Yes but still the question remains: why somebody with the same VO2max is running faster then the other. The are several factors which cause the difference in speed at VO2max. Running Economy can be one. So you have to think about energy costs. The BK model tries to give an answer.
Dick, i’d just like to say the production on this video is great. Whether you agree or disagree with the model presented the footage is nice for explaining biomechanics to developing coaches. A worthwhile and useful project.
The person with the highest speed will win, in my opinion, regardless of a VO2max value. That’s not to say that the latter isn’t important, but perhaps the attainment and maintenance of a higher speed will drive the “aerobic capacity” to a higher level anyway (up to a person’s potential, that is). The latter’s development will keep allowing advancement beyond a VO2max plateau at any intensity level. Consequently, it will also dictate the levels of running economy at the desired pace rather than the other way round, I reckon. What do you think?
It’s a good study indeed, but we must remember that it’s a treadmill running study and running is quite different compared to over ground running. For example if the runner runs the same speed as the belt rolls, there’s no horizontal breaking force! Also in that study they measured only vertical force, - not horizontal ones. Keller et al noticed among recreational runners (I know, no athletes …) vertical force plateau at 50-60% intensity on over ground running. In our own study with endurance athletes (I know, no sprinters…), we found same vertical force plateau at 70% intensity on over ground running. Thereafter their capability to increase horizontal propulsive force determined the increase in running velocity.
Keller et al., Clin. Biomech. 5, 253-259, 1996
Keränen and Nummela. Int C on Strength Training, Odence Danmark 18-21 Oct 2006.
Why somebody with the same VO2max is running faster then the other? VO2max is as important for sprint speed as the size of the gas tank is for the maximum speed of a racing car.
The benefit from better VO2max is general fitness that might increase your capability of dealing with higher training volumes and recovery. But direct impact for sprint speed = zero.
Studies that cover speeds from 10 to 20 km/h might be great for weekend joggers, but do not deal with sprinting - even a high level 5k runner runs his race faster than 20 km/h.
What ist the constant in running faster and faster? 1. The point of GC is closer to the vertical line from center of gravity to the ground (1a. so the CG will be higher above the ground - as long as you don’t bend your knees too much during GC 
), 2. the time for GC is shorter, so 3. more force needs to be applied in shorter time.
So the answer to the question: ‘Why somebody with the same VO2max is running faster then the other?’ is: because he is capable of applying more force in shorter time.
What makes an athlete capable of applying more force to the ground in shorter time? Various factors: His ‘fast’ CNS, technique, his strenght, relaxation,…the list is endless and useless as long as it’s not just seen as various aspects which are to be adressed by general and specific training.
AUT_71,
as I understand it, Dick talks about distance runners anyway… If not, my last post does not refer to sprinters, obviously!
hello tapsa, thank you for your contribution
could you please expand on your contribution:
“if the runner runs the same speed as the belt rolls, there’s no horizontal breaking force”
is this allways true? for example the situation in which the subjects lands ahead of the vertical projection of his center of mass? What about collision forces, even if landing is directly under COM?
I agree with you that outdoor sprinting is different from treadmill sprinting, for example due to air resistance. The braking forces due to air resistance should be counteracted with greater horizontal impulses.
You stated that in (endurance athletes) vertical forces seem to plateau. Are you noting maximum force levels or vertical impulses (F*t integrated over time)?
thanx
stefan
Earlier in this thread things were mixed up and I think one reason might be that in the book itself things are mixed up, too. There is a lot of talk in this book (and still in this thread, too) about sprinting, top speed, starts and things that concern sprint speed development. So I just got a little impatient as I found that Peek and Cloppenburgs contributions might just get a quite simple issue over-complicated and lead to justification of questionable suggestions for training methods. Just my personal opinion.
But I wasn’t directly adressing your post, Nick - sorry, if there was any misunderstandig.
To AUT 71
The list is not endless and surely not useless. Every factor for me as a trainer has to be releated with trainable aspects. All theory is nice to know, but in practice i have to improve my athlete. My remark of running economy had only to do with constant high speed running. And as i said its one of factors on the important list of factors that makes a top runner.
The book makes a clear distinction between low speed running, constant high speed running and sprint. But maybe the Dutch version of the book is better!!!
The DVD makes that clear distinction also.
AUT_71, I got your point from your earlier post, no misunderstanding. I guess I was just clarifying my post, too.
Dick, what do you mean by constant high speed running? What events does this apply to?
One out-of-topic question:
What is vVO2max (velocity @VO2max) with recreational runners, 5ks, sprinters, soccer players? Any data on this?
What about vLT (velocity @ lactate threshold, if such thing exist anyway)
Why I ask? Because I would love to compare the volocities @VO2max and LT with tempo velocities we do (100m/18sec = 5,5m/s about 20km/h).
This is like marathon pace for elites, right? (42km / 2h = 20km/h)
afaik good "non-athletes: below 40: bad, above 40, good, good soccer players are around 60, elite marathon runners and “Tour de France cyclists” reach 80-90 (with a few exceptions slightly above 90) and race horses (I’m talking about the actual animals) up to 170-180
(all mL/min/kg)
Endurance runners of all levels vary greatly in VO2max, v@VO2max and v@LT (and/or as %VO2max), as you’d imagine, with the highest VO2max values usually observed in middle distance runners (not marathoners, I mean). The Premiership players I’ve measured (two teams) varied anywhere from mid 50s to mid 60s. I am sure the values for these guys vary as well.
My point and guess is that you won’t be able to figure out a “definite” conclusion from protocol and equipment variations by investigators’ preferences alone. Group data are just that and tell you very little about success on an individual level in my opinion.
Can you provide the speed at which they show VO2max in the tests you did? Can you post it in soccer thread so we don’t detract from the theme of this thread?
-
The data don’t belong to me, as I was just working for the university providing feedback -or trying to under the circumstances (see 2). In other words, I don’t have them! What I posted is what I clearly remember, but nothing beyond that.
-
In any case, the protocol was such that speed was maintained constant after a certain stage and inclination was increased. They still use they same protocol independently of athletes/sports and I have no idea why. It goes back to some of my points though.
Sorry for not helping!
Nikoluski,
The books refers to slow speed as we call about 75% of AD (anaerobic level) speed.
And to high speed above, between AD level and vVO2max. So a constant high speed you can hold for several minutes. The reason why they made that distinction has more to do with the behaviour of muscles. They explain that in the muscles circle in chapter 6.2 . Do you have the book?
Thanks for explaining this. No, I haven’t got the book unfortunately and that’s why I wanted to clarify what you meant by that term and to what kind of durations/distances you were referring to. I think I now understand what you are saying and therefore, my post at the top of the last page still remains. I hope I can check the book soon!
I think the aerobic basis and a higher VLT is one of the factors that drive high constant speed above the vVO2max. I clearly say one. There are more :good development of strength, running economy, anaerobic training etc.
Above VLT lactate will be generated in the muscles. So when VLT is higher lactate at higher speeds will be less then when VLT is lower. In the Netherlands top trainers spend a lot of time in development of aerobic basis. So i dont think that higher speed drives the aerobic basis, but aerobic basis (high VLT) drives the high speed.
I understand what you are saying, Dick! Thanks for your feedback! I don’t disagree with any low intensities. They are all pieces of the puzzle, which hopefully make a good whole. You (as a country) have had some great success with cyclists in the Netherlands adopting a similar approach, from what I understand.
My view is that the concept of a (dynamic) balance in lactate is overrated training-wise (not physiologically, of course), that’s all. I’ve seen great improvements in runners (10K to marathon) even after ignoring this index. If there was one person, who didn’t want to see this, that would be me, believe me! At this specific point we agree to disagree, I guess. 
What is it you disagree with from the last post by Dick Lam? Wouldn’t what he is saying fit with what I’ve been saying about low intensity tempo’s relationship with sprint speed?