Ok -- sorry if I was out of line, let me try again, more constructively. I suggest the first thing upon hearing 3-5% is ask yourself, 3-5% of what? Very different if we talk about power, time to exhaustion, or time in a time-trial. Hard to tell, with a google translate of an article describing the study, but at first glance -- my translation says "a time drive by bicycle" -- it might seem like a time improvement in a time trial. But then later they say it translates to 1 minute in a 40 minute time trial, which is 2.5%, and not 4.7%. The second thing you should do is to ask how much the control group improved. And lastly, the reason I suggest it doesn't make sense is that a 3-5% improvement in cycling doesn't automatically suggest that the same 3-5% improvement would occur in running, as there are different factors that limit performance between the two events, not to mention the differences in running events that vary between 800m and 10000m.
3hr-marathoner wrote:
rekrunner wrote:
It doesn't make much sense to translate the findings of this study on cyclists to the best times of elite runners.
It isn't scientifically defensible, no, but the back of the envelope calculations that Sand Dunes' is doing are the first things anyone should do when hearing about a small percentage performance increase and it's interesting that the results are fast but not otherworldly. Yes, 1:38 is fast for an 800m but in the right race with the perfect pacemaker, I think Rudisha could have approached that in his prime. Same thing if you convert Ron Clarke to 26:09. That's not completely outside what Bekele or Geb could have run in their primes.