Short Story
Coached a (I don't know how elite) competitive marathon runner. She placed 2nd in the Boston marathon. I'm under the impression this is a big deal though I could be wrong about that. She was 5/6ish 115lbs. Her squat went from 75x5x3, to a 120x3x3 in a 9 month period. She would lift 2x/week and maybe gained 5lbs. She PRd every race she did during that process and competed in the Boston later down the road, while she was strength training. She would compete every 2ish months.
yes, if they were "skinny fat". . . . but that not what the OP started this thread off with (elite marathoners).
so no, if they were just skinny super lean.
. . . I would imagine they would have to put on some muscle after a few weeks of squatting (at some in the LP process; i.e most of it).
I think everyone got confused when you insisted that cardiac output was the ultimate determinant of endurance because cardiac output is a central part of the VO2Max equation. In other words you cited cardiac output's centrality in VO2Max as evidence of it's primacy as an endurance determinant. That sorta points normal people toward the idea that you think VO2Max is, actually, the "be all and end all" of endurance. Later, you point out that several well-done studies have demonstrated that VO2Max is the best predictor of performance. But I guess you'd say "predictor" and "cause" are distinct things. In which case, we're left in puzzled anticipation regarding what you meant to imply about cardiac volume.
And you continue to either misunderstand or misapply what is being argued here. Jordan is a 725 deadlifter. He long ago eschewed any training adaptation that did not contribute to his success at the National level of powerlifting. Exactly ZERO people argue that it would be other than "questionably beneficial" for a skinny, weak endurance athlete to pursue strength acquisition beyond a productive Novice LP of a couple months' duration. The question is very definitely NOT "so I guess Jordan could beat Lance up the hill because he's stronger, right?!!?", followed by smug self-assurance that Jordan definitely would not beat Lance up the hill. The actual question for you is "what happens to a skinny, weak cyclist or runner if we take 6 weeks and double his strength?" We all get to walk through life in the meat sack we're given. Lance couldn't go back in time and become as strong as Jordan, nor could Jordan drop everything and become Lance. If you're going to be competitive in your endurance sport, does increased strength increase or decrease your chances for success hindrance going forward? Not leaping forward in time to a 700lb deadlifter's body and concluding that it's absurd to think that could make somebody a good cyclist.
So, kind sir, if you take a skinny, weak endurance athlete and add strength training to his protocol to the exclusion of all else in order to correctly run through the straightforward process of an LP, stopping when the athlete no longer meets our definition of "Novice", will he be a better, worse, or same endurance athlete than he had been previously? Does his potential change at all? Do you accept that this is what Mr. Rippetoe is actually arguing, not that a 725 deadlift makes you a good cyclist?
Maybe an interesting thought experiment: take a high-level endurance athlete and a high level (sub-Super HW) PL'er and switch sports. Train each for a year. Who gets closer to a "respectable" level* of performance in the opposite sport? Does the strength base or the aerobic engine more successfully "set the table" for broader capabilities?
*Thorny to define, I realize.
So you did not pay attention when I have repeatedly said:
Strength straining is important and will improve aerobic performance
Other factors such as lactate threshold and runny economy are also important
Got it! You didn't fucking read. Please do so.
Also (and perhaps this is where my previous posts weren't clear) I was primarily arguing against Ripp's absurd logic in the initial video he posted. If his explanation was true muscular strength would be the biggest determining factor regarding who would win the race. It's not. The biggest determining factor for endurance events is Cardiac Output (once again, this is far from the only variable). The engine that drives endurance performance is the heart, not muscular strength!
BTW, your thought experiment is tremendously flawed. Both individuals would improve their capacities in the opposite sport. However the genetic make-up of both individuals would cause them to still be terrible at the opposite sport.
Interesting that the improvement in her squat was far less than what is typically predicted by the linear progression model associated with SS. This would be even more interesting if anyone had ever said strength training wasn't important. Basically what we can conclude from this is that being able to squat one's body weight is how much muscular strength is required for success in elite endurance performance.
Second overall female in the Boston Marathon would certainly be an elite level performance.
Did her bodyweight increase over the course of training? Getting stronger without gaining bodyweight certainly should increase performance. The tradeoff between strength and increased bodyweight is one major issue. Another is whether working on strength, all else being equal, has any negative effect on endurance or speed. I'd suspect the answer to the later question is "no".
There are certainly exceptions. Alberto Salazar trains many elite level runners and he's using strength training (see the link in the OP). Mo Farah, an Olympic gold medalist, is a prominent counter-example (he's also coached by Salazar). He squats and deadlifts, albeit not heavy. Mo the Marathoner | Runner's World