Steve gets at it in his post, but its important to realize just how bad these people were at baseline. They effectively improve from ~31 min 5k shape to ~21 min 5k shape. Its basically what happens with every kid whose parents make them get off the couch and join cross country
I wish there were numbers for the distance in the 40 min test. In my post on this, I noted that the average pace for the 40min run went from 7:24 to 5:54/mi, but that is coming from Alec, and I don't know where he got those numbers (I just downloaded the paper from Sci-Hub, maybe there are attachments or individualized results rather than grouped results in the journal article). They seem aggressive given the recorded Vo2 #s.
But 31min 5k also seems unreasonable on the low end. If you assume 40 -> 50 Vo2Max, it's reasonable to expect that the group of 8's average (which included a female) went from a ~24min 5k to a ~18:30 5k. And while 24 isn't great, it's a world different than 31.
Recently heard of the paper Linear increase in aerobic power induced by a strenuous program of endurance exercise from Alec Blenis, who has managed to run some respectable times despite not being weak.The paper is pure comedy...
A youngster who is taking 31 mins to run a 5k, must be in very bad shape. Of course they can improve, but I doubt such an individual would be running 21 mins after just 4 weeks. The VO2max intervals are on the bike, so not even running specific training.
Of course they are in bad shape. They have zero running experience. And we are talking about 10weeks not 4.
Pretty sure the study was measuring vo2 on the bike but I haven’t read that study in a couple decades… And in all these studies you wish they tracked body weight. People weren’t as big of fatties back then but it is pretty easy to drop 5kg when you start an endurance program for an easy vo2max gain
They did track body weight. In the 1977 paper, here they were (subject, age, sex, height in cm, weight in kg before, weight in kg after):
A 29 M 193.7 100.0 90.9 B 42 M 187.3 78.2 78.2 C 33 M 186.1 75.5 74.5 D 20 M 185.4 103.2 99.1 E 30 M 182.9 86.8 85.7 F 33 M 177.8 62.7 61.8 G 40 M 177.8 73.6 72.7 H 25 F 165.1 53.6 55.0
My mistake then. I must have misunderstood when you said "Steve doesn't understand"
I don't understand why Steve would value exercise science in the slightest, when actual coaches and athletes are the ones who are properly studying the sport. I find it hard to believe someone who has trained and coached for as long as he did, to find any value in these garbage studies. (to the extent that he doesn't completely denounce them).
This post was edited 49 seconds after it was posted.