Fascinating! Training improves VO2Max 44% in 10 weeks

You should note that the vo2max workouts were on a bike. I am also suspect that untrained people can actually push that hard.

and 44% sounds huge but what do you think the gains of 6x40mins easy would be in untrained people? 30% or so. more if they lose weight from the training.

I do wonder though if something like that is the optimal freshman XC program🤣Do it for 6 weeks and then back off to something sustainable..

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

Even if that analogy is good, that improvement over the relatively short time period is fantastic. Almost no noob improves that much in just a couple months unless they were previously well trained and returning back to running.

fisky, if you take any group of untrained people and have them do literally anything exercise related they will get better.

You could have them do jumping jacks and we would see improvement.

The low fitness level here is the elephant in the room.

I actually training this way 10+ years ago for a summer.

I ran interval one day - followed by a tempo the next day x 3 and then one day off.

It did not work.

I still ran 1:13 half marathon for a 50 year old - so not bad

but I ran 1:11 doing my normal training

reasons: too much load/ not enough recovery (not growth time)

it was a lot of hard work for no real return for a fit runner.

If I had been out of shape, it would have showed some improvement, but certainly not better than just training hard/easy and doing some base miles.

The devils is in the details on all of these studies.

Basically everyone improves that much. My kids freshman class had about a dozen kids who never ran before. They were struggling to run 10 min miles for 30 mins in July. Those same kids are running 20-23min 5ks now and the training they are doing is nowhere near that intense. Again look at any of the studies on vo2max increase. The first 20mpw gets you 20%. A half dozen vo2max workouts (5k races) gets you another 10.

the question we all want to know is if you have been doing decent training for say 3 years of say 7 hours/week, how do you increase aerobic fitness? That is tough to test in a lab…

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.

Where have you been? Coggan mentions this paper so often.

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

Magness doing Magness things. Just another influencer masquerading as a doctor.

More importantly, where has Magness been, and why write about this study now??

It might work for untrained people. Extremely out of shape runners or beginners.

In some way can't this be called similar to the Parker Valby training plan? Run hard, cross train hard and repeat.

paavo

All these studies are garbage. I find it hard to believe that someone like Steve doesn't understand that every one of these studies will always fall behind the years of accumulated training knowledge.

The process of coaching and training is a "scientific" process. You are adjusting variables and methods and analyzing your results. Exercise science is a joke and all of these science-based influencers are grifters. Laugh at these clowns promoting V02 max like it matters, when most actual runners understand how irrelevant it is and that it's mostly genetic.

You should probably click on the link and read the third paragraph.

This is the quote you're referring to, it's wrong... It is the scientists fault, they should know their studies are garbage.

What is so fascinating about this study?

As several people have mentioned here, the study was conducted many years ago with sedentary individuals, not with trained athletes, college athletes, or elite athletes.
The concept of VO2 max is just one indicator that, in practice, has very little to do with competition results.

Many years ago, (1999) during a coaches' conference in Caceres, Spain, Hicham El Guerrouj's coach, Abdelkader Kada, said that El Guerrouj's VO2 Max was 82 and that of his other athlete, Salah Hissou (5000 m_12:50.80/10,000_26:38.08 WR in 1996) was between 84-86. But beyond that, it did not increase any further.
“But you shouldn't obsess over that value.” He said that he had known athletes with a lower VO2 value who outperform others with a higher value.

I was referring to the fact that you didn't understand that Steve DOES understand that this study doesn't take the place of good training.

"There’s just one problem with this study? The results obtained were true. Improvement was massive. But the everyone was just surviving…"

I never said anything about this... You have zero reading comprehension skills.