Define "good" all anaerobic and aerobic adaptations are the same. THe reasons why aerobic athletes look the way they do has to do with capillarization of the muscle tissue. IN order for maximal vo2 performance you need more oxygen exchanged at the cellular level. Muscle tissue is so taxing aerobically that it is better for ones performance to have less muscle tissue , since muscle consumes a ton of oxygen.
The limiting factor for gas exchange is a combination of 3 things. capillary blood volume, as well as transit time. As stroke volume increases ( hr x ejection fraction) blood transfer occurs so fast that there is no time for gas exchange to occur hence anerobic activity.
in regards to greco, be careful of the poliquin disciples. They are nutjobs.
I mean, I think looking back we might be arguing different things here!
I said Jake would run sub-45
You said that was not impressive (it is not really, nor is it a good measure of hockey specific fitness, albeit he could, if he chose, train to run and be a sub-40 guy most likely, which is a very good time)
At 220lbs Jake ofc cannot run his optimal 10km time. And he does not train to. Hence why I said sub-45 and not like... sub-40, as I am sure he would hit that sub-45 even if he does not run, I doubt sub-40.
10km times are something everyone can relate to, or most, otherwise I would have cited like Vo2 max or lactate threshold or muscle oxygen saturation (all of which are for sure a better indicator for something like hockey), but 95% of posters would have no clue about that and the level it implies. He is a damn good athlete either way!
As I said in the last post less muscle tissue=better aerobic performance!