In Reply To:
apparantly I am speaking a different language to both you and tc, because I already said I agree......3 times now.....that being said V02max is not a measure of speed!
Well if you're so correct, please explain away my scenario above where we decide to run-test Michael Phelps with a 5k run with no run training, and he clocks a 21:00 5k despite his obvious world-class VO2 per swimming results?
Your efforts to misdirect the relevant conversation above the obvious point we're making that SPORT-SPEFIC TRAINING IS CRUCIAL REGARDLESS OF VO2 are really painful to watch.
If the world worked as you claim, runners would jump in the pool and start ripping off 1:05s with no swim training, and swimmers would run 34:00 10ks with no mileage in their legs. I'd love to live in your world, but it's not a real one.
Michael Phelps should be able to beat me in a 5k - if he run trained. But I doubt he can go 17:50 with no training. I happen to know two local triguys who nearly qualified for the Olympics in swimming, and as I mentioned before - they're not catching me any time soon on the run, and they've been at it awhile. (WOW they can swim though!)
And because you brought it up - a 2:59 for Lance is NOTHING compared to his world-class performance as a cyclist. I've run sub-3, and I couldn't even hang with the slowest guy in a semi-pro US tour, let alone a world international tour. Even his 2:40 is way too slow to be considered anywhere remotely close to his accomplishments on the bike. Which further proves the point that sport specific training is crucial.
And to add to the endless bad information you've posted on this forum - a marathon is NOT a heavily VO2 dependent race. VO2-dependent races are 5k distance length races. Marathons are not run anywhere near that pace. To say his 2:59 was due mainly to his VO2 is also hugely incorrect.
I'm done arguing these obvious points with you - I'm obviously not going to convince you. But fortunately, nobody else is buying your false info as well, it seems.