Graduate Assistantships

Syracuse University

Department of Exercise Science

The Department of Exercise Science at Syracuse University is seeking Master applicants.

The School of Education offers a Master of Science in Exercise Science. This two-year M.S. degree program requires completion of 36 credits and the completion of an exit requirement that may be satisfied by writing a thesis or performing an approved internship.

Applicants need to apply at https://apply.embark.com/grad/syracuse/37/  First consideration will be given to applications received by February 1 for the fall semester. Assistantships applications can be obtained once admission has been granted. Applicants are considered for a Graduate Assistantship if they achieved at least a 3.2 GPA in their undergraduate training.

soe.syr.edu

Syracuse University is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Employer

Jill Kanaley, PhD
Professor; Interim Chair, Dept of Exercise Science
Syracuse University
820 Comstock Ave, RM 201
Syracuse, NY  13244
phone: 315-443-2114
fax: 315-443-9375

[Steven, please post a summary of any feedback that isn't sent directly to the
list--otherwise this posting amounts to an ad for your blog. -Will]

Colleagues,

We recently posted a brief article on tapering on our blog:
http://excelsiorsports.blogspot.com/2008/12/tapering.html

Several excellent reviews have been published that do a great job of summarizing
the evidence on how to strategically unload without detraining. The available
evidence on myosin heavy chain responses to loading/unloading also has some
interesting implications.I have tried to boil that down into some
straightforward guidelines, and would appreciate constructive feedback.

Regards,


Steven Plisk
Excelsior Sports •Shelton CT
www.excelsiorsports.com
Prepare To Be A Champion!

I’m looking for an outstanding link to feature on the Sportscience homepage to finish off this year’s issue.  I’ve been browsing for something without much success.  For example, I would have featured a Wikipedia page on scientific writing, but it doesn’t follow its own advice of avoiding use of the passive voice.  Similarly, a Wikipedia page on sport science has links to various sites, but not Sportscience.  I checked out several blogs, but only http://www.sportsscientists.com/ by Jonathan Dugas and Ross Tucker seems to be active and worthwhile, and I featured a link to that blog last year.

I went through this exercise three years ago and got good feedback (see http://www.sportsci.org/jour/05/inbrief.htm#Top10). Hoping for similar success this time.  I will post a summary again.

Will

Will G Hopkins, PhD FACSM
Institute of Sport and Recreation Research
AUT University, Akoranga Drive
Private Bag 92006
Auckland 0627, New Zealand
Cell +64 21 804 736
Landline +64 9 921 9793
Fax +64 9 921 9960
Skype WillTheKiwi
will@..., will.hopkins@...
Sportscience http://sportsci.org
Statistics http://newstats.org
Be creative: break rules.

Bill Gates strikes again!  My first attempt to send a formatted mail message
to this list by pasting a Word doc into Outlook was clearly unsuccessful. It
looked OK on the server, too.  I've tried sending formatted messages created
directly in Outlook, but extra line spaces get inserted somewhere between me
and the list.  Oh well, back to plain text.  Here's the message again.

I'm looking for an outstanding link to feature on the Sportscience homepage
to finish off this year's issue.  I've been browsing for something without
much success.  For example, I would have featured a Wikipedia page on
scientific writing, but it doesn't follow its own advice of avoiding use of
the passive voice.  Similarly, a Wikipedia page on sport science has links
to various sites, but not Sportscience.  I checked out several blogs, but
only http://www.sportsscientists.com/ by Jonathan Dugas and Ross Tucker
seems to be active and worthwhile, and I featured a link to that blog last
year.

I went through this exercise three years ago and got good feedback (see
http://www.sportsci.org/jour/05/inbrief.htm#Top10). Hoping for similar
success this time.  I will post a summary again.

Will
Will G Hopkins, PhD FACSM
Institute of Sport and Recreation Research
AUT University, Akoranga Drive
Private Bag 92006
Auckland 0627, New Zealand
Cell +64 21 804 736
Landline +64 9 921 9793
Fax +64 9 921 9960
Skype WillTheKiwi
will@..., will.hopkins@...
Sportscience http://sportsci.org
Statistics http://newstats.org
Be creative: break rules.

Dear Colleagues:

I am currently in the midst of a small policy debate regarding the allowance of
"non-
medical" personnel (a registered nurse or physician) to perform phlebotomy, the
placement of venous catheters and the ability to perform biopsy studies.

Currently, I have managed to clear the phlebotomy and catheter hurdle, but not
the biopsy
hurdle.

With an underlying assumption that any personnel performing these techniques
should be
adequately trained, would you mind sharing either privately or on the list your
institutions
policies regarding the performance of these laboratory techniques.

I would also be curious to know that when performing the muscle biopsy
technique, how
often are "side effects" encountered. Though I can easily anticipate soreness
and bruising,
I am more curious about the incidence/rate of infection or nerve damage.

Thanks for your time – Please feel free to respond to the list or privately.

Happy holidays,

Conrad
_________________
Conrad Earnest, PhD
Director: Exercise Biology Laboratory
Pennington Biomedical Research Center
6400 Perkins Road Baton Rouge, LA 70808-4124
Tel. (225) 763-2923
Fax: (225) 763-0905
EM. Conrad.Earnest@...

Dear Conrad,

At Massey University there is no formal policy, but the ethics committee
effectively mandates that it is OK for anyone who has attended phlebotomy
training course and is certified, and is mentored by an experienced phlebotomist
to place venous (not arterial) catheters and to take blood.

We have little problem getting ethics applications through for medics to perform
biopsies. However, allowance for non-medical personal is untested in New Zealand
far as I have been able to ascertain, but I am at the stage where I will try
within the next year, so are very interested in your outcome. It is difficult to
arrange for medics to come and take the samples - the main reason is they are
too busy.

I know of at least 5 PhDs who in UK, Canada, Australia, and USA who take their
own biopsies, and there is no evidence that the safety and outcomes are any
different to if a medic were taking the samples.

The concern and issues are competency and appropriate training and medical
supervision, and liability insurance for the day when something does go wrong.

Here is one reference summarizing risk factors.

Highstead RG, Tipton KD, Creson DL, Wolfe RR, Ferrando AA. Incidence of
associated events during the performance of invasive procedures in healthy human
volunteers. J Appl Physiol 2005;98:1202-6.

Would be grateful if you could write a summary when you are sufficiently
advanced.

With kind regards

David


David S. Rowlands PhD
Institute of Food Nutrition and Human Health
Massey University
Pvt Box 756, 63 Wallace St
Wellington 6021
New Zealand
P +64 4 801 5799 ext 6940
C 027 2099 383
H +64 4 499 0352

So far only one useful suggestion for a site to feature on the Sportscience
homepage, from Paul Montgomery (a PhD scholar at the Australian Institute of
Sport): http://Injuryupdate.com, "a good site over viewing sports injuries,
treatment and rehabilitation for a range of team sports, compiled by John
Orchard".

Louise Burke sent this reply: "My vote is very clearly for the Science of
Sport [ http://www.sportsscientists.com/, the blog by Jonathan Dugas and
Ross Tucker]. Those guys do a great job!" Agreed, but I showed the link to
their site last year.

Florian Caspari suggested a German site http://www.sportwissenschaften.info,
which looks like it could be good for German speakers, but it's hard going
in the Google translation. (If you have Google toolbar stuff installed in
Internet Explorer, right-click, Page Info/Translate into English.)

Jose Antonio put in a plug for the podcast he does with Bill Kraemer that I
featured last year: http://www.strengthpowerhour.com or
http://www.sphour.com.

Has anyone got any other suggestions?

I would feature a link to the Supertraining mailing list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining , which has about six times as
many members as this list and about ten times as many messages per unit
time, but you have to be a member of that list to view the messages on the
Web.  I asked them to change that policy some years ago, but no joy.
Anyway, it certainly is an active and useful list.  It makes me wonder
whether we should do something to encourage increases in membership and
messages on this list, or pull the plug, or are you generally happy with it?
Comments?

Will

A recent review of nutritional requirements of active people in the heat, conducted by a group of researchers at a prominent university, included the conclusion that '… there are no indications that calcium requirements are increased in the heat …'

I conducted a PubMed search for 'calcium in sweat' and found twelve relevant references from the scientific literature of the last decade or so. The references are shown at the bottom of this message.

From the references, it appears that calcium losses in sweat are variable, but generally in the range 40-70 mg/L. I have measured sweat rates exceeding 1 L/h for soldiers patrolling in hot-dry and hot-wet climates. Even higher sweat rates have been reported for endurance athletes (the highest being 3.7 L/h for Alberto Salazar during the 1984 Olympic Marathon: Armstrong, L. et al. (1986). The Physician and Sports Medicine 14(3): 73-81.

Soldiers and ultramarathon athletes who engage in vigorous physical work in hot climates, often for more than ten hours per day, could be losing hundreds of milligrams of calcium in sweat each day. Under these circumstances, I don't believe it is appropriate to conclude that '… there are no indications that calcium requirements are increased in the heat …'

What do others think about this?

Chris Forbes-Ewan

Assistant Site Manager and
Defence Scientist (Nutrition) S&T5
Defence Nutrition and Food Technology
Human Protection and Performance Division
74 George St  Scottsdale  Tasmania

Postal Address:
DSTO-Scottsdale
PO Box 147
SCOTTSDALE  Tas  7260
AUSTRALIA

Phone: Int + 61 3 6352 6607 (03 6352 6607 within Australia)
Fax:     Int + 61 3 6352 3044 (03 6352 3044 within Australia)

The opinions expressed in this message are those of the author, and should not be taken to represent the position of the Defence Science and Technology Organisation or of the Australian Department of Defence.

Relevant references found through PubMed:

Barry DW, Kohrt WM. (2007). Acute effects of 2 hours of moderate-intensity cycling on serum parathyroid hormone and calcium. Calcif Tissue Int. 80(6):359-65.

Bullen DB, O'Toole ML, Johnson KC. (1999). Calcium losses resulting from an acute bout of moderate-intensity exercise. Int J Sport Nutr. Sep;9(3):275-84.

Chinevere TD, Kenefick RW, Cheuvront SN, Lukaski HC, Sawka MN. (2008). Effect of heat acclimation on sweat minerals. Med Sci Sports Exerc. 40(5):886-91.

Kunstel K. (2005). Calcium requirements for the athlete. Curr Sports Med Rep. 4(4):203-6.

Martin BR, Davis S, Campbell WW, Weaver CM. (2007). Exercise and calcium supplementation: effects on calcium homeostasis in sportswomen. Med Sci Sports Exerc. Sep;39(9):1481-6.

Montain SJ, Cheuvront SN, Lukaski HC. (2007). Sweat mineral-element responses during 7 h of exercise-heat stress. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 17(6):574-82.

O'Toole ML, Johnson KC, Satterfield S, Bush AJ, Koo WW, Klesges RC, Applegate WB. (2000). Do sweat calcium losses affect bone mass during firefighter training? J Occup Environ Med. Nov;42(11):1054-9.

Palacios C, Wigertz K, Weaver CM. (2003). Comparison of 24 hour whole body versus patch tests for estimating body surface electrolyte losses. Int J Sport Nutr Exerc Metab. 13(4):479-88.

Petrie HJ, Stover EA, Horswill CA. (2004). Nutritional concerns for the child and adolescent competitor. Nutrition.20(7-8):620-31.

Rianon N, Feeback D, Wood R, Driscoll T, Shackelford L, LeBlanc A. (2003). Monitoring sweat calcium using skin patches. Calcif Tissue Int. 72(6):694-7.

Sawka MN, Montain SJ. (2000). Fluid and electrolyte supplementation for exercise heat stress. Am J Clin Nutr. 72(2 Suppl):564S-72S.

Shirreffs SM, Maughan RJ. (1997). Whole body sweat collection in humans: an improved method with preliminary data on electrolyte content. J Appl Physiol. Jan;82(1):336-41.

IMPORTANT: This email remains the property of the Australian Defence Organisation and is subject to the jurisdiction of section 70 of the CRIMES ACT 1914. If you have received this email in error, you are requested to contact the sender and delete the email.

Before Steven Plisk's message to the list, I got a three more replies
following my interim summary (below) about suggestions for best links for
2008.

First, the link to the injury site suggested by Paul Montgomery was wrong,
The link is http://injuryupdate.com.au , not injuryudate.com. I noticed also
that my 2007 version of Outlook includes punctuation following a link, with
the result that the link doesn't work when you click on it.  Yet another
Bill Gates effect.  I have fixed the problem in the links below by putting a
space between the link and the punctuation.

Stephen Seiler suggested  http://www.ted.com as "one of the best sites on
the web for anyone with a good brain who likes to watch and listen to others
use theirs in creative, insightful, entertaining ways". Yes, but I could
find nothing there on sport or sport science.

From François Asseman: "to my point of view the site which teaches us
biomechanics easily is: http://www.volodalen.com ."  It's a site in French
that, like the German site suggested by Florian Caspari, is hard going in
the Google translation.

Before Steven Plisk's message came in, I searched for sites for sport
science for kids, but most of the links to good sites in an article by
Chryssy Adamson at this site in 2000 are now defunct.  The link to the
Exploratorium http://www.exploratorium.edu/sports/index.html is still live,
but the site wasn't highly rated (5/10) in that article and it looks like
the content hasn't changed.

Re the links Steven provided...

The StrongKid site looks quite good, but does anyone know if Avery
Faigenbaum has a financial interest in the medicine-ball supplier or
manufacturer that you can reach eventually from the StrongKid site?  Does it
matter?

I have featured the link to the Coaches' Information Service
http://www.coachesinfo.com on at least one occasion in the past.  Maybe I
should use it again.

The Center of Excellence for Sport Science & Coach Education
http://www.sportscienceed.com doesn't have much beyond a blog of events at
the Center.  Its page of links doesn't include Sportscience.

Will

-----Original Message-----
From: Will Hopkins [mailto:will@...]
Sent: Tuesday, 16 December 2008 1:08 p.m.
To: 'Sportscience email list'
Subject: Interim summary: Need suggestions for best sport/science/other
links for 2008

So far only one useful suggestion for a site to feature on the Sportscience
homepage, from Paul Montgomery (a PhD scholar at the Australian Institute of
Sport): http://Injuryupdate.com , “a good site over viewing sports injuries,
treatment and rehabilitation for a range of team sports, compiled by John
Orchard”.

Louise Burke sent this reply: “My vote is very clearly for the Science of
Sport [ http://www.sportsscientists.com , the blog by Jonathan Dugas and
Ross Tucker]. Those guys do a great job!” Agreed, but I showed the link to
their site last year.

Florian Caspari suggested a German site http://www.sportwissenschaften.info
, which looks like it could be good for German speakers, but it’s hard going
in the Google translation. (If you have Google toolbar stuff installed in
Internet Explorer, right-click, Page Info/Translate into English…)

Jose Antonio put in a plug for the podcast he does with Bill Kraemer that I
featured last year: http://www.strengthpowerhour.com or
http://www.sphour.com .

Has anyone got any other suggestions?

I would feature a link to the Supertraining mailing list
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Supertraining , which has about six times as
many members as this list and about ten times as many messages per unit
time, but you have to be a member of that list to view the messages on the
Web.  I asked them to change that policy some years ago, but no joy.
Anyway, it certainly is an active and useful list.  It makes me wonder
whether we should do something to encourage increases in membership and
messages on this list, or pull the plug, or are you generally happy with it?
Comments?

Will

Will,

You stated "It makes me wonder whether we should do something to encourage
increases in membership and messages on this list, or pull the plug, or are you
generally happy with it?" and asked for comments.

I belong to both groups and have posted on both in the past. While there is not
as much activity/members for the Sport Science group, at times
Supertraining is just too much. It can be inundated with "opinions"
and anecdotal information that come from the uneducated and perpetuate
training practices that can be detrimental to success and risk injury. It's not
that there shouldn't be this type of interaction, but it does get a bit tiresome
seeing information that requires basic education of the lay person. I have come
to see the site as an education for the lay folks with some good advanced points
appearing every once in a while.

I would like to see more interaction on Sport Science, with an emphasis that it
is geared to sharing educational questions advancing what we know
and sharing what we have found out.

Thanks Will!

Kathryn Russell, MS, ATC, CSCS-D*, ACSM cPT
Rogers High School Sports Medicine Instructor
NSCA Washington State Director
NSCA NW Regional Coordinator
206-930-1948

Professor Louise Burke PhD APD
Head
Department of Sports Nutrition
Australian Institute of Sport
Australian Sports Commission
ph      61 2 6214 1351
fax     61 2 6214 1603
mobile  61 422 635 869
louise.burke@...
www.ausport.gov.au/ais/nutrition

Our mission – To enrich the lives of all Australians through sport

The following positions were recently posted to HigherEdJobs.com. We hope
this is helpful!
Full-Time, Term Position, Instructor or Assistant Professor-Exercise and
Sport Science
Institution: University of San Francisco
Location: San Francisco, CA
Posted: 12/15/2008
Application Due: Open Until Filled
Type: Full Time
http://www.higheredjobs.com/details.cfm?jobcode=175353420

Assistant / Associate Professor in EXSS
Institution: University of Mary Hardin-Baylor
Location: Belton, TX
Posted: 12/17/2008
Application Due: Open Until Filled
Type: Full Time
http://www.higheredjobs.com/details.cfm?jobcode=175353788
Want to receive emails when new jobs are posted? Open a FREE
HigherEdJobs.com Job Seeker account and you can sign up for customizable Job
Agents. Click here to learn more.

Hi,

I am currently doing data analysis and it has been suggested that I
look at meaningful inferences.  I have read up on this area through a
number of Will Hopkins articles and downloaded the spreadsheet
(xcontrial), that uses raw data values, rather than the p value
spreadsheet.

However, I am finding it difficult to select a value for 'the
smallest practically important change'.  Through some reading other
authors have either asked elite coaches, selected it through previous
research or used the mean divided by the between subject SD in the
pre-test.

I am looking at the difference between 4 groups (including a control
group) in the change of a number of variables over 4 days.  Variables
include peak torque, total work, DOMS and CK.

I was wondering if anyone has any information on selecting the
smallest practically important change for the variables I have
mentioned or if I should use the latter way in the previous
paragraph?  Should this value be greater than the error of
measurement?  Further to this, has anyone used this data analysis for
so many groups and time-points?

Regards
Emma Cockburn

Deciding on magnitudes that matter is something that in principle you should
have worked out when you planned your study, because even if you did your
inferences in the old-fashioned way via statistical significance, you would
still need the smallest important value of the effect to estimate the sample
size needed to ensure (with 80% certainty) that you would get p<0.05 if the
effect really did have that value.  I started with this observation in case
there is anyone out there who thinks that having to front up with the
smallest important value is somehow the Achilles heel of magnitude-based
inferences that Alan Batterham and I have promoted.

When the effect in question is change in a competitive performance time or
distance or in a measure that you can assume has a 1:1 relationship with
such competitive performance, use the approach I published with Hawley and
Burke in Med Sci Sports Exerc in 1999:  0.3 of the within-athlete typical
variation (standard deviation) from competition to competition. In the years
since 1999 I fudged the threshold a bit and opted for ~0.5 of the variation,
but last year I checked out my simulations again exhaustively and worked out
thresholds for moderate, large, very large and humungous changes in
competitive performance, and I'm afraid the outcome is that we're stuck with
0.3 for the smallest.  I say "afraid", because it means we will need
impractically large sample sizes for observed small or trivial effects to be
clear, in most studies.  The complete set of thresholds is 0.3, 0.9, 1.6,
2.5 and 4.0. I have an unpublished slide show all about it, with remarks
about contending with the sample-size problem, for anyone interested enough
to contact me about it.  The thresholds are mentioned as an unpublished
observation in  the paper on progressive stats in the January MSSE.

When the subjects are not athletes but are instead some reasonable sample of
some reasonable population of interest, use Jacob Cohen's standardization
approach. He opted for 0.20 of the between-subject SD as the smallest
important effect.   His thresholds for small, moderate and large were 0.20,
0.50 and 0.80.  I modified and extended these to 0.20, 0.60, 1.2, 2.0 and
4.0. I've slipped those into various publications, but my reasoning has
never been formally peer-reviewed.  By the way, the standard deviation
doesn't have to come from your sample.  You may have ended up with a
relatively homogeneous or heterogeneous sample relative to the population
you want your outcome to apply to, in which case you should use a value for
the SD compiled from other studies of that population.  Of course, you have
to assume and state that the effect you found in your sample will apply to
subjects in that population, even though your sample wasn't representative
of it.

You appear to be in the difficult situation of studying effects on variables
in competitive athletes (I presume) when two of the variables in question
(peak torque and total work) have an indirect relationship to competitive
performance. A 1% change in peak torque or total work would result in what
percent change in what kind of performance?  Who knows?  Perhaps you should
have asked this question before you undertook the study.  If your subjects
aren't competitive athletes, then standardization is almost certainly the
best approach.  Use standardization for DOMS and CK, too.  But here there is
another problem:  there might be no muscle soreness at all in these subjects
at baseline, and CK will be quite low too, if they aren't training hard or
getting hurt in matches.  There's no easy answer to this problem.  Perhaps
others on this list can suggest something.   I think I have encountered this
problem in the past, but I don't recall how we resolved it.  Maybe our
athletes did have a reasonable spread in DOMS and CK in the pre-test, so we
were able to use straightforward standardization.  Maybe the smallest
important value of DOMS is the value on the psychometric scale that
represents something unpleasant.  Maybe the smallest important value of CK
is the concentration that clinicians regard as an indicator of myopathy.
What do others think?

Will
Will G Hopkins, PhD FACSM
Institute of Sport and Recreation Research
AUT University, Akoranga Drive
Private Bag 92006
Auckland 0627, New Zealand
Cell +64 21 804 736
Landline +64 9 921 9793
Fax +64 9 921 9960
Skype WillTheKiwi
will@..., will.hopkins@...
Sportscience http://sportsci.org
Statistics http://newstats.org
Be creative: break rules.

Advanced Fitness Designs, Inc. has just released the latest version of
Athletemonitoring.com, a complete toolbox for sport coaches, athletic
trainers, strength conditioning specialists and sport-scientists.

With Athletemonitoring.com one can:
* Quantify training, manage training logs
* Track injuries, record injury history, identify injury trends
* Share training programs with athletes
* Monitor fitness test results as well as health indicators using
customized test batteries
* Collect athlete's feedback after competitive events
* Monitor fatigue, overreaching and prevent overtraining
* Quickly generate countless professional-looking reports, statistics,
data tables and charts in seconds

For more information about Athletemonitoring.com visit:
http://www.athletemonitoring.com . Free demo available.

François Gazzano
Moncton, NB canada

An ironman friend tells me his VO2 max is 6.0 L/min
He weighs 80 kgs and has a resting heart rate of 40/min with a peak
heart rate of 200/min.

At rest, his VO2 is under 300 ml/min, based on Brody's equation as
used here:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7623055

Lets say my friend can double his left ventricular ejection fraction
during exercise. Since he can increase his heart rate 5 fold, he is
then capable of increasing his cardiac output 10 fold.
Since the capacity for O2 transport by the blood is directly
proportional to cardiac output, that should bring his VO2 from 0.3 L
at rest to 3L per minute at VO2 max. How can I explain his measured 6
L VO2 max? What am I missing?

Regards,
Hansel de Sousa
Nazareth, PA, USA

Alright. How does Lance Armstrong manage to increase his oxygen
consumption by around 20 fold from rest to maximal exercise, when his
cardiac output only increases by a factor of 10? I'm guessing that he
must also have a substantial increase in his oxygen extraction (a-vO2
diff) in addition to the increase in cardiac output. Does this answer
Hansel de Sousa's original question? (or am I missing something).
[Hansel, I hope that this was not a laboratory question for your
undergraduate studies that you were supposed to figure out for yourself].

Let's recap on the assumptions.

His resting VO2 is under 300mL/min.
(This seems reasonable for a 74kg (Wikipedia) athlete with minimal body fat).

His max VO2 is 6000mL/min (6L/min)
His resting HR is ?? - let's say 35 /min - Can it be lower than that?
He's 37, but let's say 30 a few years ago when he was at his peak - so
we'll assume that his maximal heart-rate is 190 / min.


So, his HR increases 5.4x from rest to max.
His left ventricular ejection fraction increases also. Carl Foster has
cited some unreferenced data suggesting a liberal increase might be
60-80% - but since Lance is truely elite - lets say his lv ejection
fraction (and therefore his stroke volume) doubles.


Cardiac Output = Heart Rate x Stroke Volume
so his Cardiac Output should therefore increase 5.4 x 2 = 10.8 x from
rest to maximum.


Because:
VO2 = Cardiac Output x avO2 difference (Fick's principle)


This would suggest to me that Lance's increase in Cardiac Output (from
rest to maximal exercise) explains just over half of the increase in his
VO2. The difference in the arterial to venous oxygen content of the
blood must increase by a similar margin (just short of doubling).