What is the most overrated part of training? What is most overlooked that shouldn't be?

Cross-country skiing raises VO2 max more than distance running. If you desire a higher VO2 max, why not start skiing? Your VO2 max would improve, but your race times would not. Therefore, it's not a limiting factor, it's just a by-product of training.

EP for Dummies wrote:

Cross-country skiing raises VO2 max more than distance running. If you desire a higher VO2 max, why not start skiing? Your VO2 max would improve, but your race times would not. Therefore, it's not a limiting factor, it's just a by-product of training.

If you used skiing to get your VO2 max up really high (say 80), and then went straight to running and started training for the half marathon (and could handle the weekly miles), you would have successfully removed the "limiting factor" of a *poor* VO2 max by spending all that time skiing, and if you focused on running from that point on, I'm sure you would be glad you got your VO2 max up so high from skiing, because you would start to see the fruits of that labor in your running, *after a while*, too.

fitness builds confidence wrote:

Most runners do have the genetics. People like you just want to make excuses.

Accepting that your talent is limited can lead to different responses.

Some use it as an excuse not to work hard. Others use it as a motivation to work harder. It's all up to you.

you're even dumber wrote:

try to think wrote:

Of course a measure can limit things.

No it cannot, you moron.

Your statement is a fine sample of all the idiots that flock to Jack Daniels and his ilk.

I don't follow Daniels.

Try this though. Put a measure of gas known as a gallon in your car and try to drive across the Country..

5 hour sleeper wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

The first person will break down sooner or later, and repeat injury-rehab cycles. The second person is likely to stay injury-free and steadily improve.

Consistency is underrated.

The first person is already doing more than the second guy ever will.

100 vs 50 might be an extreme example but I would be willing to bet that the guy at 100 mpw is actually averaging 60-70 (if not far less) because of how often he will constantly get injured and have weeks at 0-20 miles. 5 hours sleep a day is not enough no matter how much you run.

I spent years running over 100 mpw, working full time with varying amounts of that being on my feet and sleeping somewhere in the 5-6 hour range most days. I was never really injured. I usually had the sleep broken into a big section at night and short nap. I've never been able to go to sleep early so jobs that forced me to get up early meant short changing my sleep.

So why isn't explain why Frank Shorter

So how has Frank Shorter, with a V02 max of 71.2, got a faster marathon PR than Matt Carpenter, V02 max of 92?

HRE wrote:

I spent years running over 100 mpw, working full time with varying amounts of that being on my feet and sleeping somewhere in the 5-6 hour range most days. I was never really injured. I usually had the sleep broken into a big section at night and short nap. I've never been able to go to sleep early so jobs that forced me to get up early meant short changing my sleep.

Generalization based on a singular personal experience is highly overrated.

Superior running economy.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

HRE wrote:

I spent years running over 100 mpw, working full time with varying amounts of that being on my feet and sleeping somewhere in the 5-6 hour range most days. I was never really injured. I usually had the sleep broken into a big section at night and short nap. I've never been able to go to sleep early so jobs that forced me to get up early meant short changing my sleep.

Generalization based on a singular personal experience is highly overrated.

Not nearly as much as unsubstantiated opinions from an unverifiable source is.

I should stop neglecting to say details in my posts.

I'm not trying to say that VO2 max is the master key to becoming a great runner and that if your VO2 max is lower than someone else's, you will lose. There are so many different variables with running. VO2 max is just one of them, and each person has their own genetic ceiling with VO2 max. At some point, other things must be improved, such as lactate threshold and running economy. That Frank Shorter was faster was due to other physiological reasons. Considering how much he ran and how long he ran during his life, he was probably at his genetic ceiling for VO2 max, but trained to sustain 90% of it for a marathon (as I've heard he could do).

What I'm trying to convey is that, if your VO2 max is not at its ceiling, you're missing out on some valuable improvements (again, depending on your event).

try to think wrote:

you're dumb wrote:

No, it cannot. VO2 max is a measure, not a physical entity. A measure cannot limit anything.

V02 max is a measure of physical entities at work.

Of course a measure can limit things.

Indeed in cycling vo2 max will limit speed on a tough climb

But of course, if your VO2 max is not at its ceiling, the only way to get it there is to *train,* as we all know. So yes, VO2 max is a by-product of training. And yes, it is also a limiting factor on performance *if it is at a poor value, relative to you as a runner.* How do we remove that limiting factor? It can't be changed quickly, but through years of training. So it's not your typical "limiting factor" on performance, such as poor hydration or sleep issues, but one that must be worked on over a long period of time until it hits its ceiling.

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Randy Oldman wrote:

So why isn't explain why Frank Shorter

So how has Frank Shorter, with a V02 max of 71.2, got a faster marathon PR than Matt Carpenter, V02 max of 92?

Superior running economy.

"Running economy" is not an independent variable. If Frank had a VO2max of 92 his running economy would be way lower. Running economy is simply speed divided by VO2, and correlates negatively with VO2, implying that both values are worthless.

HRE - but don't you think the talent differential determines whether you can maintain weeks like that vs. the more average recreational runner? I know the debate you are having with others is slightly different, but the vast majority of runners, even with enough talent to run 2:4x or 2:5x marathon, would be better off running in the 50-70MPW range while strategically hitting all of the proper training stresses to progress more efficiently. Do you disagree?

HRE wrote:

Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:

Generalization based on a singular personal experience is highly overrated.

Not nearly as much as unsubstantiated opinions from an unverifiable source is.

Matt Carpenter didn't train for the Marathon.

cbenson4 wrote:

EP for Dummies wrote:

Cross-country skiing raises VO2 max more than distance running. If you desire a higher VO2 max, why not start skiing? Your VO2 max would improve, but your race times would not. Therefore, it's not a limiting factor, it's just a by-product of training.

If you used skiing to get your VO2 max up really high (say 80), and then went straight to running and started training for the half marathon (and could handle the weekly miles), you would have successfully removed the "limiting factor" of a *poor* VO2 max by spending all that time skiing, and if you focused on running from that point on, I'm sure you would be glad you got your VO2 max up so high from skiing, because you would start to see the fruits of that labor in your running, *after a while*, too.

This year's best skier on the World Cup circuit has a relatively low V02 max. Said skier was asked to give it up a few years ago because the coaches thought V02 max was *the* indicator of potential.

Just sayin'

reality check 19 wrote:

cbenson4 wrote:

If you used skiing to get your VO2 max up really high (say 80), and then went straight to running and started training for the half marathon (and could handle the weekly miles), you would have successfully removed the "limiting factor" of a *poor* VO2 max by spending all that time skiing, and if you focused on running from that point on, I'm sure you would be glad you got your VO2 max up so high from skiing, because you would start to see the fruits of that labor in your running, *after a while*, too.

This year's best skier on the World Cup circuit has a relatively low V02 max. Said skier was asked to give it up a few years ago because the coaches thought V02 max was *the* indicator of potential.

Just sayin'

What is relatively low?

relaitivity wrote:

What is relatively low?

sub 60

Perhaps the take home message is that V02 is a measure (of the ability to utilize oxygen), but it doesn't always convert to performance. Endurance, speed, and efficiency are as or more important. To this day USST is totally wrapped up in V02 max.