VO2 max data from world class runners

I agree, and that is the reason why I am looking for some more complete data sets of world class athletes to look at some of the other variables and see some of the trends they display.

Similar to RunningArt, I have a high VO2max without being world class. My 30s moving average on a properly calibrated and scientifically validated system was 84.3, and I PR'd within 2 months with a 15:12 and 30:55.

I tested one guy who has run 14:11 and his was 84.8. A bunch of guys in the 15's through 18 range in the mid to high 60's. And then there's a few in the 70's as well - including a 14:30 guy and a 17:30 guy. It really does vary quite a bit! But the scientific literature is pretty clear on that - VO2max itself is not the key predictor of performance. Running economy (as a broad term) is better in a similar group of athletes.

i suggest you read some of Noakes ideas on VO2max. Some of his ideas are out there and I definately disagree with, but it gets your brain moving and thinking outside the box. There's definately something wrong with the whole VO2max picture.

I found Noakes idea that a worse running economy, could be a reason for a high VO2max to be interesting. makes a bit of sense in my head.

I agree - I have read much of his stuff, seen his lectures in-person, and talked to him. Some of it is sketchy, but he is on to some good ideas. A lot of traditional exercise physiologists do not buy into it, but he has written some excellent review articles trying to take all of the fatigue theories and put them together.

bad connection wrote:

I found Noakes idea that a worse running economy, could be a reason for a high VO2max to be interesting. makes a bit of sense in my head.

That's exactly right. By definition, it is how fast we can burn fuel (oxygen), not unlike looking at a large SUV being able to burn a gallon of gas every 10 miles.

So you should not be surprised that there are huge inconsistencies among runners of the same speed as there are vehicle types.

It's obvious that if you have runners with such wildly varying VO2 max, then other factors, such as individual running economy, have to come into play.

shoe fetish wrote:

Andy actually hit 77 and he was in the middle of a big week of training. He didnt even know he was getting tested until an hour before. The guys an animal! If he stays healthy he should have a great year!

he was also on a bike and ate like 90 minutes before. probably a little high.

Some data from runnersweb.com:

General Population, Female, Aged 20-29: 35-43 ml/kg/min

General Population, Male, Aged 20-29: 44-51

US College Track, Male: 57.4

College Students, Male: 44.6

Highest Recorded Female (Cross-Country Skier): 74

Highest Recorded Male (Cross-Country Skier): 94

Steve Prefontaine,US runner, 84.4

Frank Shorter, US Olympic Marathon winner, 71.3

Grete Waitz, Norwegian Marathon/10K runner, 73.5

Ingrid Kristiansen, ex-Marathon World Record Holder, 71.2

Derek Clayton, Australian ex-Marathon World Record holder, 69.7

Rosa Mota, Marathon runner, 67.2

Jeff Galloway, US Runner, 73.0

Paula Ivan, Russian Olympic 1500M Record Holder, 71.0

Jarmila Krotochvilova,Czech Olympian 400M/800M winner, 72.8

Greg LeMond, professional cyclist, 92.5

Matt Carpenter, Pikes Peak marathon course record holder, 92

Miguel Indurain, professional cyclist, 88

The problem is that the original concept of Vo2max (A.V. Hill, 1920s) assumes that muscle contractility is the same for all. That is that x amount of muscle will contract with x amount of force and this is the same for everyone. The problem is that over the last 20 or more years this assumption has been shot full of holes.

Running economy has an external (efficiency of motion) and internal (efficiency of the muscle) component. Most of the time when someone refers to running economy we think of either the efficiency of motion or the metabolic component (threshold) but most of us forget about the muscles.

Certain factors you can't change. I have short legs and a wide torso. Paul Tergat has legs up to his armpits. So, you could have two runners both with equal Vo2max's and equal thresholds and yet one will be much better than the other simply because of neuromuscular efficiency. One runner will take x amount of O2 and produce great amounts of speed while another will take the same O2 and not produce as much speed. The human body is such a complex machine, one which science is still finding out about, that it's impossible to take one measurment and assume very much.

Alan

I think Craig Virgin was recorded at 82 mls/kg/min.

Tested 87.4 mmol/l in April of 99. No test since. Anaerobic threshold is much more of relevance to performance though - Vo2 does not really say alot. Asked Bob Kennedy about his back in 97, he had tested just over 80.

Some other ones :

Vebjørn Rodal Olympic 96 800 champ, 79.6 but around 70-72 in summer of 96.

Seb Coe. 80point something according to his father when I asked him.

Both seemed to have the extreme ability to sustain a high Vo2 despite mixing in very hard anaerobic work. Maybe one of their keys to such high class 800 performances (over time)

Highest measured to my knowledge ;

male 96.14,male cross country skier

female 81.5 female athlete, former cross country skier and 2.30 marathoner.

Marius

htpp://www.mariusbakken.com

Mel Brodt, Dave Wottle's coach, would not allow Wottle to be tested. He said he was afraid that Wottle might see a number that would put a doubt in his mind that he could be the very best in the world.

VO2 Max doesn't mean anything.

It's an oft-used and little understood term used by grad students to justify to their parents that their efforts and money have not gone to waste. University administrators have been duped by this sciolistic fog-machine, as well. How else could the waste of valuable resources, time and money, be covered-up? Parents and other intelligent, rational thinking adults could not possibly decipher this code. Do not try to yourself. You'll only make yourself look foolish reciting the catechism of the exercise-physio-geeks.

This nascent science of exercise physiology was born out of a failed genetics experiment in the early 60s: the breeding of an economist and a sociologist. The offspring of this pairing would say more and mean less than the combined blather of the two parents put together. Common sense would have told us how this experiment would have ended, but stubborn researchers pushed ahead nonetheless.

The only numbers that matter are the ones that you receive at the end of the race. The most important of these is called PLACE, and is represented as an ordinal. A '1' is the best indicator of your performance. If you get a '1' then you've done excellent. It's no small coincidence that '1' is a homophone for 'won'. Other excellent numbers to receive are '2' and '3'. Not nearly as good as a '1', but by tradition and convention the numbers '1', '2' and '3' are deemed to be the 'supreme ordinals'; that is to say, worthy of gold, silver and bronze, and are separated from the other ordinals. The rest of the ordinals are represented by the formula: n + 1...(to infinity). There is a direct, inverse relationship between ordinal value and its worth. The closer you get to the supreme ordinals, the better you've done, the closer you approach infinity, the worse you've done.

One of the other numbers that matters much more than VO2 Max is TIME. TIME is always secondary to PLACE in it's value. Neither PLACE nor TIME are given in the gerbil-wheel lab tests conducted by the exercise-physio-geeks. You will only receive them in the experiment that the real experts call COMPETITION. TIME does not supercede PLACE, but it is a way of comparing the PLACE of two or more experiments from different venues and eras. The juxtaposition of TIME and PLACE is the business of track statisticians, who, by the way, are also the progeny of the aforementioned failed genetics experiment.

Long ago, TIME was measured as a fraction of the earth's rotation in base 60: hours, minutes and seconds. It's still expressed as such, however, the predecessors to the exercise-physio-geeks have determined that TIME should now be measured in terms of the vibration frequency of irradiated Cesium atoms. Your watch has quartz crystals in it that will simulate this experiment for you (without the attendant radiation and disposal problems) and convert the results automatically, presenting them to you in the form of easily recognizable numerical glyphs. No complicated formulae to memorize!

There are many other factors that are much more indicative of athletic performance, or the potential for performance, than VO2 max. I couldn't possibly begin to list them all: height, weight, hair color, skin color, shoe size, favorite TV show...the list is endless.

------------------------------------

What is VO2 max? Simply put, the oxygen consumption capacity of the body during exercise. It's value is expressed as: Volume of oxygen (O2) consumed, per Unit Body mass, per time interval or: milliliters O2/Kg body/minute. Check that out, two variables and one constant in the formula. Look at the denominator of the formula: Kg body mass. Want to improve VO2 max WITHOUT TRAINING? Lose weight.

At rest, the human body has a VO2 of 3-4 ml/kg/min. According to the Exercise-physio-geeks: Sedentary individuals have a VO2 max of 40-50. Trained grasshopper runners 55-65. Mantis runners 65-80, and Super-Mantis runners 84-92. The truth of the matter is that there are no distinct boundaries separating these groups. Many grasshopper runners have higher VO2 max (80s) than mantis and super-mantis runners. Many super-mantis runners have lower VO2 max (70s) values than the grasshoppers.

Take a sampling of runners with PR differences of just 2% in their specialties. For example, that would be three sets of athletes collected together like so:

1) 1500m (3:29.7-3:34.0)

2) 5000m (13:00-13:16)

3) 10,000m (26:57-27:30)

Now fly in exercise-physio-geeks from monasteries around the world and geek-out: treadmills, oxygen ventilators, calipers, rectal probes! Collect the data, crunch the numbers and what do you get? Sets of highly-trained runners with similar PRs (2% differentials) with VO2 max values that vary wildly: 10 to 15 percent (sometimes more)! Runners with slower PRs having higher VO2 max. How is that predictive of performance?

As a broad generalization, I'll agree that trained runners will have higher VO2 max than the sedentary. That is called the common sense doctrine. We teach that Kung Fu at the Shaolin monastery. Within sampling sets of like-performing athletes, there is no direct correlation.

92.5 Greg LeMond, professional cyclist

92.0 Matt Carpenter, Pikes Peak marathon course record holder

88.0 Miguel Indurain, professional cyclist

84.4 Steve Prefontaine,US runner

73.0 Jeff Galloway, US Runner

72.8 Jarmila Krotochvilova,Czech Olympian 400M/800M winner

71.3 Frank Shorter, US Olympic Marathon winner

71.2 Ingrid Kristiansen, ex-Marathon World Record Holder

71.0 Paula Ivan, Russian Olympic 1500M Record Holder

69.7 Derek Clayton, Australian ex-Marathon World Record holder

67.2 Rosa Mota, Marathon runner

----------------------------------------

RUNNING PREDICTS RUNNING BETTER THAN PHYSIOLOGY

Noakes, T. D., Myburgh, K. H., & Schall, R. (1990). Peak treadmill running velocity during VO2max test predicts running performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 8, 35-45.

Marathon runners (N = 20) and ultra-marathoners (N = 23) were tested for VO2max, peak treadmill running velocity, velocity at lactate turnpoint, and VO2 at 16 km/h using an incremental (1 min) treadmill test.

Results. Race times at 10, 21.1, and 42.2 km of the specialist marathoners were faster than those of the ultra-marathoners, however, only the 10 km time differed significantly. Lactate turnpoint occurred at 77.4% of VO2max and at 74.7% of peak treadmill velocity. The average VO2 at 16 km/h was 51.2 ml/kg/min which represented 78.5% of VO2max.

For all distances, performance time in other races was the best predictor of performance (r = .95 to .98).

The best laboratory predictors were: (a) peak treadmill running velocity (r = -.89 to -.94); (b) running velocity at lactate turnpoint (r = -.91 to -.93); and (c) fractional use of VO2max at 16 km/h (r = .86 to .90). The predictive value of the lactate turnpoint measure increased as the distance increased.

The poorest predictors were: VO2max (r = -.55 to -.81) and VO2 at 16 km/h (r = .40 to .45).

Conclusion. There may be no unique physiological characteristics that distinguish elite long-distance (10 km or longer) runners as is often promoted. Other factors determine success in high level sports among exclusive groups of superior athletes.

Implication. Running performance is the best predictor of running capability in elite long-distance runners. Physiological laboratory testing gives less information than does actual performance. Even the fastest speed of running on the treadmill is a better predictor than any physiological measure. This suggests that for at least endurance-dominated sports, actual performances in a variety of performance-specific situations will give more useful information than that which can be obtained in any physiology laboratory test.

------------------------------------------

As I've said in the satire above, "VO2 max doesn't mean anything."

Nice commentary Malmo.

I think that the VO2max(/kg) is at it best for predicting time racing uphill. Mine was high relative to my racing times and I was best racing uphill, especially on the bike but also running. Of course, normal running efficiency becomes less important and the weight in the denominator becomes more important.

For flat running, I would suspect that an equation with VO2max/kg and a function of VO2max (not scaled by weight) would perform better. Another way to look at it is to consider the variable VO2max/kg^x, where x is less than one, although height might also factor in as height and weight are very non-linear (more than quadradic, which is one of the reasons why the quadradic form for the BMI (body mass index) is wrong).

I love that post by Malmo. It should be required reading before stepping foot in this forum. It's been around for about as long as this forum has been around.

Alan

malmo wrote:

VO2 Max doesn\'t mean anything.

Then give me one example of any world class male distance runner whose VO2 max was under 50. It\'s not the most important factor, but if you don\'t have the engine you simply can\'t compete on an elite level.

vo2 max is a measure of inefficiency and output of work.

inefficent runners work harder.

as a measure or predictor of performance it doesn't mean anything.

a famous exercise physiologist in tucson once told me that in his opinion the morbidly obese were in better shape than athletes, because their heart rates were higher.

of course that is nonsense.

wayward lassie wrote:

as a measure or predictor of performance it doesn't mean anything.

That is absurd. A high VO2 max is a prerequisite for elite performance. Once at the elite level it is no longer a good predictor of performance because everyone has a high VO2 max.

I know a lot of these have already been listed, but here's the list of VO2 maxes (ml/kg/min) of former elite runners from Lore of Running (p. 24):

Dave Bedford: 85 (10K WR)

Steve Prefontaine: 84.4 (3:54.6 mile)

Gary Tuttle: 82.7 (2:17 marathon)

Kip Keino: 82.0 (2K WR)

Don Lash: 81.5 (2 mile WR)

Craig Virgin: 81.1 (2:10:26 marathon)

Jim Ryun: 81.0 (1 mile WR)

Steve Scott: 80.1 (3:37.69 1500m)

Bill Rodgers: 78.5 (2:09:27 marathon)

Matthews Temane: 78.0 (Half Marathon WR)

Don Kardong: 77.4 (2:11:15 marathon)

Tom O'Reilly: 77.0 (927 km in 6 day race)

John Landy: 76.6 (1 mile WR)

Alberto Salazar: 76.0 (Marathon WR)

Johnny Halberstadt: 74.4 (2:11:44 marathon)

Amby Burfoot: 74.3 (2:14:25 marathon)

Cavin Woodward: 74.2 (48-160 km WR)

Kenny Moore: 74.2 (2:11:36 marathon)

Bruce Fordyce: 73.3 (80 km WR)

Grete Waitz: 73.0 (Marathon WR)

Buddy Edelen: 73.0 (Marathon WR)

Peter Snell: 72.3 (1 mile WR)

Zithulele Sinqe: 72.0 (2:08:05 marathon)

Frank Shorter: 71.3 (2:10:30 marathon)

Willie Mtolo: 70.3 (2:08:15 marathon)

Derek Clayton: 69.7 (Marathon WR)

ajfdfhjdahfkldfsjkl wrote:

That is absurd. A high VO2 max is a prerequisite for elite performance. Once at the elite level it is no longer a good predictor of performance because everyone has a high VO2 max.

but then the question is what is high?

is it 50, 60, 70, 80, 90? What gets you in this illusive club???

You can argue that it's 70 or so, but then I know of a 3:50 miler who tested low 60's...is he not fast enough for the club?

Well if it's 60 then that's a HUGE range and it doesn't do us much good in predicting then.