Power Running Physiology Enters the Mainstream (Read 2197 times)

Guys and gals. You will not get anywhere. If you are finding entertainment value, then more power (running) to you for adding new pages to the Rich_ threads and bubbling them to the top. After many years, I am convinced that this attention and web hits are the two things Richard values most. He seems to thrive on the abuse people heap onto him... he loves to bring it up later in (as mentioned by others) weirdly passive aggressive ways. If you are trying to engage in a worthwhile debate that has a meaningful conclusion, this will not happen.

I hired the hairy 80's PI mentioned in another thread to track down Rich and get a picture of him as he posted his previous message -

I, too, have not seen that which I have not seen. And, Senor, of course it is for entertainment. What else?

You're very mysterious.

Yeah. I got it now. Sorry I tried. I really do miss Hefty now. At least that guy had a sense of humor. Since he won't answer, I'll ask you, since you have experience with The Richster: what's the point of his babble? I mean, okay, he's given us 10000 words on his "revolutionary" not-new training ideas. So what now? And why doesn't he want me to run? I like running. Its fun. For the record, when I come up with my own new-fangled idear about running - I'm keeping my frickin' mouth shut until I turn my 21 minute 5k into a 15 minute 5k. Then sell a million books. And you dumb simpleminded bastards would listen to me then, wouldn't you? BWA HA HA HA. (Ah, who am I kidding? If I ever came up with a good secret like that, I'd keep it to myself. Screw you guys.)

Dude. Chia Running.

Ha!, scout, you get a point for making me laugh. Hey JK, I've done that (actually, I started out slower...) and call it, The 15-minute 5k. A simple 24,300,000 step program. Hell, I just calculated that for real. That's a lot of actual factual steps.

Is that new avatar a picture of your aereola? Maybe I'm confused.

Like your picture of the old scout is you?

Adaptations to Marathon Training 
Running a marathon requires a significant amount of specific marathon training in order to prepare the body to handle the stress of running 26.2 miles. If an average runner attempts to run a marathon without adequate training they are unlikely to be able to run the entire distance. Instead, at some point during the race they will most likely become exhausted and will slow to a ?death march? to the finish assuming they don?t drop-out from fatigue or sustain an injury that forces them to abandon the race. Non-runners who attempt a marathon without training are almost assured of becoming exhausted and unable to complete the race or to sustain a race-ending injury. On the other hand, as few as 16 weeks of proper training will enable most people, even non-runners, to successfully complete a marathon. Clearly, the body adapts with training so that what was once hard or beyond the capabilities of the body becomes easier or possible with proper training. The 10 mile run that might be impossible for a non-runner to complete prior to starting run training is transformed into an easy run once adequate training is conducted. What adaptations occur within the body that transforms a non-runner unable to run even modest distances into a person capable of running 26.2 miles without stopping and without injury? The traditional answer given by exercise physiology to this question is centered on the body?s ability to absorb, transport, and utilize oxygen, using terms such as VO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy to explain the adaptations that occur within the body. Is this answer accurate? Does the traditional answer fully or mostly explain the changes in the body that enable someone to transform from a non-runner or recreational runner into a marathon runner? A new research study suggests that the traditional answers do not tell the full story and, instead, that other physiological changes within the body may more accurately explain the increased running capabilities from marathon training. Let?s take a look at this recent research and see what it has to teach us. Research Previous research on marathon training success has focused heavily on the physiological parameters having to do with aerobic capacity. Researchers have extensively measured the VO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy of a wide variety of marathon runners, from the fastest of the elites to those runners finishing many hours later. This research has shown that runners of similar physiological profiles often perform very differently in the marathon. For examples, two runners with very similar VO2max levels may finish the marathon with very different times. Despite very similar physiological profiles one is a significantly faster runner than the other. Further, it is not uncommon for researchers to measure a change in endurance performance but no change in aerobic capacity. It is obvious, then, that other, as yet unidentified, factors play a significant role in marathon performance. One physiological component that likely contributes significantly to performance but has received sparse attention from researchers is muscle. Relatively little research has been done on the role muscle function plays in distance running performance. Knowing this, in 2006 a group of researchers from Ball State University decided to examine changes in both aerobic capacity and in the muscles during marathon training.(1) They hypothesized that significant changes would take place within the muscle fibers. Ball State University offers a university class designed to prepare students physically and mentally to complete a marathon following a proven, 16 weeks, 4-days-per-week marathon training program. In 1994 this 4 days-per-week program was compared in a research study to a traditional 6 days-per-week marathon training program and found to be equally effective.(2) Since then hundreds of students have followed this program and completed a marathon. The program takes non-runners and novice runners and gradually increases their training volume over a period of 16 weeks. Three easy runs are conducted each week with the key workout in this program being the weekly long run, which progresses from an initial distance of 5 miles up to two 18 mile runs. Weekly training volume begins at 15 miles and increases to a peak of 36 miles. With the emphasis being on marathon completion rather than maximum performance, all training runs are conducted at an easy pace. The researchers recruited subjects participating in the marathon training class and tested them on 3 separate occasions: before the 16 week training plan, after 13 weeks of training, and after a 3 week taper and marathon. The subjects were tested on the standard physiological measures of VO2max, running economy, heart rate, and body weight. Additionally, muscle biopsies were conducted so that single muscle fibers could be tested for size, strength, shortening velocity, power characteristics, and oxidative enzyme activity. Results All the subjects successfully completed the marathon. The average time was 4:54 hr:min, with a range of 3:56 hr:min to 5:35 hr:min. Aerobic adaptations
There were few changes in the runners? aerobic capacity. Oxidative enzyme activity (citrate synthase activity), which is a measure of the muscles ability to produce energy aerobically, increased by 37%. Interestingly, despite the increase ability of the muscles to produce energy aerobically there was no change in VO2max (49.5 vs. 52 ml/kg/min). There was a trend for an increase in absolute VO2 from 3.37 l/min to 3.5 l/min, but the change was not large enough to be significant. Running economy improved at the submaximal running speed of 9.65 km/hr (similar to training & marathon pace), with an absolute decrease in oxygen consumption of 2.43 vs 2.28 l/min and relative oxygen consumption decreasing from 36.0 to 33.6 ml/kg/min. The aerobic adaptations are summed in table 1. Table 1: Aerobic adaptations to marathon training Physiological Component Before After % Change
Citrate Synthase (oxidative enzyme) 19.2 26.3 +37% 
VO2max 49.5 ml/kg/min 52.0 ml/kg/min No significant change
Absolute VO2max 3.37 l/min 3.50 l/min No significant change
Absolute Oxygen consumption at 9.65 km/hr 2.43 l/min 2.28 l/min 6% improvement
Relative Oxygen consumption at 9.65 km/hr 36.0 ml/kg/min 33.6 ml/kg/min 6.7% improvement Muscle adaptations
In contrast to the modest adaptations in the cardiovascular system, there were significant changes in the muscles of the runners. First, slow twitch & fast twitch oxidative muscle fibers decreased 21% & 23% respectively in size (diameter). This is significant because all things being equal, smaller fibers are weaker than larger fibers. However, despite the decrease in size of the muscle fibers, the contractile ability of the muscles actually increased. Peak force (strength) stayed the same in the slow twitch fibers and increased 18% in fast twitch oxidative fibers. Strength in relation to the decreased fiber size increased approx. 60% in both fiber types. Muscle power also increased. Absolute power output increased in slow twitch fibers by 56% and in fast twitch oxidative fibers by 53%. Relative power output increased 100% in slow twitch fibers and 84% in fast twitch oxidative fibers. Additionally, slow twitch fibers increased their shortening velocity 28%. Table 2 sums the changes in muscle contractility. Table 2: Changes in muscle strength, power, and contraction speed with marathon training
% Change in 
Slow twitch fibers % Change in 
fast twitch oxidative fibers
Strength Relative 60% 60%
Absolute NC 18%
Power Relative 100% 84%
Absolute 56% 53%
Contraction Speed 28% NC
NC = no change Discussion What should we make of all the above? What do all those changes mean? First, we note that the training program was successful in preparing these subjects to complete the marathon. As was pointed out at the beginning of this article, few non-runners can run the entire marathon distance without proper training. So, this training program produced sufficient improvements in fitness to allow these subjects to complete the marathon. What the results of this study shows, then, is that the physiological changes that occurred in these subjects that enabled them to run a marathon took place in the muscles, not in the cardiovascular system. All of the changes occurred in the muscles ? strength, power, contraction speed, and oxidative enzyme activity were improved in one or both fiber types. Even running economy, which improved 6%, now appears to be a muscle factor as research indicates running economy is determined more by muscle fiber type than cardiovascular factors.(3,4) Indeed, VO2max did not improve as a result of training and the increased power output of the muscle likely explains the 6% decreased submaximal oxygen consumption at the 9.65 km/hr pace. In short, major changes in muscle contractility accompanied by changes in the muscles ability to produce energy aerobically are what allowed these subjects to successfully run a marathon. Are these results unique or surprising? No, they are not as other studies have produced similar findings. A study of collegiate cross-country runners found their slow twitch fibers contraction speed to be at the upper end of the range typically observed for human slow twitch fibers.(5) One study examining the effects on muscle fiber function of a 21 day taper in swimmers found increased muscle contraction speed, strength, & power accompanied a 4% increase in performance.(6) A study of master runners showed that their slow twitch fibers contracted 20% faster than matched sedentary adults.(7) In fact, the researchers calculated that during running the master runners slow twitch fibers ??would produce more than twice as much power?? as the slow twitch fibers of the sedentary runners. Finally, 7 years of research data on Lance Armstrong indicated that the primary physiological adaptation that occurred between ages 21 and 28 was an 18% improvement in power-to-weight ratio. His performance during this same time period improved from young pro-cyclist to multiple winner of the Tour de France though no changes occurred in his aerobic capacity during this same time period. This indicates that the increased power output is what enabled the performance improvements.(8) Summary Exercise physiologists have traditionally focused on changes in aerobic capacity to explain improvements in endurance fitness and performance. However, runners with very different performance abilities can have very similar aerobic capacities and changes in running performance are not always accompanied by changes in aerobic capacity. In an attempt to explain these discrepancies some researchers have begun examining other factors that may play a role in endurance performance. In particular, a few researchers have attempted to determine if changes in muscle fiber contractility accompany changes in endurance performance. A recent study on adaptations with marathon training found minor cardiovascular changes but very large changes in muscle strength, power, & contraction speed. The changes in muscle fiber capability most likely explain the physiological improvements that enabled the subjects to successful run a marathon. The changes revealed by this research are supported by multiple other studies that have found similar changes in muscle strength, power, and rate of contraction with endurance training. continuing... Are you really all that surprised at these results? Doesn't this really seem to be just "common sense" to you as to how your body works? Set aside what you've been told about "aerobic base building, VO2max, lactate threshold, and other similar cardiovascular factors and think about it a bit. When you are building up your running volume with lots of easy paced runs consider what is really going on in your body. During those easy runs are you heavily working your aerobic system, with your heart rate maxed out and lungs sucking in as much oxygen as you possibly can? Or do you find that the burden on your aerobic system is usually light enough that you could carry on a conversation? Easy runs are generally just that - easy. And normally are not particularly stressful on the cardiovascular system. Conversely, near the end of your long easy runs are your legs getting tired? Do your muscles often get sore after a long run or following increases in weekly mileage? Do you often have "heavy legs" when you wake up in the morning or when starting out on a run? This is a very common experience - increased training mileage resulting in sore, tire muscles. If your muscles are repeatedly getting tired & sore and your aerobic system isn't being taxed, isn't it logical that it's your muscles that are being worked while the stress on your cardiovascular system is relatively minor? The parts of the body being worked hardest, adapt the most. Those parts not being worked particularly hard adapt minimally. This being the case, it shouldn't be particularly surprising that the muscles underwent significant adaptations and only modest changes occurred in the cardiovascular system. Lannock, Base building, easy paced running, as the runners in the study were doing, primarily improved the muscles (slow & fast twitch) but produced few measurable changes in the cardiovascular system. If these runners had trained more intensely, which would then stress the cardiovascular system, there would have been significant improvements in the cardiovascular system along with additional adaptations in the muscles. The heart is a muscle and does adapt with training. Typically it gets larger and stronger, with the end result being more blood being pumped with each stroke. For those of you who believe in and promote "aerobic base building" training there is something significant in the results of this study pertaining to the "aerobic base building" methodology. Would any of you "base builders" care to comment on it? Patriotsr1, The "no change in VO2max" is how the change was characterized by the researchers in the study. It means that the change was not enough to be statistically significant. In other words, the increase was not enough to conclude it was a true change and not just an artifact from the method of testing. We would probably be safe in saying there was a trend toward an increase in VO2max, but the change did not reach a level of significance. Either way, the point is that the major change that took place was a huge increase in muscle contractility, and not the aerobic system as would be expected in accordance with the cardiovascular/anaerobic theory. Would the results be different with experienced endurance athletes? Great question. The two data source we currently have to answer the question is the research on Lance Armstrong and the study of cross country runners. The answer appears to be "no". Lance improved his performance from new pro to multi-winner of the Tour with large changes in muscle power and no change in aerobic capacity. If I recall the details accurately, in the case of the collegiate cross country runners their muscle contractility decreased during base building and then returned to pre-base building levels during their taper. Their performance was not improved either, so in their case no improvement in muscle contractility was accompanied by no improvement in performance. It's not meant to be a challenge. To me, there is a glaring result in this study, a result that jumped right out the first time I saw it and I figured many with just basic familiarity with basic base building theory & the physiological explanation for base building would note it right away too. The result I'm talking about is the huge adaptations in fast twitch fiber. rengle, The way I see it, there are 2 basic categories under discussion here - physiology and training. Runners tend to be interested in physiology as a method for a) figuring out how to run faster and b) explaining what is happening in their bodies as a result of any particular training method. New physiological understandings don't always lead to new training methods or even improved training methods. Many times a new physiology truth simply explains why a particular training method works (or doesn't work). This is not to say physiological findings don't ever lead to better training, just that it doesn't happen every time or even most of the time. So, while the new physiological understanding that fast twitch fibers are significantly active during easy paced runners in novice marathoners may not lead to a new or better training method it does show that previous explanations about easy paced running activating and training only slow twitch fibers are not accurate. As for why I do what I do, it is really very simple. I don't believe we, as a species, have learned everything there is to learn about training. I don't believe that we know the perfect training method for every person on the planet, especially when it comes to accounting for the vast differences in talent across the entire human population. I believe there are significant gaps in our training knowledge. Personally, I'd like to see those gaps filled in and, so, I actively use my degree in exercise physiology to try and do so, seeking to advance the state of the art in running. My reward for doing this is simply the satisfaction of knowing I'm doing what I can to advance and promote running as a healthy activity and sport while answering some questions that have previously been unanswered. The price I pay for doing this is to have some number of people insult & attack me, tell outright lies about me, and/or question my motives & integrity because I dare to question dearly-held physiological and/or training beliefs. I'm not sure I can adequately express this, but I'll do my best. Physiologists, coaches, & runners have been focusing on VO2max, lactate threshold, & running economy for about 40 years as the physiological explanation for performance. For example, pick up Jack Daniels book, read Pfitzinger's book or articles, read Lydiard's physiological explanations, or Hadd's discussion of base building - every one of them is focused on VO2max, lactate threshold, & running economy as the foundation for performance. You can easily read the same things on this forum from many, many people. Heck, even the name "aerobic base building" is centered on changes in the aerobic system. Anyone who dares suggest that the cardiovascular system is not the primary factor controlling performance is routinely attacked, insulted, etc. You wouldn't have to look very long on this forum to find examples of this. In short, the cardiovascular/anaerobic model is the accepted model and anyone who challenges it is usually attacked & insulted. Prior to this study, few researchers ever bothered to look at changes in muscle function with training. Instead, they focused almost exclusively on cardiovascular things. In the past 40 years there have been 100s of studies looking at changes in VO2max, lactate threshold, & running economy. In contrast there have been maybe 10 studies looking at changes in muscle fibers with endurance training, and most of those studies have been done relatively recently. Prior to this study, we simply did not know what changes occurred with training in the muscle fibers of novice runners. Imagine that - no real info as to whether the muscles were undergoing large or minimal changes because no one imagined that muscles might be important in explaining adaptations with training. Prior to this study the best source of data we had on changes in muscle fibers was done in the 1970s on rats (the studies Hadd referred to) and all it focused on was changes in the aerobic capacity of the muscles, completely ignoring changes in the power or endurance capacity of the fibers. So, when a study comes along that actually examines changes in muscle function with training and the results show massive changes in muscle contractility and minor changes in the aerobic system, I consider the study to be a revolutionary in relation to what is commonly preached about the factors controlling endurance performance. Your questions about changes in VO2max are good questions, but to properly answer will require a long explanation. (spaniel) Looks who's off their meds again.... 1) This was a "I want to survive" program. No kidding there was not huge gains in aerobic development, these people were not in shape to push their aerobic development. They were simply conditioning their body to handle the pounding of slogging through 26.2 miles a little above a walk. You clearly try to imply that these results can be extrapolated in a more general sense and that aerobic development is shown not to be important; rather, all this study says is that it is less important than muscle conditioning when you want to shuffle through 26.2 with only 4 months of prep from sitting on the couch eating Cheetos. 2) You off-handedly dismiss a 30% improvement in aerobic enzymes and a 5% increase in VO2max as insignificant. As for the 30% improvement in enzymes, what this eludes to is that these people did not train long enough to see the aerobic gains of sustained, consistent training. Enzymes are the first indicator to move, other adaptations follow. As for the 5% VO2max being insignificant, you are right. HOWEVER, as someone else pointed out, this is worth 10min in a marathon. If this study was so statistically underpowered that such a gain does not acheive significance, it calls into serious question the overall value of the study to show anything. It's just another example of the typically-underpowered physiology study. You try to play scientist, then go on a rant about "just look, this makes sense, easy running doesn't challenge you". You can't have it both ways here, you dismiss anyone else that does anything but quote studies. Insinuating that only hard runs that leave you beat are useful is laughable, capillary density increases from easy runs. Of course those who look for shortcuts like yourself never train long enough and consistently enough to see such gains so I guess this is expected of you. You claim we're all against advancing running because we ridicule you but it's really quite the opposite. You don't advance running; you make ignorant, illogical leaps of faith with underpowered or uncontrolled studies you don't have the intelectual ability to understand completely and then try to argue it as fact with people far more experienced, educated, and intelligent than yourself. We ridicule you because we don't like seeing your poison ooze into our sport. If you actually had some new breakthrough that was supported with real evidence and not crackpot pseudoscience you'd have some open ears. (Dick) When valid, new information & knowledge surfaces that challenges pre-existing beliefs, people have 2 basic choices. a) accept the new data by modifying pre-existing beliefs.
b) reject the information so as to maintain pre-existing beliefs. In a perfect world, people would always choose choice a. However, this is not a perfect world, so choice b is too often chosen. If choice b is chosen, there are a 3 main tactics employed to protect pre-existing beliefs: 1. Ignore the information.
2. Attack the source of the new information, attempting to invalidate the results. Question the study methodology, the validity of the results, and/or the capabilities/credentials of the scientists who did the study, all without providing credible support for the attack.
3. Shout down the messengers. Attack the people who bring the new information to the attention of others. A quick review of this thread quickly reveals who chose what and the tactics they employ. Exactly. Physiologically speaking these runners weren't "aerobic base building" in order to increase their fitness and capacity, they were conditioning and training their muscles. ...rather, all this study says is that it is less important than muscle conditioning when you want to shuffle through 26.2 with only 4 months of prep from sitting on the couch eating Cheetos. We agree on half of what you said - this study shows that muscle development (strength, power, running economy, & aerobic potential) is the major adaptation that occurs with easy paced, base building type training. The study doesn't indicate that changes in cardiovascular system development are important since the change in VO2max was not significant. On another topic you brought up:
You claim we're all against advancing running because we ridicule you but it's really quite the opposite. You don't advance running; you make ignorant, illogical leaps of faith with underpowered or uncontrolled studies you don't have the intelectual ability to understand completely and then try to argue it as fact with people far more experienced, educated, and intelligent than yourself. I am persuaded by logic, fact, and information from credible sources. If I'm making illogical leaps of faith with underpowered or uncontrolled studies, then all you need to do to set me straight is explain the problems with the studies, the lapses of logic I've made, and then support your claims with logic, facts, and credible sources. Telling me I'm wrong but providing nothing credible to support your opinion doesn't work. Attacking me, insulting me, etc. indicates the person doing the attacking doesn't have anything credible, factual, or logical supporting their argument. (spaniel) This presumes that your first statement is correct...that your information AND your interpretation of it are valid. I and others have already indicated why, at the very least, your interpretation is NOT valid. The rest of your post is therefore moot. The attacks follow simply because you ignore the wealth of information that people provide to contradict your preconceived notions, quote only what you want to and pretend not to see the rest, and assume those of us reading are stupid enough not to see through your game. Perhaps you get such a hostile reception because people resent your assumption that we are that dumb. You do this over and over again at regular intervals....do you continue to touch hot burners and wonder why you get burned too? Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. (Dick), Speaking of insanity - you and others keep stating your opinions as to why I'm wrong, a study is wrong, etc. even though your opinion keeps getting rejected. Back your claims & opinions with credible data, sources, facts, etc. and you will get different results. If my interpretation is wrong, then all you need do is tell us the correct interpretation and cite the facts, figures, sources supporting your interpretation. Based on your previous comments, it appeared to me that we were in basic agreement on the study - major adaptations occurred in the muscles, not the cardiovascular system, as a result of the easy paced, increasing mileage training. (Spaniel) If you think we are in agreement, you need to qualify your view as agreeing that this finding is only valid for very new runners trying to simply finish a marathon...not get significantly faster. THEN we are in agreement, though I doubt you will do this as you are very careful in your statement to try and apply this more broadly than it can be. Will you, in fact, state that this finding ONLY applies to the population studied, very new runners seeking only to finish the marathon in slow (nearly 5 hr) times? As for our opinions "keep being rejected", myself and others have provided volumes of material to refute your slanted opinions. The fact that you pretend it doesn't exist and then say we didn't provide it doesn't make it disappear into thin air in anyone's mind but your own. It is convenient that while you claim to have personally made such large contributions to running and training philosophy, you'll never make a stand and give a specific altered training regimen. It is also curious that if your methods would be so impactful that no one has ever applied them. Is everyone in this sport insane except you? Honestly, if your supposed insights contribute nothing to altering training, what good are they? To say that current training techniques are sufficient is to admit that you have nothing to add of relevance. "Attacking me, insulting me, etc. indicates the person doing the attacking doesn't have anything credible, factual, or logical supporting their argument." A typically weak cop-out instead of directly addressing the weaknesses of your interpretations already pointed out. The facts supporting them are already provided by you yourself with the study....1) it was very new and inexperienced runners training for 5hr marathons and therefore non-applicable as widely as you try to, 2) the data was so weak that it could not apply statistical significance to a VO2max change large enough to account for 10min difference in a marathon. 3) it was only 16 weeks long and did not address changes that could be extremely important but take longer to develop. (Dick) In the strictest scientific sense we would have to know the external validity of this study to apply it to other populations. However, based on the other results of multiple studies (cited in my article) my personal bias is that the results likely apply to anyone who trains like this group trained (an increasing volume of easy paced running) As for our opinions "keep being rejected", myself and others have provided volumes of material to refute your slanted opinions. Volumes? Wow, how did I overlook volumes of research, facts, and other credible data and sources you and others cited in support of your claims? Perhaps you can cite just some of it again - how about citing a few studies or other credible, unbiased factual sources contradicting the results of this study so I can see what I've overlooked. It is also curious that if your methods would be so impactful that no one has ever applied them. Is everyone in this sport insane except you? Are you familiar with FIRST? That program is pretty much what I've been advocating for years. And it sure has worked for the vast majority of those who have used it. ...2) the data was so weak that it could not apply statistical significance to a VO2max change large enough to account for 10min difference in a marathon. Theoretically enough to change marathon performance 10 min. However, a change in marathon performance was not actually examined, so it's a mute point. To prove the small change in VO2max would result in improved marathon performance you would have to actually test it. It would be inconsistent of you to adhere exactly to the scientific method on the point of external validity and then throw it out the window by claiming the minor change in VO2max would change performance. 3) it was only 16 weeks long and did not address changes that could be extremely important but take longer to develop. True, nor did I suggest no other changes would take place with longer periods of training. And any other changes would have to be measured & correlated with changes in performance. The only really long term study I'm aware of (7 years of data on Lance Armstrong) supports the findings of this study, though. (Spaniel) "In the strictest scientific sense we would have to know the external validity of this study to apply it to other populations. However, based on the other results of multiple studies (cited in my article) my personal bias is that the results likely apply to anyone who trains like this group trained (an increasing volume of easy paced running)" Ahah....so while you want reams and reams of scientific studies to refute your PERSONAL BIAS, as you freely admit it is now, you will willy-nilly apply this one little study across to people of very different ability and training than those studied...to highly trained runners doing 100mpw and running sub-3 marathons. Let me share some REAL science with you. If doctors run a clinical trial and find that a drug works in lung cancer, they don't go start treating colorectal or breast cancer with that drug without testing in there as well. Indeed, if they find a drug works in second-line therapy for a certain cancer (ie a treatment give after the first failed), the drug won't be approved for first-line without another trial. They don't extrapolate between different populations without testing! Yet you do it freely. Quit pretending to be based in science because any scientist can tell you that you're not. You now admit it is personal bias and the strongest you can say is it "likely" applies...based on your personal bias. So quit playing like it is fact. Keep going. You're making excellent progress and talking yourself into a hole you can't dig out of, just like you usually do in these threads. Spaniel, Until changes in muscle fiber are tested on enough different populations, then we can't say with scientific certainty exactly what the external validity is. What I have done is suggest, based on the available evidence (multiple studies) is that these results are applicable to those who train similarly. You are upholding the scientific method and insisting it must be strictly applied, which is admirable. Will you be applying this standard for everything else or will you randomly pick where to apply it? The challenge you are going to run into is that if you strictly apply the scientific method you will have to disallow much of conventional training wisdom since it doesn't meet the standards you set. On the other hand, abitrarily picking when to apply the scientific method is completely unfair and not acceptable either. I noticed you failed to address the VO2max part of this discussion and your lack of applying the same strict adherence to the scientific method there. (Spaniel) VO2max has already been correlated with performance, it is just not the only factor. The exact amount of improvement that can be attributed is irrelevant to the point that a study that cannot determine a 5% change to be significant is underpowered and unable to support your wildly misapplied conclusions. If you haven't a study to quantify that 5% would not be a boon to performance, how can YOU leap to the conclusion that this is not a significant factor in performance? YOU CAN'T. For all you know that could be 30min in a marathon, not 10. I'm not the one claiming all support must be strictly scientific and published in studies. Quite to the contrary, current methodology and technology is insufficient to either explain the full range of factors affecting performance or quantitate their effect definitively. Rather, as I have stated before, exercise physiology as applied to human performance is more pseudoscience than real science, as the vast majority of studies are uncontrolled or have sample sized too small to make any conclusions (such as the case here as evidenced by its lack of statistical power). Finally, most of the experiments that WOULD yield useful information are unethical to perform on humans and will therefore never be done. YOU are the one that wants everything based on exercise physiology studies. Therefore, YOU are the one that must stick to this method, not me. The overwhelming body of real-world experience of both coaches and athletes supports me and all those pestering you here. You, on the other hand, have no real-world experience as either a coach or an athlete, as you have already admitted. So you can't use it to your point. You can't be a real-world expert, and you are inept at backing yourself with science. Furthermore, the scientific discipline you back yourself with is weak and of little practical use to begin with, even if you WERE competent to discuss it. (Dick) Originally posted by spaniel: VO2max has already been correlated with performance, it is just not the only factor. The exact amount of improvement that can be attributed is irrelevant to the point that a study that cannot determine a 5% change to be significant is underpowered and unable to support your wildly misapplied conclusions. If you haven't a study to quantify that 5% would not be a boon to performance, how can YOU leap to the conclusion that this is not a significant factor in performance? YOU CAN'T. For all you know that could be 30min in a marathon, not 10. I didn't leap to a conclusion. I simply cited what the researchers themselves said - change in VO2max was not significant. If the study is underpowered and you suspect the VO2max data would be different with a large sample, then you could always compare this VO2max data to the data from the study on the training program (the Long Slow Distance study) since both used exactly the same training program. It will tell you if the changes in VO2max data for these 2 studies were similar or different (they are similar, as I've looked at both). As for VO2max being correlated with performance, for you to claim the 5% change is important you would have to show that every time VO2max increases, performance increases too. What number of studies are there where VO2max changes but performance doesn't? I'm not the one claiming all support must be strictly scientific and published in studies. Nor am I. I ask for supporting evidence, data, facts, and credible sources when someone makes a claim, but don't insist that it must be always be from a scientific study. Other credible sources are okay to. Quite to the contrart, current methodology and technology is insufficient to either explain the full range of factors affecting performance or quantitate their effect definitively.[b] 100% agreed. So why people get hung up on insisting it's VO2max, lactate threshold, and running economy is beyond me. [b]YOU are the one that wants everything based on exercise physiology studies. Therefore, YOU are the one that must stick to this method, not me. I disagree. I use both research and real-world data (read my article on the running contradiction for a good example of using both research and real-world data). In those cases where research data is contradictory to anecdotal observation, I most often tend to accept the research data as the correct choice. (Spaniel) Yet another glaring example of Richard ineptitude: " I didn't leap to a conclusion. I simply cited what the researchers themselves said - change in VO2max was not significant." There is an obvious difference between the change in VO2max being significant (as compared to baseline), as was said by the authors, and the change being a significant factor in performance IF the study had been powered for a 5% change to be significantly different from baseline. Really, keep backing yourself into the hole here. martin has it right, you really do have some weird sort of martyr complex. "I disagree. I use both research and real-world data (read my article on the running contradiction for a good example of using both research and real-world data). " See, now you're back-talking yourself. Keep it up. Having no coaching background and no real accomplishments yourself, what real-world data are you referring to?? "I ask for supporting evidence, data, facts, and credible sources when someone makes a claim, but don't insist that it must be always be from a scientific study. Other credible sources are okay to." Ok, so let's see who's a more credible source here....some hack who has accomplished nothing as either a runner or coach, and pretends to be some sort of scientist yet must constantly be corrected for their inability to interpret data correctly or understand basic statistics, or a bonified scientist in a relevant field who has accomplishments as both a self-coached runner and coach of others? I mean really, explain to me based on the fundamental statistical inteprative flaw I mentioned above, why should any of us give you credit for your interpretations or ability to explain a study and use it to support your position? TELL ME ONE REASON why your opinion is worth anything after all the errors that have been pointed out to you (anyone just joining in read the Truth About Mileage thread and see kemibe pick poor Richard apart on this). And don't even get me started on your dismissing the input of the likes of Nobby and Kim who are on a whole other level in terms of experience and accumulated knowledge. (Dick) There is an obvious difference between the change in VO2max being significant (as compared to baseline), as was said by the authors, and the change being a significant factor in performance IF the study had been powered for a 5% change to be significantly different from baseline. And I said otherwise? ...TELL ME ONE REASON why your opinion is worth anything after all the errors that have been pointed out to you.... You are repeating the same argument. You opine that I'm wrong, that an error has been make, that something was misinterpreted, but never support your opinion with credible data of any type. You even claim to have cited volumes of supporting evidence, but when asked don't even produce a single citation or fact from a credible, unbiased source. I'll say this - you are pretty good at bashing. Not so good at stating a physiological or training case and then supporting that case with evidence, facts, etc. (Spaniel) Your original statement: "The study doesn't indicate that changes in cardiovascular system development are important since the change in VO2max was not significant." I said:
"If you haven't a study to quantify that 5% would not be a boon to performance, how can YOU leap to the conclusion that this is not a significant factor in performance? YOU CAN'T. For all you know that could be 30min in a marathon, not 10." You replied:
"I didn't leap to a conclusion. I simply cited what the researchers themselves said - change in VO2max was not significant." 
Clearly, you did. You confuse deriving statistical significance from baseline with the numerical change being important to performance (IF the study had been appropriately powered to even study the importance of this point). You simply say "it was not significant" and leap straight to "this means VO2max is not important to performance". I could put 8 people in a clinical trial...4 get placebo, 4 get active drug. I see a 20% improvement in symptoms in the experimental group due to drug treatment, but the statistics tell me that this is not significant due to my small sample size. This does NOT mean that the 20% improvement is not important...what if this meant someone lived 12 months instead of 10?? What it DOES mean is that my study was under-powered to study the outcome desired. This is a gross error in your ability to interpret a very simple statistical concept. I don't NEED to cite some stupid study to make my point. This is basic undergrad-level statistics, which is clearly beyond your grasp. Therefore, why should we believe anything else you say? This is really the crux of your argument here...the aerobic changes were insignificant. But you have totally misinterpreted the meaning of that section of the study, so really your entire argument is balony. Keep digging.... (Dick) 2 questions: First, if the study is underpowered to study the desired factor (muscle fibers, in this case), why did the researchers do it this way? Why were their results published? Is everyone in the scientific community that was involved in this study (conducting, reviewing, publishing) all ignorant and unable to properly conduct a study? Second, if in the hypothetical study example you used, would you be able to take the drug to market on the results of the study? Or would you have to conduct a study with a sufficient population in order that the expected changes would be statistically significant? On to another point: Let's say, for argument sake, that the mild 5% increase in VO2max had reached a level of significance and thus should be included in our analysis. Let's consider what that means in terms of the results of this study. If you are a believer in the cardiovascular/anaerobic model of performance you could say that it is theoretically correlated with an 10 minute improvement in the marathon. In other words, we would expect them to improve performance 10 minutes because VO2max was higher. We don't have any comparative data on these subjects since they've never run a marathon before, but it is reasonably to say that if they had tried to run a marathon prior to the study that their performance would have been much, much slower than a 10 minute difference. I'd go so far as to suggest that most would not have completed the marathon due to exhaustion or injury. Those who did complete it without training would have been hours slower. So, at best, we could say that a 5% increase in VO2max would be expected to correlate with a very minor relative increase in performance, while massive changes in muscle fibers would likely account for the expected large increase in fitness and capability. If you aren't a believer in the cardiovascular/anaerobic model, but instead support the theory that muscle fiber activation drives oxygen consumption, then the mild increase in VO2max is completely consistent with that theory. The muscle fibers have been trained and conditioned as a result of the training program so they are able to drive a higher oxygen consumption. Since it was a fairly mild intensity exercise program it did not maximize fiber adaptation and therefore we would not expect to see a major increase in oxygen consumption at peak. (Spaniel) I have no idea why they designed it that way....probably because they didn't really care about the relevance of the endpoints. In order to design in the correct power they would need an idea of the difference they would expect in order to back-calculate the appropriate sample size. Since this was not really a controlled experiment, it was really a moot point and they know it. Their results were published either because it was a non-peer-reviewed journal and anything could get in, or it was peer-reviewed but the reviewers accepted the limitations which you blow right past. Not all studies are designed with appropriate power to test all endpoints; however, real scientists accept the limitations of this type of study. As for the drug example, the appropriate power would be designed in to begin with; otherwise the study would not be approved or at the very least that endpoint could not be used to gain approval. As for the rest of your point, it is immaterial. You are simply trying to dodge having to admit that you were wrong and your incompetency has been laid clear again to destroy your argument by turning attention elsewhere. I know kemibe, it's too easy. But this one was just so blatant I had to amuse myself. 
I'm keeping my grass track mowed wide in case we get luck enough to get snow again and ski here, but I'm not holding my breath....we don't get 350 inches here. I'll probably be cycling in February. (Dick) So, in essence, you are saying the study has limitations but the results aren't invalid because of those limitations. That about right? As for the drug example, the appropriate power would be designed in to begin with; otherwise the study would not be approved or at the very least that endpoint could not be used to gain approval. So, you are saying if the appropriate power was not designed in to test a particular factor, then the results of your hypothetical study pertaining to that factor couldn't really be used. That about right? As for the rest of your point, it is immaterial. You are simply trying to dodge having to admit that you were wrong and your incompetency has been laid clear again to destroy your argument by turning attention elsewhere. Whether I'm wrong on this point or not is pretty much immaterial in relation to the study results and what they mean. Being wrong or right on the relevance of whether the minor change in VO2max is significant or not, doesn't change anything about the major findings of this study or what those results mean. (Spaniel) 1) No, that's not right. You ignore the limitations, hence your conclusions are invalid. 2) Yes, if the power is not designed in and the sample size turns out to be insufficient to reach significance on a point where the numerical value could be of importance, the factor can't be used. Yet that is exactly what you do, draw a conclusion where you don't have power to assign a conclusion. 3) No, whether you are right or wrong is not immaterial. You rest your whole case on the aerobic changes being inconsequential. Yet your conclusion that they are inconsequential is not supported by the study due to its lack of statistical power to reach a definitive answer on the matter. Really, keep digging. Now you've gone from saying you are right to saying that whether you are wrong doesn't matter (and supporting that view just as poorly as you support your others). (Dick) Originally posted by Spaniel: No, that's not right. You ignore the limitations, hence your conclusions are invalid. Disagree. More comments below. 2) Yes, if the power is not designed in and the sample size turns out to be insufficient to reach significance on a point where the numerical value could be of importance, the factor can't be used. Yet that is exactly what you do, draw a conclusion where you don't have power to assign a conclusion. So you are saying there wasn't enough power in this study for any of the results to be significant or conclusions to be drawn from them? Or are you saying there wasn't enough power for the minor changes in VO2max to be significant but there was enough power to determine significance for the other factors that were found to be significant and to draw conclusions from them? 3) No, whether you are right or wrong is not immaterial. You rest your whole case on the aerobic changes being inconsequential. Yet your conclusion that they are inconsequential is not supported by the study due to its lack of statistical power to reach a definitive answer on the matter. Disagree. As I wrote previously, even if VO2max was causative in performance (which has never been even close to being proven) the change was so minor it would not come close to explaining the major improvements in fitness and capacity that result from such a program as this. The major changes in muscle fiber would still explain the improvements. The only area open for debate would be whether the minor change in VO2max made some contribution to performance (or as you put it, "all this study says is that it is less important than muscle conditioning when you want to shuffle through 26.2 with only 4 months of prep from sitting on the couch eating Cheetos.") or made no contribution at all. At the end of the day we are still left with the same conclusion - this study says muscle conditioning is the major and most important adaptation that occurred as a result of this training. (Spaniel) "As I wrote previously, even if VO2max was causative in performance (which has never been even close to being proven) the change was so minor..." blah blah blah.... You have NO BASIS to say that 5% is a minor change, that's the whole point. You WANT it to be minor, so you pretend it is. 5% of a 3hr marathon is 9min. As someone trying to get their BQ if that last 9min was easy and insignificant. Again, you try to divert from your blatant misuse of statistics. You claim to be some sort of scientist, yet you can't understand basic statistics. If you care so much about running, you should stop wasting your time in the library reading studies you can't understand, much less interpret correctly, and use the time hanging out around real runners to see how the real running world works. I think I've been entertained enough by you for one thread. 
 (Dick) Originally posted by Spaniel: You have NO BASIS to say that 5% is a minor change, that's the whole point. You WANT it to be minor, so you pretend it is. 5% of a 3hr marathon is 9min. As someone trying to get their BQ if that last 9min was easy and insignificant. The basis is the study itself - "VO2max was not improved, as would be anticipated with marathon training, although there was a trend." Because of this the researchers did not consider VO2max to be a factor explaining enhancement in fitness and the new ability to run a marathon for these subjects - "In summary, the decrease in oxygen consumption during submaximal running, increased citrate synthase activity, and increased proportion of MHC 1 fibers are all indicative of changes that would aid in distance running performance." It still comes down to the same thing - major adaptations in the muscle fibers (power, strength, running economy, & aerobic potential) are what occurred and would account for the improved fitness and ability of these subjects. The question not answered to your satisfaction is whether the small change in VO2max did or did not make a minor contribution to the improved fitness and ability of these subjects. (Spaniel) "The basis is the study itself - "VO2max was not improved, as would be anticipated with marathon training, although there was a trend." Jumpin' Jehosiphat Batman! You really are a thick one. Go back and read my last half dozen posts and engage your 2 brain cells in coherent thought. An underpowered study could not show significant improvement, and in no way indicates that a 5% change is insignificant. Determining statistical significance in change from baseline measurement, and assigning an importance level to performance to the numerical value of that improvement, are two entirely separate issues, get it? It does not address the real-world importance of a 5% change in any way, it only indicates their study was under-powered. If I ran a study on 3 people and found a 30% change in muscle fiber thickness, the change would be insignificant due to the small sample size (but no doubt you'd run with it). However, if I were to examine the increase in strenght as the result of a 30% change maybe I'd see their bench press go up 50%, which would no doubt be important to their performance. You argue against yourself by pointing out that the authors DID note a "trend". Such a trend is typical in studies that are under-powered to address a specific endpoint within a give timeframe where significance WOULD be reached if the study had continued longer or been larger. Here's a real-world example from real researchers. Since cancer studies take many years to complete, an interim analysis is often performed to get response rate and progression-free survival data; overall survival, the last endpoint to be addressed, is often found to be "insignificant, but with a trend towards improved survival". The study continues for a few more years, giving the trend time to play out, and in the final analysis is found to be significant. In other words, you STILL cannot comprehend the basic statistics behind the comments you are reading. (Dick) Originally posted by Spaniel: An underpowered study could not show significant improvement, and in no way indicates that a 5% change is insignificant. If this is an underpowered study and the results are not valid due to this, then I suggest you contact the journal and voice your concerns. (Spaniel) Originally posted by Richard99: If this is an underpowered study and the results are not valid due to this, then I suggest you contact the journal and voice your concerns. Why? I have no beef with the journal or the authors. They're not the ones making wildly extrapolated misinterpretations of the study results and analysis. Note the typically terse, sulking reply when Dick is backed into a corner and can't be mature enough to admit being wrong. Originally posted by Richard99: Sweeping and unsupportable? You think so? Spaniel, who is arguing so strongly about the VO2max results stated that this study shows that the major adaptations occur in the muscles and are more important than the cardiovascular adaptation for these subjects and this training program. Heck, even Nobby is in agreement that major adaptations have taken place in the muscle and that these are important to running performance. It sure seems to me that their major conclusion from this study is about the same as mine. It seems to me the only area of real discussion is the relative importance of changes in muscle fiber vs the cardiovascular system, with some saying changes in the cardiovascular system are the more important and me saying muscle changes are more important. 
Focus, Dick, focus. This is about you and your inability to understand a basic concept central to all of these studies that you hold so dear, and your inability to be big enough to own up to it. No amount of handwaiving on your part is going to redirect. Nobody is debating the muscle improvements in this short study of a very specific population. It is YOU who take the results and try to broadly apply them with no support. I will let Nobby explain himself but I doubt he is going to agree with you that he shares your views beyond the strict application to this limited population. Nobody refuses to allow that muscular changes are important....but you repeatedly state that they are MOST important, without the ability to support that stance or the competence to correctly interpret the study you yourself posted, accept its limitations, or understand the basic statistical concepts involved. Actually I couldn't care less about the VO2max results in this study for reasons stated long ago. Your interpretation and application of them simply highlights your incompetence, which is the focus here since your wild extrapolations of the data are dependent upon your lacking abilities in that discipline. (Dick): Nobody refuses to allow that muscular changes are important....but you repeatedly state that they are MOST important, without the ability to support that stance... Which is what I said: we are in agreement about major changes in muscle being important, but not in agreement on the relative importance of muscle vs cardiovascular. (Spaniel) Originally posted by Richard99: Which is what I said: we are in agreement about major changes in muscle being important, but not in agreement on the relative importance of muscle vs cardiovascular. Do you need blinders? You again omit addressing your blatant inability to understand basic statistics and admit you misinterpreted the study. C'mon, let's hear it. Once again, you injustifieably extrapolate. YOU content that muscle changes are THE important factor and repeatedly assert that aerobic changes are NOT important...you've started whole threads on the subject, including your CGM threads. We acknowledge that there is importance to muscular changes, but that is far, far different from what you WANT to insinuate we agree on. Saying we agree is like saying a dinghy and an oil tanker are the same because they're both boats. Get back to addressing why we should believe any of your arguments with your clear inability to understand the basic concepts governing how these studies are run and interpreted. (Dick) Originally posted by Spaniel: We acknowledge that there is importance to muscular changes, but that is far, far different from what you WANT to insinuate we agree on... You lost me, hoss. We agree on the importance of muscular changes. I don't insinuate anything, I say we agree adaptations in muscle fibers are important. Where we don't agree is the relative importance of the changes in muscle vs the cardiovascular system. (Spaniel) Originally posted by Richard99: You lost me, hoss. We agree on the importance of muscular changes. I don't insinuate anything, I say we agree adaptations in muscle fibers are important. Where we don't agree is the relative importance of the changes in muscle vs the cardiovascular system. Do you need thicker glasses? Too bad you aren't as easy to fix as the Hubble, at least a Space Shuttle mission and a few billion dollars could fix ITS myopia. You're still refusing to admit your mistake in a mature manner. Why?? First you say muscles are THE factor to performance and aerobic factors not of consequence. Failing to support that, you fall back to muscle factors being more important than aerobic factors. NOW you try to meekly assert that we agree muscle factors are important. See how your argument changes to try and get me to say we agree (when we really don't) in order to slither your way out of this quagmire you've made for yourself? We have legs. We run with them. Legs have muscles. Improving muscles might improve running. How incredible and earthshattering of you to make such a connection. We also have lungs. Lungs feed muscles and heart. Lungs use capillary beds and enzymes to further their work. Maybe aerobic factors might improve running too? Yet you see this as a ludicrous philosophy. So no, we do not agree. Not at all...you just continue to water down and abbreviate your position to try and get agreement out of me, which you will then cut-and-paste to try and make it look like I agreed with your original argument. And you're still incompetent to interpret basic principles of the studies you post and too insecure to admit it. 
Martin -- yes, the ACTUAL findings of the study were quite interesting. It would be interesting to know the mechanism by which thinner fibers get stronger...is there a mechanical or biochemical explanation, or possibly thinner fibers put muscle cells in closer proximity to capillaries and facilitate O2 transport? More interesting questions. (Dick) fuzz, When people tell me I'm wrong, that I've misinterpreted something, etc, I ask them to support their claims with facts, data, and evidence from credible sources. Rarely do they do so and, when they do, it is usually only on some minor point. For example, look back and see how many citations, research studies, & facts from reliable sources have been cited in this thread by anyone telling me I'm wrong on the major points & conclusions in my article. (Spaniel) Originally posted by Richard99: fuzz, When people tell me I'm wrong, that I've misinterpreted something, etc, I ask them to support their claims with facts, data, and evidence from credible sources. Rarely do they do so and, when they do, it is usually only on some minor point. For example, look back and see how many citations, research studies, & facts from reliable sources have been cited in this thread by anyone telling me I'm wrong on the major points & conclusions in my article. Do you dispute that the original article you started this thread with is data from a credible source? Because that's all anyone needed to point out your foolishness this time. Here's one for you: give us a study, research article, or excerpt from a textbook that supports what I have claimed is your inept interpretation of the study's statistics. (rengle) Richard, Can you explain how you interpret a marathon training schedule that peaks at two 18 mile long runs comprising at least %50 of the weekly mileage (from an originating long run of 5 miles) over a 13 week period to be comparable to an aerobic base building schedule? I have a copy of the whole study. It was published in the American Journal of Physiology in April 2006. Here are portions Richard doesn't offer: There was a trend for an increase in absolute V˙O2 max from before to after run training (3.37 vs. 3.50 l/min; P < 0.09)="" ...="" absolute="" (2.43="" vs.="" 2.28="" l/min)="" and="" relative="" (36.0="" vs.="" 33.6="" ml/kg*min)="" consumption="" at="" a="" submaximal="" running
speed="" of="" 9.65="" km/h="" was="" lower="" (p="" />< .05) after the training program. translated: this, despite the very brief nature of the study and the low amount and intensity of training, represents an aerobic improvement. the pretest v˙o2 max values were more in line with trained
recreational runners compared with typical college-age
individuals, suggesting that their cardiovascular system
was reasonably well conditioned at the beginning of the training
program. conversely, the oxidative potential of the muscle
(citrate synthase, increase in mhc i fibers) was significantly
increased with the training program, suggesting enhanced aerobic potential. in other words, richard's claim that improvements were entirely due to his unique definition of "muscle factors" is, according to the very words of the authors, wrong. he's thus asked for evidence of his mistakes and though he's been given this hundreds of times, he can add one more glop of it. .05)="" after="" the="" training="" program.="" translated:="" this,="" despite="" the="" very="" brief="" nature="" of="" the="" study="" and="" the="" low="" amount="" and="" intensity="" of="" training,="" represents="" an="" aerobic="" improvement.="" the="" pretest="" v˙o2="" max="" values="" were="" more="" in="" line="" with="" trained
recreational="" runners="" compared="" with="" typical="" college-age
individuals,="" suggesting="" that="" their="" cardiovascular="" system
was="" reasonably="" well="" conditioned="" at="" the="" beginning="" of="" the="" training
program.="" conversely,="" the="" oxidative="" potential="" of="" the="" muscle
(citrate="" synthase,="" increase="" in="" mhc="" i="" fibers)="" was="" significantly
increased="" with="" the="" training="" program,="" suggesting="" enhanced="" aerobic="" potential.="" in="" other="" words,="" richard's="" claim="" that="" improvements="" were="" entirely="" due="" to="" his="" unique="" definition="" of="" "muscle="" factors"="" is,="" according="" to="" the="" very="" words="" of="" the="" authors,="" wrong.="" he's="" thus="" asked="" for="" evidence="" of="" his="" mistakes="" and="" though="" he's="" been="" given="" this="" hundreds="" of="" times,="" he="" can="" add="" one="" more="" glop="" of="" it.=""></ .05) after the training program. translated: this, despite the very brief nature of the study and the low amount and intensity of training, represents an aerobic improvement. the pretest v˙o2 max values were more in line with trained
recreational runners compared with typical college-age
individuals, suggesting that their cardiovascular system
was reasonably well conditioned at the beginning of the training
program. conversely, the oxidative potential of the muscle
(citrate synthase, increase in mhc i fibers) was significantly
increased with the training program, suggesting enhanced aerobic potential. in other words, richard's claim that improvements were entirely due to his unique definition of "muscle factors" is, according to the very words of the authors, wrong. he's thus asked for evidence of his mistakes and though he's been given this hundreds of times, he can add one more glop of it. >