This is going to amaze everyone still hanging around, but Richard is lying again.
Sure, in his "article" he provided the same numbers concerning aerobic factors that I did, but he downplayed and misrepresented their meaning. And in his latest post, he conveniently omitted the part of the study discussion I already quoted that highlights just how blatant a liar he is.
His words:
There were few changes in the runners' aerobic capacity. Oxidative enzyme activity (citrate synthase activity), which is a measure of the muscles ability to produce energy aerobically, increased by 37%. Interestingly, despite the increase ability of the muscles to produce energy aerobically there was no change in VO2max (49.5 vs. 52 ml/kg/min). There was a trend for an increase in absolute VO2 from 3.37 l/min to 3.5 l/min, but the change was not large enough to be significant. Running economy improved at the submaximal running speed of 9.65 km/hr (similar to training & marathon pace), with an absolute decrease in oxygen consumption of 2.43 vs 2.28 l/min and relative oxygen consumption decreasing from 36.0 to 33.6 ml/kg/min.What Richard doesn't say is that a decrease in oxygen consumption represents an
improvement in aerobic capacity, just as the authors wrote in the abstract: "
Oxygen uptake during submaximal running and citrate synthase activity were improved (P < 0.05) with the training program."
Also from the study discussion:
The lower submaximal oxygen uptake combined with the small increase in VO2 max resulted in a decline in fractional utilization (73% before training compared with 66% after training)...A "decline in fractional utilization" reflects increased efficiency, or economy. The joggers were able to maintain the same pace while using less oxygen. Richard claimed somewhere in this ugly thread that the observed improvement in economy was also not attributable to aerobic factors, so you can add that to his cache of fibs, but I don't feel like hunting down his exact words.
Anyway, Richard again:
What the results of this study shows, then, is that the physiological changes that occurred in these subjects that enabled them to run a marathon took place in the muscles, not in the cardiovascular system.The authors:
The pretest V˙O2 max values were more in line with trained recreational runners compared with typical college-age individuals, suggesting that their cardiovascular system was reasonably well conditioned at the beginning of the training program. Conversely, the oxidative potential of the muscle (citrate synthase, increase in MHC I fibers) was significantly increased with the training program, suggesting enhanced aerobic potential.See that, folks? Enhanced aerobic potential. Once more:
Richard claims that a study in which the authors specifically note improved oxygen uptake in their subjects did not demonstrate that subjects showed improved cardiovascular conditioning. He's like a man who says you can move more food from your mouth to your stomach without increasing the flux of food through your throat, that any subsequent increase in gastric volume is driven entirely by "belly factors. He emphasizes the lack of
statistically significant change in VO2 Max (and after sixteen whole weeks of jogging a few times a week, well gee, I can't imagine why the change in these runners wasn't greater) but avoids mentioning other, more important parameters related to oxygen transport. Luckily the authors were not so slimy, irresponsible, and brick-stupid.
But this is a comparatively minor semantic point. The study was not large enough in numbers (N = 7), long enough in duration, or inclusive of a sufficient training load to be of relevance to competitive runners at any level. Richard will whine that anyone voicing such complaints about "the study" so should take them up with the authors, but the authors aren't the ones misrepresenting their work. Richard is, and this is about the hundredth time I know of he's done the same thing, because he believes was put on this earth to be a lying idiot devoid of any and all accopmplishments as both an athete and advisor -- the anti-Messiah of running.
Stepping back a little, look at it this way: If Richard's idea were correct -- that distance-running performance is all about leg-muscle power -- then distance runners would train primarily or even exclusively by doing squats, leg presses, leg curls, and the like, and wouldn't bother with all of that silly aerobic conditioning (i.e., running).
Incidentally, I visited his running forum and literally laughed out loud at
this[/URL" target="_blank">. Someone named "runnerman," who I assume posts here under a different name, quoted Richard knocking Arthur Lydiard. Richard tried to weasel out of that one by pointing out that he said it on his own site, not in a message-board thread. Pure (fool's) gold!
Richard is and evidently always will be a lying, ignorant clown. On the whole, he's easily the most worthless contributor to any running message board I've ever seen, and that includes every zit-popping, testosterone-intoxicated troll on letsrun.com. One thing the world doesn't need is more dumb, noisy liars. To those who think I'm being to hard on him, well, I'll stop when he stops lying.
