good comments thanks!
I tend to agree with that adage if it works it works! I think with science its more the data overload than the science principle – in effect most of what we do as conditioners is science process – we hypothesise – we test – we decide if it works on the basis of the results we see – I think condiitoning to a large extent is the ability to innovate on your feet and intutiution is really just practical science!
On the biosignature – do you think it is more applicable to higher BF?
We had a guy come in and do a study on 100 T and F athletes across their season – these were college level ahtletes with BFs ranging from 5 to 17%
Across the season Biosig showed no relationship to hormones (testosterone, cortisol, estradiol) nor to performance or training ability. We found testosterone was highest in the 9-14% range, a little lower on either side and estradiol a little higher at 16% and 17% fellas.
Other than that we found the biggest relationship to performance prediction was cortisol – if it rose over 3 days or more performance dropped off
while that was interesting we cant monitor cortisol every day in all our athletes so we were looking for hints in mood scores etc
to be honest we were a little disappointed with the biosig outcome – but maybe it was because we had quite a narrow specific group with relatively low existing BF?
That said my friend I also tried Biosig on me and it related damn well to my aging fattening throwers body hormones!!!