennas.htm
http://classes.yale.edu/fractals/Panorama/ManuFractals/FractalAntennas/FractalAntennas.html
Other crap:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/01/020131073853.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/02/040203232954.htm
Now I have to figure out how to incorporate all this into bar room
pick-up lines.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
Do you? Let's see twenty-five words or fewer.
Stewart Fleming
b...@mambo.ucolick.org wrote:
> Do you? Let's see twenty-five words or fewer.
>
Shit happens. Same shit, different scale.
gwhite
If I flap my gums in California, it kills a party in Wisconsin.
Bob Schwartz
>> > Do you really understand the fundamentals of Chaos Theory?
>>
>> Do you? Let's see twenty-five words or fewer.
> If I flap my gums in California, it kills a party in Wisconsin.
Hey, that's almost a haiku!
If I flap my gums
about too much boring shit
I will not get laid.
Bob Schwartz
cv...@execpc.com
Mad Dog
>"Do you really understand the fundamentals of Chaos Theory?"
>I think I understand the basics, so yes.
>Why do you think I wouldn't? (Math has always been one of my favorite
>subjects)
Because most people think the title is all that's necessary to know. Sorry to
say that it's just not that simple.
>I even programmed some fractal generating graphic routines in C about
>15 years ago.
Wow, am I supposed to be impressed? Sorry, I'm not.
>I doubt you have done similar since no has a clue (or cares?) who you
>are going around with an adolescent non de plume label like you do.
With an incoherent reply like that, it's clear that you are challenged aplenty
just trying to write a simple sentence. So I'll revert to suspecting that the
fundamentals of CT are not resident in your synaptic volume.
Mad Dog
>Now I have to figure out how to incorporate all this into bar room
>pick-up lines.
According to Frank Zappa, that approach is a total waste of time. Listen to
"Find Her Finer" on Zoot Allures. Considering how Frank wasn't the prettiest
boy on the plante yet he managed to score quite a bit, he might have known what
he was talking about:
"Find her finer, sneak up behind her
Act like a dummy till ya finally grind her"
Mad Dog
>> Do you really understand the fundamentals of Chaos Theory?
>Do you? Let's see twenty-five words or fewer.
Your requirements are not consistent with the solution.
Howard Kveck
wrote:
On the other hand:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/0c7e3ff081c25801?hl=e
n&
--
tanx,
Howard
Butter is love.
remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?
Ryan Cousineau
Bob Schwartz <cv...@shell.core.com> wrote:
That's causality, not Chaos Theory.
--
Ryan Cousineau rcou...@sfu.ca http://www.wiredcola.com/
"I don't want kids who are thinking about going into mathematics
to think that they have to take drugs to succeed." -Paul Erdos
Mad Dog
>On the other hand:
>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/0c7e3ff081c25801?hl=e
>n&
Do you know the background behind that tune?
Howard Kveck
I'm not sure that I do (or I might, but can't remember it), but it's a
great song. There's a lot of good songs on Zoot Allures.
Michael Press
Mad Dog <mad6...@msn.com> wrote:
Chaos theory discusses how our models for some systems are not
predictive in detail. The only model sufficient to predict such a
system is of size comparable to the system itself.
It all started with Henri Poincare', as so many things do. In a
tour de force he found the series solutions to the dynamical
equations governing motion of three or more bodies under Newtonian
gravitation, and showed that the series solutions do not converge,
thus settling the "three body problem." We can predict the motions
of the principal bodies of the solar system to a degree, but the
system is not stable. In time most any body could rocket out into
interstellar space, or two of them collide. We see a relatively
stable solar system because in six billion years, many of the
transient motions have attenuated to zero. But consider that
Jupiter and Saturn are paired in a dance where they exchange
kinetic energy back and forth in a period of several hundred
years; and this resonance is bound to change, either to die out or
amplify catastrophically.
--
Michael Press
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
Dumbdog,
If you understood, you wouldn't speak of "the solution,"
singular, because the final state depends sensitively
on the initial conditions. RBR itself is ergodic.
24 words (25 with the salutation).
Torched Smurf
...
> It all started with Henri Poincare', as so many things do. In a
> tour de force he found the series solutions to the dynamical
Which Tour de Force was that? If memory serves Poincaré made the
podium three times, in 1901, 1905 and 1908, but never stood on the top
step (1905 was a virtual win; Einstein published his Special Theory of
Relativity despite his promise to work for Poincaré that year.) By
1910 his ideas, always flabby in the offseason, were beginning to seem
tired and bloated even through July and August. In 1912 he died while
trying to put on his pants, if that tells you anything.
-Smurf
Donald Munro
> RBR itself is ergodic.
You're saying Kunich is representative of all of us ?
Mad Dog
>Mad Dog wrote:
>> Howard Kveck says...
>> >On the other hand:
>>>http://groups.google.com/group/rec.bicycles.racing/msg/0c7e3ff081c25801?hl=e
>> >n&
>> Do you know the background behind that tune?
> I'm not sure that I do (or I might, but can't remember it), but it's a
>great song. There's a lot of good songs on Zoot Allures.
Frank read somewhere about the money made by companies that made rubber sex
dolls and was shocked to find out it was a multimillion dollar industry. So he
decided to make fun of the losers that needed such pathetic stimulation to get
off. Frank should have been given a PhD in anthropology. I agree that Zoot
Allures has a bunch of good songs. I put it in the upper eschelon of Zappa
discs.
Mad Dog
>Mad Dog wrote:
>> b...@mambo.ucolick.org says...
>> >> Do you really understand the fundamentals of Chaos Theory?
>> >Do you? Let's see twenty-five words or fewer.
>> Your requirements are not consistent with the solution.
>If you understood, you wouldn't speak of "the solution,"
>singular, because the final state depends sensitively
>on the initial conditions.
I understand just fine. The layperson requirement of the "25 words or fewer"
soundbite explanation is due to there being so many idiots such as yourself with
limited attention span.
Ewoud Dronkert
> The layperson requirement of the "25 words or fewer" soundbite explanation is
> is due to there being so many idiots such as yourself with limited attention span.
I think Ben is neither a layperson on the subject of chaos theory, nor of
limited attention span, nor an idiot. I also think the better your
understanding of any subject, the better you will be able to give a short
meaningful explanation of that subject.
--
Firefox Browser - Rediscover the web - http://getffox.com/
Thunderbird E-mail and Newsgroups - http://gettbird.com/
dusto...@aol.com
gwhite wrote:
> Now I have to figure out how to incorporate all this into bar room
> pick-up lines.
"Would-you-like-to-come-over-and-see-my-fractals?"
Too much reading, gwhite. Not enough getting out. --TP
Torched Smurf
Mad Dog wrote:
> I understand just fine. The layperson requirement of the "25 words or fewer"
> soundbite explanation is due to there being so many idiots such as yourself with
> limited attention span.
Dumbass,
Wannabe intellectual snobs are even worse than the real thing.
Have a nice day,
-Smurf
Ewoud Dronkert
> I even programmed some fractal generating graphic routines in C about
> 15 years ago.
Did you write Fractint?!
Ernst Noch
> On 29 Jul 2005 10:04:15 -0700, k.papai wrote:
>
>>I even programmed some fractal generating graphic routines in C about
>>15 years ago.
>
>
> Did you write Fractint?!
>
Ahh, the memories. Fractint caused me to stop programming for the first
time (this happened often, until I was old enough to accept my own
limits). I messed around with Pascal (IIRC), writing a fractal generator
after I read about them. Was very proud, until I saw Fractint, which was
about 1000000 times as fast.
Btw. I'd be interested in how many people in this subthread here really
are able to describe the connection between Fractals and Chaos Theory -
besides the fact that they are often mentioned in the same popular
scientific books and from that dumbass scientist character in Jurassic Park.
k.papai
-Ken
Mad Dog
>Wannabe intellectual snobs are even worse than the real thing.
Your field of expertise, no doubt.
k.papai
No way! That does sound vaguely familiar though.
It seems that in MS's C# language fractals are ignored in the common
standard run Framework library.
-Ken
Mad Dog
>I think Ben is neither a layperson on the subject of chaos theory, nor of
>limited attention span, nor an idiot.
Goodie for you and he, go have a few more hugs. His behavior appeared idiotic
to me, thus my observation. If I've hurt your or his feelings, I wish I could
say I'm sorry, but you wouldn't want me to lie, wouldja?
>I also think the better your understanding of any subject, the better
>you will be able to give a short meaningful explanation of that subject.
Right... Sure... Bullshit! Once you get past a layperson's understanding of
anything that's reasonably complex, you know how limiting soundbite explanations
are. For example, you know a bit about bike racing, right? Do you think you
could write a 25 word primer that could inform a generic newbie on the process
required to make him or her a competitive cyclist on the ProTour level? I
don't. Sure, you could use those 25 words to reference a number of resources,
but that's cheating in this context. A few years back, loads of people dropped
"Chaos Theory" on any subject they didn't understand or that they thought was
too complex for anyone to understand in a predictive sense. Too many people
thought that the butterfly wing flapping visual was all they needed to know, and
that's akin to thinking you are ready to wrench Formula 1 after learning how to
pump gas into your Pinto.
Degrees Kelvin, indeed.
Mad Dog
>besides the fact that they are often mentioned in the same popular
>scientific books and from that dumbass scientist character in Jurassic Park.
Hey, he had a few decent lines in that book.
Ewoud Dronkert
> If I've hurt your or his feelings, I wish I could
> say I'm sorry, but you wouldn't want me to lie, wouldja?
No hurt feelings whatsoever, just my observations against yours.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> Goodie for you and he, go have a few more hugs. His behavior appeared idiotic
> to me, thus my observation. If I've hurt your or his feelings, I wish I could
> say I'm sorry, but you wouldn't want me to lie, wouldja?
I was hoping, you'd say something interesting, educational, or funny,
or put up or shut up, but it seems you chose "none of the above."
> >I also think the better your understanding of any subject, the better
> >you will be able to give a short meaningful explanation of that subject.
>
> Right... Sure... Bullshit! Once you get past a layperson's understanding of
> anything that's reasonably complex, you know how limiting soundbite explanations
> are. For example, you know a bit about bike racing, right? Do you think you
> could write a 25 word primer that could inform a generic newbie on the process
> required to make him or her a competitive cyclist on the ProTour level? I
> don't.
Athletes improve by training, and by recovery from training
which rebuilds strength - so ride fast, ride hard, ride lots,
but get plentiful rest and sleep.
Armstrong's answer to this question was more economical,
if a little belligerent: "What am I on? I'm on my bike
six hours a day. What are you on?"
That doesn't tell a newbie how he or she could become a pro cyclist,
but it effectively communicates the dedication that is required.
25 words can be better than no words.
> Sure, you could use those 25 words to reference a number of resources,
> but that's cheating in this context. A few years back, loads of people dropped
> "Chaos Theory" on any subject they didn't understand or that they thought was
> too complex for anyone to understand in a predictive sense. Too many people
> thought that the butterfly wing flapping visual was all they needed to know, and
> that's akin to thinking you are ready to wrench Formula 1 after learning how to
> pump gas into your Pinto.
Refusing to provide explanations is not the best defense against
this kind of ignorance.
No explanation can ever fully educate a person. At best you can
get them interested enough that they can further educate themselves.
When I taught science, if I could get that far with a few students at
a time it was a success.
Torched Smurf
> Right... Sure... Bullshit! Once you get past a layperson's understanding of
> anything that's reasonably complex, you know how limiting soundbite explanations
> are. For example, you know a bit about bike racing, right? Do you think you
> could write a 25 word primer that could inform a generic newbie on the process
> required to make him or her a competitive cyclist on the ProTour level? I
> don't.
Dumbass,
Don't play stupider than you actually are. No intelligent person comes
to RBR looking for knowledge. Ben was obviously throwing down the
gauntlet, as one who already understands and is testing whether you
understand. 25 words isn't enough to prove definitively that you know
what you're talking about, but it does weed out poseurs who only know a
few buzzwords, or pusswads like you who won't even rise to the
challenge ;)
Have a great one,
-Smurf
Ewoud Dronkert
>get them interested enough that they can further educate themselves.
>When I taught science, if I could get that far with a few students at
>a time it was a success.
Frankly, your attention span, like Bianchi, sounds apa(l)ling.
Jay S. Hill
> Ewoud Dronkert says...
>
>>I think Ben is neither a layperson on the subject of chaos theory, nor of
>>limited attention span, nor an idiot.
>
> Goodie for you and he
Wrong case, Einstein.
> Right... Sure... Bullshit! Once you get past a layperson's
understanding of
> anything that's reasonably complex, you know how limiting soundbite explanations
> are.
Doesn't follow. Some complex subjects can be explained to in less than
25 words, while others are more difficult. It depends on the subject.
h squared
>
> When I taught science, if I could get that far with a few students at
> a time it was a success.
>
don't you still teach? i though you recently mentioned "a student", but
to be honest, the rbr years are all blurring together in my memory. (or
is it that you teach non science now??)
h
Mad Dog
>I was hoping, you'd say something interesting, educational, or funny,
>or put up or shut up, but it seems you chose "none of the above."
Ain't that just like life? You dream, wish, hope and maybe even beg, but then
reality rolls through and flushes all that right down the shitter.
>Athletes improve by training, and by recovery from training
>which rebuilds strength - so ride fast, ride hard, ride lots,
>but get plentiful rest and sleep.
But you forgot one of the mainstays of effective training: proper diet. In your
quest for the concise soundbite, you failed to deliver the Holy Grail. You also
forgot that base mileage at a pace well below "ride fast, ride hard" is
considered vital by every top coach and trainer I've heard of. You also forgot
to talk about how to determine what specific training aspect is critical at any
given time in order to peak for a targeted race. You're not gonna do well on
the pro cycling tour if you can't integrate these aspects and more into your
program and my request was specific to that end. And we haven't gotten into
strategic and tactical aspects, equipment optimization, or any number of key
components that are required to make a racer successful.
>Armstrong's answer to this question was more economical,
>if a little belligerent: "What am I on? I'm on my bike
>six hours a day. What are you on?"
I could ride my bike 0.6 hours, 6 hours, 16 hours or anything inbetween each and
every day or take variable rest days, but if that time was not invested wisely,
or if the training data were not analyzed and fed back appropriately, then the
benefits might be far less than optimal. But ANYONE that thinks Lance would
give up the crux of the biscuit for free does not understand just how fiercely
competitive he is, let alone how that competitive attitude has fueled his
success. But go ahead and ride 6 hours a day and post regular progress reports.
We'll look forward to you ripping'em all a new ass next July in Paris. Hey, it
worked for Lance, why not for you?
>That doesn't tell a newbie how he or she could become a pro cyclist,
>but it effectively communicates the dedication that is required.
>25 words can be better than no words.
On the other hand, oversimplification can lead to nowhere.
>Refusing to provide explanations is not the best defense against
>this kind of ignorance.
All I've tried to do is point out that a layperson's sound bite does not
adequately describe the science. I never said I'd teach a tutorial (although I
could if the price was right) to this newsgroup.
>No explanation can ever fully educate a person. At best you can
>get them interested enough that they can further educate themselves.
>When I taught science, if I could get that far with a few students at
>a time it was a success.
I believe your first sentence is misleading. At the cutting edge, leaders in
any field invent, innovate and stretch the current knowledge envelope.
Educating one to work in that domain is elusive, but down in the area of
fundamentals, there are many talented teachers that get a motivated student so
close to fully educated that I'll call it good. The problem I've seen is that
there are so few self-motivated students, the job of the teacher often gets
smeared towards motivational psychology, regardless of the class title.
Mad Dog
>No intelligent person comes
>to RBR looking for knowledge.
With pissants like you to read, I can see why.
>Ben was obviously throwing down the gauntlet, as one who already
>understands and is testing whether you understand.
And I don't have to prove anything, regardless of what Ben or anyone else throws
down. My original question was not judgmental - I simply asked the name dropper
if he knew the fundamentals of CT. So many people toss it out there when all
they know about it is the sound bite. That's bullshit.
>25 words isn't enough to prove definitively that you know
>what you're talking about, but it does weed out poseurs who only know a
>few buzzwords, or pusswads like you who won't even rise to the
>challenge
Well, there simply wasn't enough meat behind the challenge to smoke me out, but
it could happen. You just need to put a bit of money behind that bigass mouth
of yours. And don't be cheap with your wager, Pusswad.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
I have a temporary research appointment and haven't taught a
class for a while - I still talk to students, but not in the
intro-physics context I was thinking of.
ED - huh? There's only so much you can do in a 15 week semester.
I'd love to have motivated every single student in an intro class
to feel a passion for the subject, but anyone who says they can
do that is delusional. Most of the students are (a) scared and
(b) primarily interested in getting a decent grade so they don't get
kicked off the pre-med or pre-engineering track. I can hardly
blame them.
Torched Smurf
> if he knew the fundamentals of CT. So many people toss it out there when all
> they know about it is the sound bite. That's bullshit.
Dumbass,
You don't even seem to know enough to give a sound bite. All you've
provided is a bunch of handwaving about how "complex" an issue it is.
Since you refuse to demean Chaos Theory, in all its majestic
complexity, with something so trite as a synopsis, how about just give
the first 25 words of the textbook you would write on the subject,
Professor? Try to make it interesting, plz; we all have such short
attention spans these days.
Thanks,
-Smurf
Ewoud Dronkert
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
> b...@mambo.ucolick.org says...
> >Athletes improve by training, and by recovery from training
> >which rebuilds strength - so ride fast, ride hard, ride lots,
> >but get plentiful rest and sleep.
>
> But you forgot one of the mainstays of effective training: proper diet. In your
> quest for the concise soundbite, you failed to deliver the Holy Grail. You also
> forgot that base mileage at a pace well below "ride fast, ride hard" is
> considered vital by every top coach and trainer I've heard of. You also forgot
> to talk about how to determine what specific training aspect is critical at any
> given time in order to peak for a targeted race. You're not gonna do well on
> the pro cycling tour if you can't integrate these aspects and more into your
> program and my request was specific to that end. And we haven't gotten into
> strategic and tactical aspects, equipment optimization, or any number of key
> components that are required to make a racer successful.
That's chickenshit. One could write an entire book about this
(or most) subjects, and there'd still be stuff that was left out.
Your position boils down to "No answer can ever be good enough,
so why bother summarizing."
It's not important to me whether you understand chaos theory (which I
think is overhyped for its level of results) - for all I know, you're
Feigenbaum under an assumed name. A humorous answer to the "25 words"
question would have sufficed, but you seem defensive for some reason.
> >Armstrong's answer to this question was more economical,
> >if a little belligerent: "What am I on? I'm on my bike
> >six hours a day. What are you on?"
>
> I could ride my bike 0.6 hours, 6 hours, 16 hours or anything inbetween each and
> every day or take variable rest days, but if that time was not invested wisely,
> or if the training data were not analyzed and fed back appropriately, then the
> benefits might be far less than optimal. But ANYONE that thinks Lance would
> give up the crux of the biscuit for free does not understand just how fiercely
> competitive he is, let alone how that competitive attitude has fueled his
> success. But go ahead and ride 6 hours a day and post regular progress reports.
> We'll look forward to you ripping'em all a new ass next July in Paris. Hey, it
> worked for Lance, why not for you?
Dumbass, (a) I'm not going to Paris, I suck, this is well established.
(b) All the advice in the world can't get somebody to Paris, it takes
more than advice. I thought we were talking about describing how a
cyclist trains to compete at a high level, not offering a plan
guaranteed to make you a pro in 12 months. That's Carmichael's CTS
business, I don't want to cut in on it.
> I believe your first sentence is misleading. At the cutting edge, leaders in
> any field invent, innovate and stretch the current knowledge envelope.
> Educating one to work in that domain is elusive, but down in the area of
> fundamentals, there are many talented teachers that get a motivated student so
> close to fully educated that I'll call it good. The problem I've seen is that
> there are so few self-motivated students, the job of the teacher often gets
> smeared towards motivational psychology, regardless of the class title.
A job of the teacher is not just to teach the self-motivated students,
but attempt to teach the other ones as well. The self-motivated
students are the easy ones.
b...@mambo.ucolick.org
My bad. I wondered if you were making some veiled
off-color rbr joke about just how far I meant when I said
"if I could get that far with the students." Funny!
But you can get fired for _that_ over here. Often,
rightly so.
Mad Dog
>Mad Dog wrote:
>> b...@mambo.ucolick.org says...
>> >Athletes improve by training, and by recovery from training
>> >which rebuilds strength - so ride fast, ride hard, ride lots,
>> >but get plentiful rest and sleep.
>>But you forgot one of the mainstays of effective training: proper
>>diet. In your quest for the concise soundbite, you failed to
>>deliver the Holy Grail. You also forgot that base mileage at a
>>pace well below "ride fast, ride hard" is considered vital by
>>every top coach and trainer I've heard of. You also forgot
>>to talk about how to determine what specific training aspect
>>is critical at any given time in order to peak for a targeted
>>race. You're not gonna do well on the pro cycling tour if
>>you can't integrate these aspects and more into your program
>>and my request was specific to that end. And we haven't gotten
>>into strategic and tactical aspects, equipment optimization,
>>or any number of key components that are required to make a
>>racer successful.
>That's chickenshit.
Nope, but your inability to face the facts sure as hell is.
>Your position boils down to "No answer can ever be good enough,
>so why bother summarizing."
Wrong again. My position is that the 25 word soundbite is inadequate for some
subjects. Thanks for inadvertently proving my point and don't let the door hit
you in the ass on your way out.
Next!
>It's not important to me whether you understand chaos theory (which I
>think is overhyped for its level of results)
See, there are things we agree on. But I hope to live long enough to see
pillars of utility get established. I mean, the next time I have to shovel 6"
of partly cloudy off the driveway, I'm gonna kill the weatherman.
>for all I know, you're Feigenbaum under an assumed name.
True.
>A humorous answer to the "25 words"
>question would have sufficed, but you seem defensive for some reason.
And you seem dense.
>I'm not going to Paris, I suck, this is well established.
Nor Oslo, eh?
>> I believe your first sentence is misleading. At the cutting edge,
>>leaders in any field invent, innovate and stretch the current knowledge
>>envelope. Educating one to work in that domain is elusive, but down
>>in the area of fundamentals, there are many talented teachers that
>>get a motivated student so close to fully educated that I'll call
>>it good. The problem I've seen is that there are so few self-motivated
>>students, the job of the teacher often gets smeared towards motivational
>>psychology, regardless of the class title.
>A job of the teacher is not just to teach the self-motivated students,
>but attempt to teach the other ones as well. The self-motivated
>students are the easy ones.
You're not even a good copycat.
Mad Dog
>Since you refuse to demean Chaos Theory, in all its majestic
>complexity, with something so trite as a synopsis, how about just give
>the first 25 words of the textbook you would write on the subject,
>Professor?
I'm not in the mood to fill your order just as asked, so I'll give you part of
it, done my way, with dimwits like you in mind:
"Simple-minded pseudointelectuals have long yearned for concise solutions to
further their understanding of complex natural phenomena. Perhaps these lost
souls failed to learn the fundamentals of classical science and therefore are
unprepared to make the quantum leap to even the simplest orbital of the state of
the art? This is unfortunate, because the starting point for chaos is a step or
two beyond the outer realm of classical science."
>Try to make it interesting, plz;
There's no guarantee that science or philosophy will be interesting, but when
you get bored in class, just whip out your Gameboy and amuse yourself in your
usual fashion.
>we all have such short attention spans these days.
Clint would be proud of you.
Torched Smurf
> "Simple-minded pseudointelectuals have long yearned for concise solutions to
> further their understanding of complex natural phenomena. Perhaps these lost
> souls failed to learn the fundamentals of classical science and therefore are
> unprepared to make the quantum leap to even the simplest orbital of the state of
> the art? This is unfortunate, because the starting point for chaos is a step or
> two beyond the outer realm of classical science."
Brilliant, Prof. I like the clever misspelling of
"pseudo-intellectuals"... you've got a real grasp of irony, if I may
say so, sir. Here is the first paragraph my comments on your teacher's
evaluation:
"I like Professor Mad Dog, I really do. It's just... well, I don't feel
like I actually *learned* that much in his class. I tried to pay
attention when he was telling us all how stupid we were, and how we
couldn't possibly fathom the complexities of his subject. I even took
notes. But as the weeks wore on and his lectures continued to center on
my stupidity, rather than on the subject of Chaos Theory, I began to
ask myself: does Dr. Dog actually know anything about this, or is he,
like the football contingent in the back row, just trying to BS his way
through the class?"
Thanks,
-Smurf
Mad Dog
>Mad Dog wrote:
>> "Simple-minded pseudointelectuals
>Brilliant, Prof. I like the clever misspelling of "pseudo-intellectuals"...
>you've got a real grasp of irony, if I may say so, sir.
I'm glad you liked it. That one was for you and you bit. Perfect.
>Here is the first paragraph my comments on your teacher's
>evaluation:
>"I like Professor Mad Dog, I really do. It's just... well, I don't feel
>like I actually *learned* that much in his class.
I like you too, Smurf, even though your bias reeks, like your breath, of
bullshit. I gave you the intro you begged for (I wish I could say I love it
when you beg but in reality, I find it disgusting to see you wallowing in your
piss like that) even if the intro wasn't what you thought you'd get. But here's
the point: the student's don't get to evaluate an instructor till AFTER they
have taken the actual class. A one-paragraph intro doesn't tell the story but I
have to keep reminding myself of your attention deficit problem. If only the
one paragraph intro were sufficient for the likes of you to pass the final...
Alas, no.
>does Dr. Dog actually know anything about this, or is he, like the football
>contingent in the back row, just trying to BS his way through the class?"
You'd never be able to tell either way. (sound of bullet zipping past your
head)