starting strength gym
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 25 of 25

Thread: The Literature

  1. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2016
    Location
    Albany, Western Australia
    Posts
    97

    Default

    • starting strength seminar jume 2024
    • starting strength seminar august 2024
    • starting strength seminar october 2024
    From all that writing I took it that you had no issue with the whole "jab" scenario ethically seeing as you didn't leave your job in Victoria when forced to have them.

    I have developed a general distrust and moving steadily towards a hatred of scientists, doctors, and Victorians. This thread hasn't done much to dissuade me.

    Call me an extremist if you like, I'm pretty sure I'm being moderate right now.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    North Texas
    Posts
    53,684

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tommy4life View Post
    Your expereince with the review process is not that controversial. The 30 criticisms I recived made me self reflect on my writting (yes it was hard on the ego): it improved my statisical analysis, made me add references to statements which I thought were self evident (too me), made me reword a lot of my sentences becaus they made sense to me but confused the reader (probably the most common change), and some comments I acknowledged respectively but ignored. Overall, the quality of the data analysis was improved and the clarity with which the data was discussed was improved. Is this a form of conformity? yeah, conformity to certain standards. However, these standards are there for a reason. For exmaple, in everyday language it is perfectly acceptable to use emotional language such as "outrages", or absolute terms like "good:bad". This might seem like academic cencorship at first but its a good rule for reducing subjectivity and bias. You're just supposed to present the data, and discuss it as objectievely as humanly possibly, which is hard to do so rules are in place. There are many rules like this. If you have been in industry for many years then these rules are unfamiliar to you so it perfectly normal to get tripped over. If an academic entered the indutry after 30 years, he would have some similair issuesn, but it would be arrogant of that academic to then call all the industry people idiots.
    My problems with the peer-review process were not editorial in nature (there are 11 misspelled words in this quoted paragraph). The problem was that I pointed out a very fundamental error -- the fact that novice trainees can make rapid progress with little or no exercise variation and simple incremental linear loading progression, for many months, and thus accumulate a huge strength adaptation in a relatively short period of time -- and this affront to the conventional periodization wisdom at the time could not be allowed to stand. The statement was made that if I didn't understand that undulating periodization was important to all processes of strength and conditioning, I simply did not understand periodization. We have moved past this silliness because I chose not to participate further in the Peer Review circle-jerk.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Jan 2019
    Posts
    664

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by tommy4life View Post
    it improved my statisical analysis, made me add references to statements which I thought were self evident (too me), made me reword a lot of my sentences becaus they made sense to me but confused the reader (probably the most common change), and some comments I acknowledged respectively but ignored. Overall, the quality of the data analysis was improved and the clarity with which the data was discussed was improved. Is this a form of conformity? yeah, conformity to certain standards.
    Such grammatical and minor fixes would also appear for accepted manuscripts. His was rejected simply because the reviewers supported nonlinear periodization, despite lacking a firm scientific basis to quell other opinions. One quote from each:

    This article about periodization is an article I agree with to a certain extend and on the other hand I disagree with.
    Periodization is essential at all levels, the degree of complexity will vary according to the level of development.
    The authors must get a grasp that periodization is always non-linear.
    I would change need for periodization to complexity of periodization since it is clear that periodization is essential for all levels of training only the complexity of the process should change overtime.
    Most peer review cannot verify correctness (i.e. whether or not periodization is beneficial for novices). If you think this is an example of good peer review, reflect upon the fact that the Rip was proven right over the subsequent decades.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Feb 2020
    Posts
    2,439

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Bluefan75 View Post
    Maybe an addendum to my previous post, but the OP said "The process isn't perfect but its better then unregulated opinion pieces you find on social media and in political charged talk shows". By his implication this site is "unregulated," yet look at what having to defend your ideas brings here. A higher level of discourse, with no "peer review" in place. Funny how that works.
    anticausal gets some pretty harsh peer reviews from me in the area of shitposting. He improved to the point of opening a substack!

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2023
    Posts
    96

    Default

    starting strength coach development program
    Quote Originally Posted by tommy4life View Post
    To answer the other question. Yes, indirectly I get paid if I publish. However, I am not doing research to get paid, I get paid because I happen to do research. There is a big difference here. I am free to do what I want, if those above me want me to do something which compromises my ethics I will simply leave.

    You have used a logical fallacy called Begging the question, or if you want to use its fancy latin term Petito Principii.


    RE: bold, you are the rare researcher these days that has both the ethical foundation and financial resources to hold that position should it be true. Most scientists tend to be like most people; they will tow the line to stay employed. It's a very loud vocal minority that 100% believe the crap they are shoveling. You see this in everything from pharma, 'green' energy, to diet. I mean the Heart association still advises one to eat a diet of primarily carbohydrates. They have at least made a statement about sugar being bad, finally. BTW this diet looks dreadful.


    Eat an overall healthy dietary pattern that emphasizes:
    a wide variety of fruits and vegetables
    whole grains and products made up mostly of whole grains
    healthy sources of protein (mostly plants such as legumes and nuts; fish and seafood; low-fat or nonfat dairy; and, if you eat meat and poultry, ensuring it is lean and unprocessed)
    liquid non-tropical vegetable oils
    minimally processed foods
    minimized intake of added sugars
    foods prepared with little or no salt
    limited or preferably no alcohol intake
    or this fusion research:
    DOE National Laboratory Makes History by Achieving Fusion Ignition | Department of Energy
    Where the big claim is the reaction produced more energy than it consumed. What they leave out is they are calculating DELIVERED laser energy, and the lasers are like 1-2% efficient.

    Science is broken. Newton explained how a ball falls and planetary motion but didnt know why. Einstein explained how Newtonian physics is wrong, but also that his works well enough that we still use it for anything slow compared to lightspeed...which is a lot of stuff. Michael Faraday proved his concepts in front of a live audience of academics. Richard Feynman (brilliant as he was) had to demonstrate obvious truth to roomfulls of 'experts' with a glass of ice water over the challenger disaster.

    Science used to stand on the shoulders of previous breakthroughs, and now days the peer review system has perverted to only publish things that validate the gatekeepers. Peer review is also relatively new. Breakthroughs may not be happening because no one publishes the failures and asks the core question: why did my experiment fail? On the flip side peer review is NOT replication, and how much bad science gets to go on for YEARS because no one is attempting to replicate results?

    Top Harvard cancer researchers accused of scientific fraud; 37 studies affected | Ars Technica
    Top Harvard cancer researchers accused of scientific fraud; 37 studies affected

    The Dana-Farber Cancer Institute, an affiliate of Harvard Medical School, is seeking to retract six scientific studies and correct 31 others that were published by the institute’s top researchers, including its CEO. The researchers are accused of manipulating data images with simple methods, primarily with copy-and-paste in image editing software, such as Adobe Photoshop.
    The answer is clearly becoming: A LOT.

Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •