RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions
Anybody ever look at biorhythms? (sorta long, sorry)(5 posts)
|Anybody ever look at biorhythms? (sorta long, sorry)||cory|
Jul 25, 2002 8:08 AM
|Let me say first that I don't believe in astrology, ESP, ghosts or the promises of George W. Bush. But...
If you don't know the term, "biorhythms" are the alleged cycles in which our body runs, and there are different ones for physical, intellectual and emotional ability. When you're in a "triple low," you're supposed to be careful. When you're in a triple high, you win the Nobel Prize. Usually they peak at different times and you just bumble along.
I've read about it many times and ignored it. If there was a difference in performance, I figured it was due to BELIEVING you were Up or Down, and the effect, perhaps subconscious, that could have.
Recently, though, somebody gave me a bioryhthm calculator (you can find them online, too), and just for fun I plotted my rhythms over the last year against the good and bad rides from my training log. I intended to debunk the whole theory and make fun of my sucker friends...but there was a strong correlation, not 100 percent but well beyond chance, between my relatively good times and supposedly good days, and between the bad times or abandoned rides and the supposedly bad days.
I still don't believe. But...anybody else ever look at that?
|Sounds like somebody's taken...||Wayne|
Jul 25, 2002 9:28 AM
|a little bit of info. and run with it. Any good physiology book will have the cyclical release of hormones plotted vs. the time of day (and month in the case of women). But it sounds like your biorhythm thing is a bit more than that. And just remember a correlation doesn't prove anything! (you would need a cogent/logical connection to provide the causitive part of an arguement based on correlative data).|
|Sounds like somebody's taken...||Jon Billheimer|
Jul 25, 2002 9:57 AM
|The notion may or may not be valid--I don't know since I've never tested it. However, for something to be empirically true you don't need a causative "mechanism". For proof, okay, you do.|
|Yes something could be empirically true...||Wayne|
Jul 25, 2002 10:18 AM
|and there be no causitive mechanism known. I agree.
I was speaking about correlative data being used as proof of something.
My age has increased from 1 to 30 since I was born. The price of widgets has increase from $1 to 30 since I was born (the price hike even occurred by $1 dollar increments on my birthday). If we ran statistics on these data we would get a perfect positive correlation. But that doesn't mean the increase in widget price caused me to age or that my increase in age caused the price of widgets to increase. That's all I was saying.
|Years ago, my neighbor was really into all...||rwbadley|
Jul 26, 2002 7:31 AM
|The biorythm, astrology, eckankar, etc. I thought most of it was fairly silly, not really based in fact or data. I never discounted completely these metaphysics, as I tend to be something of an agnostic. The fact I considered the person somewhat flighty and scwewed up didn't help her cause with me either.
I did practice Eck for a while (another story) The biorythm actually seemed to make some sense, as it was based on natural human hormone function among other factors.
I decided that in the long run I would rather not have a chart tell me when I was supposed to have a bad day, AS it made it easy to use that as an escape, or tended to cloud the situation.
Taking the chart as you did to look in hindsight would be informative and less threatening to peace of mind. Maybe.
In the long run, if you find a correlation, and decide that you can handle the ramification of knowing that 'today I will suck, so why fight it' (or vise versa)then I guess that's certainly an option.