Dennis Kimetto - what are we Westerners still missing about Kenyan Marathoners?

Stephen Michael James Ovett. wrote:

his [Daniels] "f'cking running formula" ( as Malmo calls it).

Huh? I don't recall saying that.

Stephen Michael James Ovett. wrote:

Sure you did. Many physiologists disagree with Daniels. Did I say he didn't have a clue? No I didn't. That's all you and your vendetta.

Isn't he a bit heavy on the V02 work in his "f'cking running formula" ( as Malmo calls it) though? Why would that be?

I own up to everything I say and stand by it.

You should try that instead of just attacking people and offering nothing.

My straw men are attacking arguments that are built with straw bales.

If you really believe genetics and V02 max do not matter get out there and prove it.

Or tell us how you think it works.

You're the one with strawman arguments. No one here is saying genetics doesn't matter. They are simply saying that VO2max has been proven scientifically that there is no correlation between VO2mx and performance. Vo2max, like hair color, varies.

=======================================

RUNNING PREDICTS RUNNING BETTER THAN PHYSIOLOGY

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.

Marathon runners (N = 20) and ultra-marathoners (N = 23) were tested for VO2max, peak treadmill running velocity, velocity at lactate turnpoint, and VO2 at 16 km/h using an incremental (1 min) treadmill test.

Results. Race times at 10, 21.1, and 42.2 km of the specialist marathoners were faster than those of the ultra-marathoners, however, only the 10 km time differed significantly. Lactate turnpoint occurred at 77.4% of VO2max and at 74.7% of peak treadmill velocity. The average VO2 at 16 km/h was 51.2 ml/kg/min which represented 78.5% of VO2max.

For all distances, performance time in other races was the best predictor of performance (r = .95 to .98).

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).

Conclusion. There may be no unique physiological characteristics that distinguish elite long-distance (10 km or longer) runners as is often promoted. Other factors determine success in high level sports among exclusive groups of superior athletes.

Implication. Running performance is the best predictor of running capability in elite long-distance runners. Physiological laboratory testing gives less information than does actual performance. Even the fastest speed of running on the treadmill is a better predictor than any physiological measure. This suggests that for at least endurance-dominated sports, actual performances in a variety of performance-specific situations will give more useful information than that which can be obtained in any physiology laboratory test.

More on VO2 Max

Imagine what an updated list would look like with the current champions and record holders?

They would probably all be below 60.

None of them have a low VO2 max, because VO2 max is still a byproduct of training. If you were to control for training volume, you would likely see the weak link between VO2 max and race times disappear. You would also probably see an inverse relationship between VO2 max and "running economy," even though those two are supposed to be independent according to the whole hypothesis.

Gene Summons wrote:

Imagine what an updated list would look like with the current champions and record holders?

They would probably all be below 60.[/quote]

More bales of straw. Tons of it.

If current champions and world recordholders were listed the order of their Vo2max results would be just as random.

The only thing that Vo2max results show is that as a generalization faster runners have higher values than slow runners, and that slow runners will have higher values than untrained sedentary individuals. But among like performing athletes, VO2max values will vary wildly -- up to 15-20 percent.

HardLoper wrote:

None of them have a low VO2 max, because VO2 max is still a byproduct of training. If you were to control for training volume, you would likely see the weak link between VO2 max and race times disappear. .

On what facts are this hypothesis based from?

malmo wrote:

[quote]Stephen Michael James Ovett. wrote:

his [Daniels] "f'cking running formula" ( as Malmo calls it).

Huh? I don't recall saying that.

[quote]

You certainly did. A number of years ago when people were dismissing your old school training and going on about Daniels this and Daniels that.

They should test V02 in real world situations. In races. There has to be a way.

malmo wrote:

HardLoper wrote:

None of them have a low VO2 max, because VO2 max is still a byproduct of training. If you were to control for training volume, you would likely see the weak link between VO2 max and race times disappear. .

On what facts are this hypothesis based from?

I am saying VO2 max does not predict running potential, and that once you control for the variables we already know affect with running - training, BMI, etc, you probably wouldn't see any real correlation between VO2 max and race times.

According to the HERITAGE study (mentioned earlier in the thread), the average person raised VO2 max 20% based on a 60-day one-size-fits-all bike routine. So, I would imagine an elite marathoner's schedule would raise it a lot more than 20% and that is why those marathoners in the 65-85, if sedentary, would probably fall around the same range as the average sedentary person.

They are just superior.No mystery here.Much like Motown was superior to

all others.

Has anyone ever seen a white man built like Kimetto? No, thats because Kenyans are built differently. This is a major part of the difference.

Please don't point to a skinny white runner and tell me they are built the same

malmo wrote:

Gene Summons wrote:

Imagine what an updated list would look like with the current champions and record holders?

They would probably all be below 60.

More bales of straw. Tons of it.

If current champions and world recordholders were listed the order of their Vo2max results would be just as random.

The only thing that Vo2max results show is that as a generalization faster runners have higher values than slow runners, and that slow runners will have higher values than untrained sedentary individuals. But among like performing athletes, VO2max values will vary wildly -- up to 15-20 percent.[/quote]

Nobody is saying they correlate exactly to race times.

I'd still like to see the numbers for El G, Komen, Geb and Bekele never mind all the sub 2:05 guys.

And also know when the tests were done and how up for the tests the athletes actually were.

Gene Summons wrote:

I'd still like to see the numbers for El G, Komen, Geb and Bekele never mind all the sub 2:05 guys.

Why? The data that's already there is pretty sufficient.

HardLoper wrote:

and that is why those marathoners in the 65-85, if sedentary, would probably fall around the same range as the average sedentary person.

Gunder Hagg was tested 17 years after he had last trained and he was still at an exceptionally high level. Far above a sedentary person.

They need to tests on some of those kids who do no training and crush everyone in the 1500 on track day.

We never hear about tests done with people like that before they start training.

Is there any reason a person can't just be born with an inherent 80?

HardLoper wrote:

Gene Summons wrote:

I'd still like to see the numbers for El G, Komen, Geb and Bekele never mind all the sub 2:05 guys.

Why? The data that's already there is pretty sufficient.

So you don't want to know if the guys that are light years faster than those listed might have higher numbers?

Stephen Michael James Ovett wrote:

You certainly did. A number of years ago when people were dismissing your old school training and going on about Daniels this and Daniels that.

They should test V02 in real world situations. In races. There has to be a way.

Alright. You're a little bit nutty... Test VO2max in races? In a marathon? 10000 meters? How do you determine VO2max at those speeds?? Why? and most important, for what reason?

Seriously, you have this strange fetish for VO2max? Why?

Why not heartrate? or stroke volume? or OBLA, deflection point and slope? All of these are merely fun ways of taking a snapshot of humans in the midst of extreme aerobic exercise, but none of them matter. The only thing that matters are the ordinal rankings of times and/or places in race conditions.

jujuman wrote:

Has anyone ever seen a white man built like Kimetto? No, thats because Kenyans are built differently. This is a major part of the difference.

Please don't point to a skinny white runner and tell me they are built the same

Spot on. Its not the whole explanation but you don't see any white runners built like the Kenyans. And they all look that way.

When the Kenyans first started dominated the US roads in early 1990's I never saw a group of runners that looked like that. Very thin and long legs, but not skinny. Small muscles and large quads that narrowed down to minuscule lower legs.

Built for power and efficiency.

Gene Summons wrote:

Nobody is saying they correlate exactly to race times.

.

But the study clearly shows that there is NO correlation between VO2max and performace. What don't you understand about that?

George Atlas wrote:

Spot on. Its not the whole explanation but you don't see any white runners built like the Kenyans. And they all look that way.

When the Kenyans first started dominated the US roads in early 1990's I never saw a group of runners that looked like that. Very thin and long legs, but not skinny. Small muscles and large quads that narrowed down to minuscule lower legs.

Built for power and efficiency.

Only Mark Nenow and Carlos Lopes come to mind. That's it.

malmo wrote:

Stephen Michael James Ovett wrote:

You certainly did. A number of years ago when people were dismissing your old school training and going on about Daniels this and Daniels that.

They should test V02 in real world situations. In races. There has to be a way.

Alright. You're a little bit nutty... Test VO2max in races? In a marathon? 10000 meters? How do you determine VO2max at those speeds?? Why? and most important, for what reason?

Seriously, you have this strange fetish for VO2max? Why?

Why not heartrate? or stroke volume? or OBLA, deflection point and slope? All of these are merely fun ways of taking a snapshot of humans in the midst of extreme aerobic exercise, but none of them matter. The only thing that matters are the ordinal rankings of times and/or places in race conditions.

I'm actually more about efficiency.

Who wouldn't want to know what goes on in a race?

Because they are fun ways of taking a snapshot. Exactly.

If they didn't matter we wouldn't try to focus our training on the areas we think matter the most.

Why does SOM work 10x better for me than JDFRF? What happens in SOM that doesn't in JDFRF?

Does THAT matter?

Stephen MIchael James Ovett wrote:

I'm actually more about efficiency.

Who wouldn't want to know what goes on in a race?

Because they are fun ways of taking a snapshot. Exactly.

If they didn't matter we wouldn't try to focus our training on the areas we think matter the most.

Why does SOM work 10x better for me than JDFRF? What happens in SOM that doesn't in JDFRF?

Does THAT matter?

Well then, efficiency isn't VO2max is it? So if you were really talking about efficiency, aka running economy, then why were you talking about efficiency in the first place?

You are really a scatterplot of incoherent ideas. Who said that SOM "works 10x better" than JDFRF (whatever that is?)