3 ms·

I'm skeptical of the author's claim about V02max that "even half a percentage point can make the difference in elite sport, that is a huge bump." ________ RUN

I'm skeptical of the author's claim about V02max that "even half a percentage point can make the difference in elite sport, that is a huge bump." ________ RUNNING PREDICTS RUNNING BETTER THAN PHYSIOLOGY (a duh? moment here) Noakes, T. D., Myburgh, K. H., & Schall, R. (1990). Peak treadmill running velocity during VO2max test predicts running performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 8, 35-45. The best laboratory predictors were: (a) peak treadmill running velocity (r = -.89 to -.94); (b) running velocity at lactate turnpoint (r = -.91 to -.93); and (c) fractional use of VO2max at 16 km/h (r = .86 to .90). The predictive value of the lactate turnpoint measure increased as the distance increased. The poorest predictors were: VO2max (r = -.55 to -.81) and VO2 at 16 km/h (r = .40 to .45).

Retric 11y ago
Running and cycling are significantly different sports. A runner’s stride is very important, but cycling is almost pure power output by comparison. However, if you’re tracing a single athlete over time then skill tends to stay fairly constant and overall heath becomes the main focus of training.
- hobbyjogger 11y ago
  You'd be surprised. Here's a pdf of the VO2max study(1) that established the relationship between efficiency and VO2max in elite cyclists is very similar to that shown in elite runners. Of the 11 world class cyclists tested, the best two riders were in the bottom 4 (<70 ml/kg/min) in pure VO2max. Interestingly, that means those two riders were closer to the amateur reporter in this story, even before the doping, than they were to the pros with the highest VO2max. (1) https://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/R063.pdf https://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/R063.pdf
  - deleted 11y ago
    [deleted]
Someone 11y ago
At lower levels, technique can handily beat raw power, and vice versa. At elite level, those lacking either technique or raw power will be filtered out, or forced to work hard on their weak points (example: Federer had to work on his weight training when the likes of Nadal and Djokovic hit the scene) In sports where competition is strong (1) that, at best, leaves those with good technique and exceptional power or exceptional technique and good power, but likely, top players are exceptional in both areas. In that group, getting more power or endurance can certainly be a decisive factor. And as another reply said, cycling (like cross-country skiing, and rowing) is a bit different in the sense that raw power (per kg) is a really good indicator of performance. (1) in weaker competitions, you can still see strong players with weak technique or vice versa. That happens in smaller countries, for example, and, historically in about every sport.
- hobbyjogger 11y ago
  Like I said to the other reply, you are making logical points but the data shows that they are flat out wrong. "Raw power" whatever that means (likely you're using it as a rough proxy for VO2max) is a solid predictor if you're trying to distinguish elites from untrained people but a terrible predictor if you're trying to distinguish among elites. See this study(1) showing that the best two cyclists out of 11 world class professionals tested had a VO2max that was closer to this amateur reporter (before doping) than to the elite cyclists with the highest VO2max. (1) https://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/R063.pdf https://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/R063.pdf

Retric 11y ago

Running and cycling are significantly different sports. A runner’s stride is very important, but cycling is almost pure power output by comparison. However, if you’re tracing a single athlete over time then skill tends to stay fairly constant and overall heath becomes the main focus of training.

hobbyjogger 11y ago
You'd be surprised. Here's a pdf of the VO2max study(1) that established the relationship between efficiency and VO2max in elite cyclists is very similar to that shown in elite runners. Of the 11 world class cyclists tested, the best two riders were in the bottom 4 (<70 ml/kg/min) in pure VO2max. Interestingly, that means those two riders were closer to the amateur reporter in this story, even before the doping, than they were to the pros with the highest VO2max. (1) https://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/R063.pdf https://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/R063.pdf
- deleted 11y ago
  [deleted]

Someone 11y ago

At lower levels, technique can handily beat raw power, and vice versa. At elite level, those lacking either technique or raw power will be filtered out, or forced to work hard on their weak points (example: Federer had to work on his weight training when the likes of Nadal and Djokovic hit the scene) In sports where competition is strong (1) that, at best, leaves those with good technique and exceptional power or exceptional technique and good power, but likely, top players are exceptional in both areas. In that group, getting more power or endurance can certainly be a decisive factor. And as another reply said, cycling (like cross-country skiing, and rowing) is a bit different in the sense that raw power (per kg) is a really good indicator of performance. (1) in weaker competitions, you can still see strong players with weak technique or vice versa. That happens in smaller countries, for example, and, historically in about every sport.

hobbyjogger 11y ago
Like I said to the other reply, you are making logical points but the data shows that they are flat out wrong. "Raw power" whatever that means (likely you're using it as a rough proxy for VO2max) is a solid predictor if you're trying to distinguish elites from untrained people but a terrible predictor if you're trying to distinguish among elites. See this study(1) showing that the best two cyclists out of 11 world class professionals tested had a VO2max that was closer to this amateur reporter (before doping) than to the elite cyclists with the highest VO2max. (1) https://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/R063.pdf https://d3epuodzu3wuis.cloudfront.net/R063.pdf