Quote Originally Posted by Mike T View Post
No goal post moving, it is just that I thought Paula's results were very interesting - unfortunately we do not have physiological figures for her before she started running. 25 miles per week is pretty tame, though she may of course have been doing a lot of interval work.

The range Noakes gives for VO2 max improvement with training is 5 to 15% - but do you need a reasonable degree of fitness to express your true VO2 max, and almost all sedentary people who start running lose weight.
I have a big problem with what is being stated here. Often when claims are made about how much mileage an athlete is doing it is out of all proportion to reality. 25 mpw - 120mpw, really? Is that one week selected from 52, and is that the highest week? Or is it an average taken over the year( She was injured and sick quite a lot). And what period of training or racing was she tested for V02 max?

Then there are the actual V02max claims. Some time ago when we were discussing Radcliffe on the forum Dominion said Radcliffe's V02max was over 80. Now you're saying it was low 70s. I've noticed it with other athletes as well, one chart states Greg Lemond had a V02 of 95 another 92.5. What is it or are some just making things up to sound better than they are?

To be blunt a lot of V02 maxes given aren't correct and if they aren't the other data based on them is also incorrect. The scientist taking the reading has to be very competent during the V02 test to get a correct reading. A little bit slack with the speed of the treadmill and the data is skewed.

I'm very sceptical of the reasons given for Radcliffe's improvement Mike-T. Of course if she did lose more fat during her high mileage years then of course her efficiency could increase. Whether that was really what made Radcliffe faster or whether - with what we know about professional athletes - there was some other cause I don't think we can be sure.

One last thing Mike-T when you make claims about V02 are you always basing it on ml/kg/min?