The Talent of Trainability: Is There Any Hope for Low-responders? - Blog post

HardLoper wrote:

SMJO wrote:

Let's hear how dismal and how great.

Doesn't remember but they were "not good!" Lowest of all the athletes under that sponsor for sure, and Olympic medalist in a distance event. That great enough for you?

Daniels used the excuse that he must be mentally tougher than the rest, and have very efficient running technique, even though I've never heard anyone point to his form as particularly good.

Of course, the point isn't that you can have a "dismal" VO2max and be good, the point is that given 1) VO2 max number vary drastically between runners at the same level, and 2) VO2 max increases drastically in high-responders, what use is knowing a VO2 max for a runner? What information can it possibly give that you can't already get from your race times?

Because you could test for it in a kid who is far from physically mature and get a sense of their raw ability.

I believe the rest of your post is what you would call hearsay.

Got a test that "proved" something and doesn't remember the number?

The dude would have a T shirt with the number on it and some slogan mentioning why it was BS.

Genetics absolutely governs physical performance. Contrary to what most people believe, once you reach physical maturity, you can come close to your genetic potential within a very short time period with ideal training. It certainly doesn't take years of training to figure out where you stand in the big scheme of things.

Genetics > training

[quote]BACON

SMJO wrote:

Because you could test for it in a kid who is far from physically mature and get a sense of their raw ability.

I believe the rest of your post is what you would call hearsay.

Got a test that "proved" something and doesn't remember the number?

The dude would have a T shirt with the number on it and some slogan mentioning why it was BS.

This is an incredibly weak argument. Please just recognize when you're wrong.

Ho Hum wrote:

This is an incredibly weak argument. Please just recognize when you're wrong.

I am told the number is dismal but nobody knows what the number was?

Please.

Besides, the guy was a steeplechaser. Talk about throwing an entirely extra efficiency factor into the mix.

So far we have exactly one documented guy with a lower number.

Hey, we can all go to the Olympics!

so why do people train for several years and keep improving? idiot

SMJO wrote:

Because you could test for it in a kid who is far from physically mature and get a sense of their raw ability.

I believe the rest of your post is what you would call hearsay.

Got a test that "proved" something and doesn't remember the number?

The dude would have a T shirt with the number on it and some slogan mentioning why it was BS.

It's "hearsay" when I heard it from THE GUY HIMSELF?!!!

Now you're grasping at straws. When VO2 max can increase by 50% on 5 months of nothing-special bike training in high responders, it shows you how worthless baseline VO2 max is. And when it varies so much between elite runners, it shows you how worthless it is in predicting current performance. You already have all the info you could ever want in training and PRs.

That's why Jack Daniels had to come up with a second variable, "running economy," which is basically "your running speed divided by your VO2," in other words, "difference between how good you are and how good your VO2 max is." And yet there's never been a good explanation for what causes people to have a good or bad running economy. Supposedly it has to do with running form, yet Salazar scored quite high and Rupp scored quite low so that doesn't do much.

"The dude" has no reason to brag about his low VO2 and no reason to remember it. That would be a desperate move for someone who is actually accomplished in the sport, even if he wasn't humble. Besides, the vast majority of coaches don't care about VO2max in the first place either, it's not like he's in some minority. He and most people recognized the worthlessness of VO2max way back then, why would he even give it a second thought now?

SMJO wrote:

I am told the number is dismal but nobody knows what the number was?

Please.

Besides, the guy was a steeplechaser. Talk about throwing an entirely extra efficiency factor into the mix.

So far we have exactly one documented guy with a lower number.

Hey, we can all go to the Olympics!

I know I'm responding to a wall here, but for others reading:

Genetics can matter, it's VO2 MAX that doesn't matter.

It's hearsay to me because you can't give me the number.

Do you have ANY opinion as to what it takes to be a good runner?

What aspects do you even train?

The reason most coaches don't care about V02 is because their job is to make you a better runner.

SMJO wrote:

Of course they are totally genetic. A person wouldn't exist if it weren't for the fact that genetics make the person.

Lol, there might be a point here but it came out sounding really stupid

SMJO wrote:

It's hearsay to me because you can't give me the number.

Use your head and speculate. It was lower than anyone else in the group, and surprised Daniels with how low it was. Is that not good enough for you? I would imagine it was in the 60s. But if the fact that it was low disproves your point, then just claim it was "hearsay," that makes sense.

Here's a fun exercise: Cam Levins has a VO2 max of 62. He has improved a ton in the last 5 years and is clearly a high responder. High responders improved 50% in five MONTHS. So what has Cam's improved from? 40? 30? Lower?

Good thing you weren't his coach.

Why would I speculate? Is that Science to you?

You are speculating about Levins as well. How do you know he's a high responder as far as his V02 improving? You have no idea if it was 58 and he's just improved in other ways.

The bottom line is that you still need a number way above average, whether you start there or end there.

Why would it be a good thing that I wasn't his coach?

beyond help wrote:

SMJO wrote:

Of course they are totally genetic. A person wouldn't exist if it weren't for the fact that genetics make the person.

Lol, there might be a point here but it came out sounding really stupid

Yes, that "point" went right over your head and was a response to a stupid point.

[quote]BACON