Originally posted by Ion Beza
Focus on the data that I am talking about here:
"...it's my theory based on empirical data that approaches but not quite touches my claim...".
A theory requires definite, testable claims. Every time we point out a flaw, you add more qualifications to your theory. Maybe it would help if you pointed out:
- what does your theory predict
- what would you need to see, in order for the theory to be wrong
(If you say, "some late-bloomer who did not swim as a teenager", then your theory is still wrong. You state that VO2Max is the key for swimming. It should be modified to "VO2Max is the key for swimming for late-bloomers who did not swim as teenagers.)
Let's take your "facts" in order:
the window for best aerobic development in one's life is 13-19 for boys
You (or someone else?) keep mentioning some British study. Please point out where it is, so I can look at the source material. And do not reference newspapers or magazines, I'm talking about the original paper.
the three more cardio-vascular sports are in order -from highest down-, cross country skiing, swimming, marathon running
What kind of a fact is this? If you are saying that they are the "most" cardio-vascular, I disagree about it being a fact. If you are saying that they are "more" cardio-vascular than most sports, why bother ranking the list?
swimmers at the Olympic level, even sprinters, do overdistance training for developing their cardiovascular shape
Swimmers at the Olympic level also have much better technique than your average swimmer. They are not looking for TI-style changes, because they are already swimming that way.
the percentage that one gets from VO2Max in a sport is sports specific, with such an example as one triathlete being able to score in VO2Max 75 when running -thus physiologically running well- and 52 when swimming -and physiologically couldn't swim equally well-
This is not a fact either. I can believe that there is a low correlation between swimming and running, since they are very different motions. But I know of a swimmer in college, who only swam once or twice a week (weightlifted the other days), and had NCAA qualifying times. So I can think of an example of underdistance (for lack of a better word) and cross-training benefits.
Again, if you will point out specific source material, I can see if the claims are exaggerated or not. None of these "facts" prove that VO2Max is the key to swimming.
Originally posted by Ion Beza
Focus on the data that I am talking about here:
"...it's my theory based on empirical data that approaches but not quite touches my claim...".
A theory requires definite, testable claims. Every time we point out a flaw, you add more qualifications to your theory. Maybe it would help if you pointed out:
- what does your theory predict
- what would you need to see, in order for the theory to be wrong
(If you say, "some late-bloomer who did not swim as a teenager", then your theory is still wrong. You state that VO2Max is the key for swimming. It should be modified to "VO2Max is the key for swimming for late-bloomers who did not swim as teenagers.)
Let's take your "facts" in order:
the window for best aerobic development in one's life is 13-19 for boys
You (or someone else?) keep mentioning some British study. Please point out where it is, so I can look at the source material. And do not reference newspapers or magazines, I'm talking about the original paper.
the three more cardio-vascular sports are in order -from highest down-, cross country skiing, swimming, marathon running
What kind of a fact is this? If you are saying that they are the "most" cardio-vascular, I disagree about it being a fact. If you are saying that they are "more" cardio-vascular than most sports, why bother ranking the list?
swimmers at the Olympic level, even sprinters, do overdistance training for developing their cardiovascular shape
Swimmers at the Olympic level also have much better technique than your average swimmer. They are not looking for TI-style changes, because they are already swimming that way.
the percentage that one gets from VO2Max in a sport is sports specific, with such an example as one triathlete being able to score in VO2Max 75 when running -thus physiologically running well- and 52 when swimming -and physiologically couldn't swim equally well-
This is not a fact either. I can believe that there is a low correlation between swimming and running, since they are very different motions. But I know of a swimmer in college, who only swam once or twice a week (weightlifted the other days), and had NCAA qualifying times. So I can think of an example of underdistance (for lack of a better word) and cross-training benefits.
Again, if you will point out specific source material, I can see if the claims are exaggerated or not. None of these "facts" prove that VO2Max is the key to swimming.
