Why do I keep seeing people use 6 minute TT pace used for VO2 max?

I've never heard/read anyone use the 6' thingie. If I did, I would ignore them.

I haven't seen it either. Can you post a link to an example?

Blind Lemon Chicken wrote:

I've never heard/read anyone use the 6' thingie. If I did, I would ignore them.

French ex phys Veronique Billat uses 6 minutes.

I have had the same question over the last year of really trying to understand vVO2 and in my research and also in having the privilage to hear Coach Vigil speak the following is the best explanation I can give. The 6 min. vVO2 pace comes from Dr. Billat of France who does a lot of excercise science research. She has of course other ways of finding ones vVO2 but suggests the simplest way to get a good estimate is the 6 min. time trial. I have also heard Coach Vigil speak he says that vVO2 pace can be as fast as someones all out mile or 4 min.-12 min. pace. His explanation is that all paces in between 4 min.-12 min. are correct it is just a matter of how hard you want to train. He believes those that use the slower paces are not training to reach their potential. And finally I have asked Dr. Daniels to confirm vVO2 with him and he does indeed still maintain that the pace one can hold for 11:03 is their vVO2.

So I believe it is a matter of like any training theory one must choose what they believe to be this best for them or the athletes they coach. I will say that Coach Vigil does however suggest that intervals such as repeat miles be done at a percentage of vVO2 and not all out effort. Hope this helps.

Blind Lemon Chicken wrote:

I've never heard/read anyone use the 6' thingie. If I did, I would ignore them.

ex phys wrote:

French ex phys Veronique Billat uses 6 minutes.

Now that you mention it, I do remember reading about some of her ideas when I subscribed to RRN. I'm still going to continue to ignore it. Thanks for the reminder.

Where did you read 10-11 minutes?

I've only seen the 6 minutes, and always "estimated" my vV02max, for training plan purposes, as my mile pace, althought that may be a little too fast.

I read that Peronnet and Thibault of Universite de Montreal showed that you can hold your Maximum Aerobic Power for up to 420 seconds (7 minutes).

I've seen French training plans use the term "vma" (vitesse maximum, or maximum speed), which is defined as the maximum speed you can hold for 6 minutes.

Maybe one is better suited for beginners, while the other is better suited for top athletes.

Mr. Ray wrote:

Where did you read 10-11 minutes?

I've only seen the 6 minutes, and always "estimated" my vV02max, for training plan purposes, as my mile pace, althought that may be a little too fast.

I read that Peronnet and Thibault of Universite de Montreal showed that you can hold your Maximum Aerobic Power for up to 420 seconds (7 minutes).

I've seen French training plans use the term "vma" (vitesse maximum, or maximum speed), which is defined as the maximum speed you can hold for 6 minutes.

Maybe one is better suited for beginners, while the other is better suited for top athletes.

Like I said, every published text I've read on VO2 max says something like 10-11 minutes or 3k-5k pace. Martin/Coe say that the 800, 1500, 3k and 3k steeple are all run at more than 100% VO2 max, and they also estimate 5k pace to be about 97% of VO2 max for elite runners, so this would mean vVO2 max falls somewhere between 8:00 and 13:00, probably being between 10 and 11 minutes.

Lactate threshold probably mostly determines how long you can maintain vVO2 max though. Unfit individuals aren't going to be able to maintain vV02 max long before getting tired. Maybe Billat used runners at a different fitness level than others (Daniels, Martin, Pfitzinger, Kellogg, etc).

...which again brings us to the uselessness of Vo2max. If physiologists can disagree by that much then really how practical is it?

Training should improve two attributes: Your PLACE during a race and your TIME during a race. Running around in circles at what you think is Vo2max pace may not directly improve either.

You train to first get into shape. There are countless ways to do this, The Summer of Malmo is one way. You then train for your race. This is very specific. You work on your specific goal, maximizing your strengths and minimizing your weaknesses. If you are planning for a championship sit and kick race then having the best time in the field may not help you very much if you can't close the last lap. If you are planning to hit a PR then surging and using sit and kick tactics in your training may not be very beneficial compared to even pace training.

Your first step is to have a goal, which is something that many people miss. Just training to train and get in shape for some races is fine, but you likely won't hit your peak form.

Alan

Since VO2 is a function of both intensity and duration, any book that mentions a single pace as vVO2 would be not so much wrong, but more just a bit overly simplified. Remember, if you are a physiologist writing a book or article on endurance training, there is pressure to keep things a little too simple.

A 10-11' duration is not too far off really, it's just the ballpark option working down in speed from the over distance side and it will indeed bring most runners to ~90-100% VO2 if the reps and rests are set properly.

The 6' duration is a reasonable estimate considering both speed and stamina sides. A more realistic range for the population would actually be 2'-20' (with the highest point of the bell curve at 6') duration because there is substantial individual variation. If you believe stamina is all about cardiovascular factors, then go with the slower estimates. If you believe you have some muscle factor limitations, try working a bit closer to 6' duration. if you are more of a 800m runner, your true vVO2peak is almost certainly faster than 6' duration.

Because of fitness factors and nonsteady state kinetics, there really is no one single vVO2 pace.

I may be a little rusty on this, but IIRC Billat had folks run an all out 6 min TT. They had also done VO2max test. She found that pace over 6 min equated (or pretty close) to the minimal velocity needed to elicit VO2max. Remember that at the end of a VO2max test, you are getting some anaerobic contribution so some of that "speed".

I have always thought the 5K was way too slow for VO2max work even for elite runners much less for age groupers/recreational runners.

Runningart needs to STFU with his repetitive blather. I have heard the hard line from old timers way to many times. A large majority of elite endurance athletes have coaches who train using modern principles based off exercise physiology. They are also a lot faster than runners 20 years ago. Now, most athletes from average to good can only run at their VO2max for 6 minutes. Elite athletes have been tested at 7-8 and even 9-10 (very rare). The bell curve obviously shows that yes, most elite runners who are running a 3k in 7:30-8 are probably doing that at VO2max pace. Wherease joe blow who runs a 9min 3k is only running it at 98% or so.

samboboy wrote:

Runningart needs to STFU with his repetitive blather. I have heard the hard line from old timers way to many times. A large majority of elite endurance athletes have coaches who train using modern principles based off exercise physiology. They are also a lot faster than runners 20 years ago. Now, most athletes from average to good can only run at their VO2max for 6 minutes. Elite athletes have been tested at 7-8 and even 9-10 (very rare). The bell curve obviously shows that yes, most elite runners who are running a 3k in 7:30-8 are probably doing that at VO2max pace. Wherease joe blow who runs a 9min 3k is only running it at 98% or so.

runningart is making a lot more sense than you are. You TRAIN to RACE, not to train. You need to keep it all in context. vVO2 is important, but you should be chiefly focused on the task at hand, whether that is 3000m, 5000m, etc. I disagree with runningart on several things (like lifting!) but he is dead-on. The main reason the US has suffered in the last two decades on the international running scene is getting caught up in the technical blather of vVO2, AnT, VDOT, VO2TT, LSD, SFD, BLT, etc. and forgetting to keep it all in context.

You know what Lydiard said about intervals? "If you're tired at the end, you did it right."

Not to beat a dead horse....but again why is weight lifting and strength training in general a large component in every other professional sport (even freaking golf!) but a vast majority of distance runners still stay away?

How is training at 6:00 TT pace or 11:00 TT pace going to DIRECTLY help me in a 15:00 race or a 9:00 race or a 30:00 race? Of course you'll still get a training effect but will it be optimal? Will it be the best? Should you still train at that effort? Of course. Optimal training includes paces at your race pace, faster than race pace, and slower than race pace. Have a goal in mind...say sub 15:00 5k. Train at that goal pace. Train faster than that goal pace. Train slower than that goal pace. Don't get caught up in the stupid physiological points. Train to race...not to perform well on a treadmill test. I've taken Vo2max tests before, I'm well versed, I've studied the sport, I've studied the physiology. At some point you have to separate the practical from the educational.

Alan

There really should be no debate on this. VO2max is reached at the effort required to run about 4k (all-out).

VO2 max workouts are usually 800-1000-1200, or about 2-4 minutes in duration for each rep. This is not really up for debate.

IF you think about it, if you were a 4:10 (1600)/9:00 (3200) runner this would predict 6 x 800 done in ~2:18. 2:15 would be your 3k pace, so a little slower.

The same workout would be too easy for this runner at 2:20-2:25 per rep ... way too easy. And likewise, the same workout would be too hard for said runner at 2:05 per rep (1600 pace).

JK had probably the best explanation I have ever read about VO2 max repeats. I understood it before but his explanation was very plain and common sense.

It also explains why you can't get the desired effect from say .... 12 x 400m at VO2max .... but you need to speed up the reps and get some Lactate Tolerance effect out of it.

It has been years since I have read it but I think it is still on this site, and all of you who can't figure out on their own that a 6' Time Trial is the wrong way to go about it should read it.

Billat, et al, did many studies on vVO2 max; some on the treadmill and some on a track (realistic running). On the treadmill the result showed that the pace run in 6 minutes was the slowest pace eliciting Vo2 max. On the track, it was just over 6 minutes 40 seconds.

Many, many studies have been done on the time it takes to achieve VO2 max. Essentially the results vary from 5 minutes to just under 9 minutes (6-8 being the most common).

Someone mentioned the French-Canadian physiologist (coaches)Perronet and Thibault using 7 minutes. That's a very good time to use and what I used for many years. But, they did not originate that number. I'll look it up, but I am fairly sure it was shown in a study done circa 1991 or 1992 by a different researcher. Earlier this year a graduate student friend send an article written by Perronet and Thibault and in it they cited the author of the 7 minute time reference (for V02 max determination).

I found the information. First, a correction: Billat, et all did only treadmill tests that I can find, in regards to Vo2 max determination. I found 10 studies done by her (and colleagues). Here are the times reached for VO2 max (minimum velocity):

1) 5.35 minutes

2) 6.57

3) 6.00

4) 6.70

5) 6.73

6) 5.50

7) 5.75

8) 6.12

9) 6.22

10)7.02

I think the most relevant ones were studies 4 & 5 because they were done 1 week apart. It was a reproducibility study.

The study the Perronet and Thibault of Canada referred to was done by Padilla S, Boudin M., Bathelemy JC, et al. "Physiologicaal Correlates of middle distance running performance." Euro J Appl Physiol 1992; 65: 561-6

They found that 7 minutes and 8 minutes 40 (run on a track) were equivalent to the slowest velocity eliciting VO2 max.

I found several others that are in the 5 to 8 minute range (6-7 minutes being most common).

One thing to note; how a protocol is designed effects the VO2 max duration time (called tlim - meaning time limit). Short stage protocols (rapid changes from one workload to the next) result in SHORTER tlims. Longer stages result in longer tlim. So, basically, if the test you are using quickly increases speed or has short time stages the total time you can "hold" VO2 max pace is going to be shorter. If you lengthen the time stages during the stage (slowly increasing the wordload, therefore) the time limit is going to be longer.

Example; if stages are only 30 seconds, it apprears that tlim will 4-6 minutes. If stages or 2 minutes, it appears the tlim will be closer 6.5-7.5 minutes. If stages are longer than 2 minutes, it appears the tlim will be closer to 8 minutes and change. *It would be beneficial to the field if someone did a meta-analysis study and determined the statistical relationship between stage lengths and tlims. Hint, for you graduate students looking for a project!

A different approach to the problem -- Measure the aerobic demand of running at a variety of speeds, and use these data to calculate a regression equation that gives you the aerobic demand of any speed at which you race. Measure VO2max and then get the times which you race for a variety of distances. The speed of those race times allows you to use your regression equation to calculate the aerobic demand of the average speed at which you run each race. Now you can divide your VO2max into the VO2 demand of any particular race duration and get a fraction (or %) of VO2max associated with that duration of time. Do this same thing with a group of runners and you will get another regression equation that associates duration of a race time with fraction of VO2max. We found that to be about 109.1% for a 5-minute race, 97.3% for a 15-minute race, about 93.0% for a 30-minute race, 88.8% for a 60-minute race, 111.8% for a 4-minute race, It is fairly obvious that you race a 4-minute mile at an aerobic demand beyond 100% of VO2max (because even though it may take a couple minutes to reach max you do have a fair amount of anaerobic power to call on, which covers for the lag in reaching max aerobic capacity, plus allowing you to race at a speed that is beyond that which can be provided for aerobically).

Runningart2004 wrote:

Not to beat a dead horse....but again why is weight lifting and strength training in general a large component in every other professional sport (even freaking golf!) but a vast majority of distance runners still stay away?

All of the distance runnes I know do weight/strength training. I think this is the norm rather than the exception that you suggest.

Yes, it is obvious that you train to Race. You train to race FAST. I think there is a good consensus that training your metabolic systems are more important than training at race pace. Of course you will get adaptations either way, but we are looking to train OPTIMALLY. Why else would elite marathon runners do VO2 workouts or Threshold workouts, when there race is run slightly under their threshold pace? Lydiard was certainly a revolutionary coach, but he never had runners doing 26 minute 10ks either. His program was not perfect by any means.