Episode 210 An artificial divide?

In this episode I had the impression that Coach Connor mounted a spirited defence of his friend and colleague Dr Seiler. I suspect I was left with that impression as I had previously listened to Dr Burnley speaking about the origin of the papers that are discussed. If you are interested his thoughts are available here.

The conversation relevant to FT episode210 starts at around 15mins.

My impression having listened to both is that there is a lot of concensus and that the existence of the two papers is a measure of the Burnley group being aware of the negative and potentially unbalanced tone of their paper.

I’m sure Dr Burnley would be an interesting guest for a future FastTalk podcast.

1 Like

Any public discussion on accepted and published papers must be avoided as it undermines public trust in research.
Publicity can be a next step if normal feedback and correction procedures fail.

I really hope the next Nerd lab is about nerding, which is about exploration and not judging.

I’m surprised that Seiler wasn’t on this episode.

I wouldn’t mind to know the origin of these two papers. Did the ACSM journal set up this polarized death match?

In the podcast from Scientific Triathlon that is linked above, Dr Burnley explains this from approx 15 to 20 mins.