> >>...The conclusion is that VO2 is musculature in nature--and has nothing
> to do with heart >>strengthening by making it beat more through aerobic
> exercise!...
> >>
> If this makes any sense at all, which I doubt, it is that the amount of
> exertion possible when attempting to duplicate bicycle activity with the
> untrained leg was significantly less than that with the trained leg. The
> conclusion stated is idiotic.

Quite the contrary! Your summary that an untrained leg is not capable of the
same exertion as a trained leg is exactly the point that Super-Slow is
trying to make. Their argument is that if VO2 had been raised by exercising
another part of the body then the gains in O2 processing should carry over
to the entire body. For example, if an unfit person took their times over a
1 kilometre race and a 1500 metre swim and then trained in say, running,
even if after many months they became an accomplished runner, when they
jumped back in the pool their times would show no improvements. (Or at least
nothing over statistical norms.) This is the argument by which SS adherants
claim to show that VO2 is muscular in nature. If the heart was more capable
of pumping more O2 then the O2 should be available to all of the muscles. SS
claims: "Endurance for athletics and recreational activities is primarily a
result of three factors: skill, muscular strength, and genetics."
Heart function does not come into any of these factors.

Brett