Science geeks, I'm sure there is some interesting things in the report but I can't help but laugh and say, "Did we really need to do lab tests to tell us Kiphcoge was the best guy for the job or that the best indicator of someon'es marathon potential is how fast someone can run all out for an hour?"
Canadian Running summarized things as....:
Researchers found that one lone variable isn’t a good predictor for a runner’s finishing time – you need to look at all three in tandem. “When considered in isolation, V̇O2peak, O2 cost of running and lactate-related metrics were not significantly correlated with marathon performance,” they said. For example, some runners with superior VO2 maxes had poor running economy. The recorded VO2 maxes ranged from 62 (which can be seen in recreational runners) to 84 (which, for example, is the same as Lance Armstrong). Those who scored in the 60s for their VO2 max were likely the runners who proved to be the most efficient in other ways. ..
Researchers found that the best estimation for marathon performances comes from assessing a runner’s critical speed. Critical speed is essentially the fastest a runner can possibly travel for an hour.
https://journals.physiology.org/doi/abs/10.1152/japplphysiol.00647.2020?journalCode=jappl
https://runningmagazine.ca/the-scene/how-kipchoge-was-chosen-as-the-man-to-break2/
