Comparing techniques "scientifically" (was: Birk. strat.)

Trying to cope with unfamiliar equipment here!

Gene G. wrote:

" Sure, if you V2 up a hill the distribution of propulsion
changes toward poling, and heart rate
and build up of lactate go with it.
The slope of that change depends on
individual technique, strength, conditioning and
course conditions. The comparisons
would normally be between V1 on
hills and V2 on gentler or rolling terrain.
The increased importance of
poling on hills is why all the studies
show high correlation between
upper body strength and race results
(and higher performance in poling lab tests). "

I don't think Gene and I really disagree on anything much,
judging from this. The abstract I was critical of,
now that I reread it, compared four skate
techniques, all on a flat course at the same speed.
On the face of it, that sounds sensible.
But does it really make sense to be doing
3 of the 4 under conditions
where they wouldn't be used?
(Maybe a different 3 for different subjects,
since they came from a range of abilities.)

Getting more basic, what is it the authors were trying to achieve,
other than lengthening their publication list?
The abstract says nothing about
a hypothesis to be tested,
so perhaps it's another case of of 'fishing
expedition science': Make a bunch of observations,
then look around for
some general statements
which those observations tend to support.
That kind of stuff is not totally useless,
but it's not very good science, I think.

And of course, it contradicts Gene's 3rd sentence above,
which makes more sense.
If what other scientists have shown more rigorously is that
the proportion of the work done by the upper body
increases as the slope increases,
that seems to make a lot of sense intuitively.
But that says nothing about statements like
"offset uses more upper body than 1-skate" (most recent)
or
"classic elicits a lower heartrate than skating" (earlier),
both of which are virtually meaningless statements
in that simplistic form,
and probably false in any meaningful form.

The only meaningful sense I can think of for the first
is to test on an uphill
where it's 50-50 whether you offset or 1-skate.
And there, I have only my
own subjective experience,
which tells me precisely the opposite is true.
(The arms fatigue more in 1-skate.) But I'm being repetitive.

I'd leave it as a challenge for others to make
either of them meaningful and true.
I've been wrong plenty of times in the past.

Best, Peter