Originally Posted by TheRCF
I don't even see how "untrained" would provide a common level anyway. There are wide differences among the untrained.
Of course there are differences among the "untrained". That's why a "research study" done on ONE person would never get published. I haven't even read your study and I can practically guarantee you that it was done on average joe's and not elite athletes. Most of these studies are done at universities. Many subjects are merely undergrad's or grad's in the department who don't mind being subjected to all sorts of hideous tests for a little extra cash. They're easy to find, willing, and able. Also, whomever conducts these studies wants to get paid for them. Right? So it is to their advantage to use untrained subjects so that the results are more dramatic. That's why so many people still cite decades old Soviet studies done on elite athletes. Because there are SO FEW STUDIES DONE ON ELITE ATHLETES.
In general, the research studies are interesting reading. But don't disregard the anecdotal evidence you read on this forum. We're all guinea pigs trying out various systems and programs in search of better performance.