Question on VO2 during 800m Race for Jtupper.

I am a great believer in base development through higher mileage, but I tend to agree about emphasizing speed/economy during the first year, as well as VO2max development. According to Seiler's Ex Phys. site, VO2max tends to improve the first year, then level off; AT improves a few years, then levels off; and then economy continues to improve over a longer term. Does this match your understanding as well? Also, can't economy be improved by racing and training at race pace, as it would seem that learning to relax at race pace would improve economy? It seems all you ever read about is speed/plyos/etc. improving economy.

Rick wrote:

j-

I just wanted to say THANK YOU for taking the time to come on here and provide insight.

I second that Rick. We all appreciate what you are doing, JTD.

Definitely learning to relax at race pace is a major factor. Some runners relax more when leading -- Cruz for example (low max but great economy especially at faster speeds -- as did all the guys DeOlivera coached). Other runners fare better sitting back and drafting. If you are uncomfortable behind someone, that may lead to poorer economy and you may as well run in front. Naturally a wind makes it a different story.

What was Cruz's max?

As I remember subjects' informed consent includes a part about not being identified with specific results. The average max of the many elite men I have tested is in the upper 70s, with a range of mid 60s to mid 80s. Realize that good economy can combine with low-end max to generate a very good vVO2max and I have seen low-end max guys in the Olympics (even winning Gold) and running sub-2:10 at Boston Marathon. One of the best 880 guys in the world was over 80, so you can't say it is all anaerobic either. Some may know that 25 years after I did my 1968 research with many of our Olympians I got 100% of my subjects (26 in all) to return for max and submax testing. I really must get the data published -- a great group of runners, including Ryun, Lindgren, Young, Bacheler, Manley, Nightengale, Patrick, Schule, Bell, Von Ruden, Clark, Mason, McCubbins and many great runners who many may not even remember. A couple interesting points -- All of them came back, which means they were all still relatively alive and healthy; one guy at age 49 had a VO2max of 76 (78 when he was 24). One had a max HR of 146 (148 when 30), and one had a max HR of 192 at age 49 (186 at age 24). There were several categories including still running and lean, still running and not so lean, not running and lean and not runnng and not so lean. One had had bypass surgery, one had had both hips replaced twice each (not associated with running). All did max tests, played golf and ate great Mexican food together

FYI Cruz is coaching and still running casually and occasionally racing in San Diego. Two summers ago I saw him enter a local all comers mile race and outkick one of the current top NAIA milers in a rather effortless looking 4:09. He can be reached through his website http://www.joaquimcruz.com if you want to ask him something directly.

jtupper wrote:

one guy at age 49 had a VO2max of 76 (78 when he was 24). One had a max HR of 146 (148 when 30), and one had a max HR of 192 at age 49 (186 at age 24).

Wow! I've never read about anything like this. Everything I pick up says VO2max and especially HRmax decline with age. Do you think these individuals are very special outliers, or do you suspect that this may be more common among athletes who continue to train than we might think based on looking at the general population? I recently read some material that suggested the average sedentary individual (over 40) loses 10% VO2max/decade while it's more like 5% for those who continue to train (I think this was in the new 4th Ed. of Noake's Lore of Running). But a rise in HRmax, well, I aways got the impression that was darn near impossible.

These results were all of real interest. I worried for 25 years that the 148 max HR was not accurate (even though I had measured that on several occasions in that same subject), so it was a real relief for me to see the same guy at age 55 with a 146 max. The high VO2max at age 49 was by a guy who took very good care of himself and continued regularly to do aerobic work -- XC skiing in the winters, running in the summers. He also took a total of about two years off of training ( documented every day he missed for one thing or another) for injuries and illnesses in those 25 years. Actually we had a couple guys over 70 max as they reached 50

JTD,

From all the data you have collected how long does it take to push VO2max to one's limit?

What is the relative importance of training volume verses VO2max intervals in maximizing VO2max?

Some research published by Billat in the last couple years showed that VO2max intervals didn't raise VO2max but rather increased velocity at VO2max. In the real world setting have you observed differently?

Thanks again.

The reason I originally came up with the term "vVO2mx" was to minimize the rather disturbing variations in VO2max data that were seen coming out of different labs. I remember a guy with a reported 92 max and guys with max under 80 were beating him. One of my pentathon teammates had a 72 max (from another lab) compared with my lowly 62 (from my own lab), and I often beat him over 4k. So I tested him myself and he had a 73 max. So I got the idea of testing his aerobic demands of running at several submax velocities. He was at a VO2 of 58 when running at 6:00 per mile pace (79.5% of his max) and I was at 49 at 6min pace (79% of my max). By extrapolating my economy curve out to my max and the same for him, I came up with a velocity (that I called velocity at VO2max -- vVO2max)that represented the speed we would be running at if both running at our VO2max. Mine was a little faster. And if we both were willing to hurt the same I should beat him. In fact, over other distances, run at different fractions of our VO2max we would find various velocities that could be sustained for various durations of time, etc. Anyway, various researchers have taken the liberty to attach different definitions to vVO2max so that issue gets a little muddled on occasion. Still the idea is that If a particular lab is having a bad equipment-calibration day and all their VO2 data are coming out high, then Max VO2s will be great on that day and economy (submax) data will also tend to be high, which is bad. BUT the vVO2maxes will wash that out so it remains a better comparative measure in my mind. Training studies are the most difficult things to do because it means asking different groups of runners to do different kinds of training, and you may be thrown in a group doing something you really don't want to do. The placebo effect is often really great. Use not-so-fit runners as subjects and of course you will see big improvements with almost anything you have them do. Elite runners must be handled with great care becasue they don't want to change what they think is the best training for them. To more specifically answer your question, the benefits of not so fast "base" mileage (down at the cell level) provide your running muscles with the tools needed to use the delivered oxygen to convert available fuel into energy, so that accumulated time spent running will serve you well. To maximize the central part of the system (delivery of blood and oxygen)demands good nutrition and a great pump, so those aspects must be stressed. You also must learn to deal with the rather high intensities of running hard for prolonged periods of time, and intervals can help in that regard. I've seen increases of 5-6% in VO2max among darn fit individuals, with just 4 weeks of real quality training, but the cells had to be ready to handle any increase in delivery that was aimed their way. Usually they can (as has been proved by blood-doping studies). I believe the long-term benefits of greater fractional utilization (higher lactate threshold) and improved economy offer the best chance of legally improving performance because our hearts are just going to be able to pump so hard. Improvment in vVO2max can be there because of a couple different reasons, and if you have fit individuals, it may be pretty hard for that reason to be an increase in VO2max (without the dreaded illegal means). When you see an endurance athlete, who has been training for a number of years (as an adult) suddenly perform quite a bit better, it sure would be nice to have VO2max, economy and lactate-threshold data over time, just to see what variable is the one that made the biggest improvement. That would sure go along way in helping determine the best training approach. I am pretty convinced that among young runners the big improvements come in economy and threshold (we followed a group of young runners from age 12 to 18 and relative to body mass (which nearly doubled in those 6 years), VO2max did not change,but economy improved a great deal as did 2-mile performance time. Sorry, I can't go more into it at this time.

I'm going to do a VO2max test tommorrow (monday):

1) Will having run a VO2max session on saturday (6 x 800) effect my ability to generate a true max on monday?

2) Do you have a good protocol for someone with a poor lactate threshold, optimal grade, progression etc. I expect to currently test at ~70 with average economy and poor fractional utilization.

Thanks

This offers a published example of what jtupper is getting at in his last thread. Note some things:

1: VO2max dropped

2: vVO2max rose

Due (mainly) to:

3: Improved LT

4: Better economy (lower oxygen requirement at 16km/hr)

A.M. Jones (1998) A five year physiological case study of an Olympic runner. British Journal Sports Med 1998 Mar;32(1):39-43

Abstract:

OBJECTIVE: To study physiological changes caused by long term endurance training in a world class female distance runner, and to compare these changes with alterations in 3000 m running performance. METHODS: The subject underwent regular physiological assessment during the period 1991-1995. Physiological measures made included body composition, maximal oxygen uptake (VO2MAX), running economy, and lactate threshold. In addition, the running speed at VO2MAX was estimated. Test protocols, laboratory equipment, and laboratory techniques used were the same for each test session. RESULTS: The 3000 m race performance improved by 8% from 1991 to 1993 after which it stabilised. In contrast, VO2MAX fell from 1991 (73 ml/kg/min) to 1993 (66 ml/kg/min). Submaximal physiological variables such as lactate threshold (from 15.0 to 18.0 km/h) and running economy (from 53 ml/kg/min to 48 ml/kg/min at 16.0 km/h) improved over the course of the study. Despite no increase in VO2MAX, the reduction in the oxygen cost of submaximal running caused the estimated running speed at VO2MAX to increase from 19.0 km/h in 1991 to 20.4 km/h in 1995. CONCLUSIONS: Improvement in 3000 m running performance was not caused by an increase in VO2MAX. Rather, the extensive training programme adopted, together perhaps with physical maturation, resulted in improvements in submaximal fitness factors such as running economy and lactate threshold. These adaptations improved the running speed estimated to be associated with VO2MAX, and resulted in improved 3000 m running performance.

jtupper, great to see you on here. Insights drawn from your own research benefit us all. Hope you can continue to find the time to keep posting.

The workout may not affect max but it may affect economy and lactate threshold. It is best to have several pretty easy days prior to a physiological test. That is always a concern with hard-training runners. I remember a couple marathoners (1 guy and 1 gal) who couldn't get over about 4 mmole blood lactate in their max test. Sounds good until you analyze why -- probably had been doing so much mileage in the days leading up to the test that they had not glycogen to burn (and you don't produce lactate burning fat). We hadn't properly alerted them to take it easy going into the tests. Protocol I like best (and doesn't take that long) is to start the test at a velocity that is at least a minute slower (per mile) than current 10k race pace. Typically with good guys we start at 270m per minute (about 6:00 pace), Run 5 minutes at 0% grade and collect VO2 and HR data during the final 1 to 1-1/2 min of each submax run. Get a finger stick lactate immediately after each submax run. Take a couple minutes rest and go with the next speed, which is 20m/min faster than the previous one (290m/min -- about 5:30 pace in this case). Collect same data toward the end of that run, take the usual brief rest then go to 310m/min -- about 5:12 pace. Then 330m/min. If you reach blood lactate of over 4mmole, that is fast enough for the submax runs. If you work backwards from your estimated 10k pace (trying to make it your final submax run), make an effort to total 4 or possibly 5 submax runs. A slower runner would have to start slower toget in at least 4 submax runs -- many of the women we test get started at 230m/min (7:00 pace) and go to 250, 270, 290, etc. Then the max test can start about 5 or so minutes after the final submax and at the speed used in the final submax test. ( Best not to go faster in the submax that 330m/min, even if you did in the submaxes) because that gets a little scary toward the end of the max test, when you are tiring. Start the max at the appropriate speed and 0% grade. Each minute thereafter, add 1% grade to the treadmill. Runner should be asked toward the end of each minute if he/she thinks another minute is possible. If yes, give a thumbs up, if no, wave your had back and forth. If no, then should be asked if another half minute is possible. Yes and thumbs up, no and TM is stopped then. If yes, ask at end of that half minute if another half is possible. Don't need to kill yourself to get max and your first thought upon completing the test is "I think I could have made another half minute , maybe minute, if I had to " Final blood sample to be taken about 2 minutes after test completion (to allow the lactic acid to get into the blood and circulated). This ptotocol has always resulted in a max test of 5-8 minutes duration, which is desirable. Longer tests (more gradual increments) becomes an endurance contest and too intense brings about termination before reaching max. Get it in your head you will make at least 5 and probably not more than about 7 minutes. If you last longer than 8 we picked too slow a speed for the test; less than 5 and too fast a test. 10k race pace seems to be just about right for a max test, with 1% each minute (about 4-5 % grade will make the effort equal to about 1 minute per mile faster than was 0% grade). That grade catches up pretty fast. Good luck

jtupper,

Which approach do you think improves economy the most? High mileage? R-pace workouts like you suggest in _Daniels' Running Formula_? Or weights and pliometrics? I assume that some kind of combination is ideal but what does the research suggest?

bump

re bump

Research is somewhat confusing in this regard. One big study showed that runners who ran 150km/wk were more economical than some who did 70km/wk -- suggesting that mileage improves economy. However, which came first? Was there a cause a or and effect or did more economical runners feel more comfortable doing higher mileage.Another problem is often that test speeds are nt very fast (often just 6:00 or 5:30 per mile, which is not too relevant to race pace economy) We found that 10k and marathon runners were more economical at slower speeds, but that 800/1500 runners were more economical at faster speeds -- both groups being more economical at speeds that were colser to their respective race pace or speeds at which they spent more time training. It's hard to subject a group of runnners to different types of training for extended periods of time to test a hypothesis because it interferes with training, so you tend to look at who is economical and what do they do. A recent study showed an improvement in economy with plyometrics. Seems hills, strength, faster runnng all contribute and the apparent reason is that being stronger and more comfortable at race pace reduces the instability of running faster.. It certainly seems reasonable that training at race pace will make that a more confortable effort and reduce unnecessary motion while doing so