VO2 Max of 60, but I can't break 18 in the 5k?????

VO2 max isn't necessarily an indicator of performance in an event such as the 5k. Judging from your times, you're either a fast twitch kind of runner or you have very poor endurance, since you excel in the 800 and 400. By poor endurance, I mean an underdeveloped aerobic system. What's your weekly mileage?

Your 1500m time is equivalent to high 4:30s for a mile. Your mile indicates capability of running 15:50-16:15. Your 800m time indicates an even faster time! Even if you're fast twitch (you may definitely be) you need to develop a massive aerobic system to be able to run these times.

I have a VO2 max of 60 and can't get anywhere near your times.

MacDaddy wrote:

6' 175 pounds...

I know these are random testings/info, but it doesn't make any sense to my why I can't run distance at all.

Any info/help?

Sorry, I was on my phone and I didn't notice that last part. You're definitely more of a fast twitch kind of runner. Your weight is what's ultimately slowing you down. You're great at short distances (400, 800, etc) because you have powerful fast twitch muscles and 6' in height may help you as well. But that takes much more energy to run over the longer distances. Think about it, Usain bolt can run 19.19 and 9.58 for 100m, but he will likely not break the 5 minute mile. Longer slower easier runs will help your 5K but you'll lose some of your 400/800 ability.

Sub16_5K wrote:

MacDaddy wrote:

6' 175 pounds...

I know these are random testings/info, but it doesn't make any sense to my why I can't run distance at all.

Any info/help?

Sorry, I was on my phone and I didn't notice that last part. You're definitely more of a fast twitch kind of runner. Your weight is what's ultimately slowing you down. You're great at short distances (400, 800, etc) because you have powerful fast twitch muscles and 6' in height may help you as well. But that takes much more energy to run over the longer distances. Think about it, Usain bolt can run 19.19 and 9.58 for 100m, but he will likely not break the 5 minute mile. Longer slower easier runs will help your 5K but you'll lose some of your 400/800 ability.

Yeah, I assume this is the answer that is going to make the most sense. My times and confidence drop fast after anything over 1500/mile.

You just can't carry 175 pounds like you can carry 130...

it could be a question of poor running economy for some reason...

yyy wrote:

it could be a question of poor running economy for some reason...

Never put in more than 45 miles/wk, but never wanted to. This was of course during XC season and my track mileage would be somewhere around 25-30/wk.

I know this type of training doesn't gear towards longer distances, but with my 800/1500 time, I figured my endurance couldn't be all that bad.

Sub16_5K wrote:

Sorry, I was on my phone and I didn't notice that last part. You're definitely more of a fast twitch kind of runner. Your weight is what's ultimately slowing you down. You're great at short distances (400, 800, etc) because you have powerful fast twitch muscles and 6' in height may help you as well. But that takes much more energy to run over the longer distances. Think about it, Usain bolt can run 19.19 and 9.58 for 100m, but he will likely not break the 5 minute mile. Longer slower easier runs will help your 5K but you'll lose some of your 400/800 ability.

Why would 6ft in height be helping him?

For Real Now wrote:

MacDaddy wrote:

Took the Beep test/Pacer test and my results equaled a 59.8 VO2 Max. I can also hold my breathe for 2+ minutes.

That's idiotic. What makes you think a beep test and a breath holding test is a good predictor of a 5k race? It's not even a good predictor of VO2max, which is in turn not a good predictor of 5k time.

Don't know why you are so pissy....

The beep test was designed to test for V02Max so I'm pretty confident in saying it is a good predictor.....

v02Max = Maximal oxygen consumption.... which in turn = the aerobic physical fitness of the individual

Rather high aerobic fitness = why do I suck at 5k?

The breath holding was just more evidence to add to my confusion of why I suck at the 5k.

run more miles

when i tested in high school with a VO2 max of 67-68, I only weighed 120lbs and I think I'd only broken 18 min for 5K once. Years later I can run mid 16s and my VO2 max probably hasn't changed much. It's just years of developing the aerobic system.

Tell me more about the beep test.

As far as I know, breath holding does not correlate well with VO2 max.

Coach Renato Canova talks about the training of Job Kinyor, a Kenyan who was doing decathlon when Renato got a hold of him. Even after 6 months of training, Kinyor couldn't break 20 for 5k. Imagine that, a Kenyan who sucked at 5K. After awhile, Kinyor ran 18xx and 1:47, then the next year ran 15xx and 1:45. Now he is 1:44 or 1:43ish.

Stuff like mileage, tempos, 1000s at 5k pace are what makes you good at 5k and also helps your 800 to a point and allows you to train harder for the 800. What kind of training have you been doing up until now?

I was officially tested for a research project and got 69. never broke 1845. guess I'm an inefficient runner

I think lactate threshold is a lot better predictor of performance than VO2max. Last year I had a VO2max of 72 when I was in about 17:30ish shape. Ran lots of hills but skipped out on the tempos, learning more and more how important they are.

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 with impunity? 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 from 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 segregated 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 to the supreme ordinals, the better you've done, the closer to 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 supersede 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 from 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!

Through complex mathematical machinations, physicists have proven that it is physically impossible for VO2Max to supersede either time or place in value. Physicist Richard Feynman once said, "VO2Max and five bucks will get you a cup of joe at Starbucks."

So far, in the history of sports, not one award has been given, nor has there ever been remuneration for VO2Max results.

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 physiologists: sedentary individuals have a VO2 max of 40-50. Trained recreational runners 55-65. Competitive runners 65-80, and elite runners 84-92. The truth of the matter is that there are no distinct boundaries separating these groups. Many recreational runners have higher VO2 max (80s) than competitive and elite runners. Many elite runners have lower VO2 max (70s) values than some of the recreational runners.

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 physiologists from 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. 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

91.0 Harri Kirvesniem, Finnish cross country skier

90.0 Bjørn Dæhlie, Norwegian cross country skier

88.0 Miguel Indurain, professional cyclist

87.4 Marius Bakken, Norwegian 5k record holder

85.0 Dave Bedford, 10k world record

85.0 John Ngugi World XC Champion

84.4 Steve Prefontaine,US runner

84.3 "Physiologist in training," 15:12/30:55 runner

84.0 Lance Armstrong, professional cyclist

82.7 Gary Tuttle, US runner

82.0 Kip Keino, Olympic 1500 champion

81.1 Craig Virgin, twice World cross country champ

81.0 Jim Ryun, US miler WR holder

80.1 Steve Scott, US miler 3:47

79.4 "Runningart2004," 15:43 5k runner

78.6 Joan Benoit, 1984 Olympic Marathon Champion

78.5 Bill Rodgers, 2:09:27 marathoner

77.4 Don Kardong, 2:11:15 marathoner

77.0 Sebastian Coe. WR mile, 1500

76.6 John Landy, WR miler

76.0 Alberto Salazar, 2:08:51 marathoner

74.3 Amby Burfoot, US marathoner

74.4 Johnny Halberstadt, 2:11:44 marathoner

74.2 Kenny Moore, US marathoner 2:11:36

73.5 Grete Waitz, Norwegian Marathon runner

73.3 Bruce Fordyce ultramarathoner

73.0 Jeff Galloway, US snake oil salesman

73.0 Buddy Edelen, 2:14:28 world record marathoner (1963)

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

72.3 Peter Snell, Olympic champion

72.0 Zithulele Sinqe, 2:08:05 marathoner

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

70.3 Willie Mtolo, 2:08:15 marathoner

69.7 Derek Clayton, Australian ex-Marathon World Record holder 2:08:35

67.2 Rosa Mota, Marathon runner

62.0 Cam Levins, Canadian badass

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

RUNNING PREDICTS RUNNING BETTER THAN PHYSIOLOGY (a duh? moment here)

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.

This epic rant deserves a bump in 2019!

Sub16_5K wrote:

Think about it, Usain bolt can run 19.19 and 9.58 for 100m, but he will likely not break the 5 minute mile. Longer slower easier runs will help your 5K but you'll lose some of your 400/800 ability.

Too bad that Bolt stated 3 years ago that he ran 2:07 in a 800m, and could easily break 5 min mile when asked if he could, quote: "Lol, I'm not that bad"

People don't understand that Olympic participants aren't just physically in good shape, but also mentally. Bolt knows how to suffer. He might not have the VO2MAX or lactate threshold of a top miler, but his speed and determination alone and all the miles of running he did will carry him to a sub 5 mile.

Same in tennis - Nadal is a sand specialist, still does well on other courts. Same with Federer and grass.

Same in skiing - the top athletes like slalom specialists Shiffrin and Hirscher can still throw down some very respectable Super-Gs (competely different event) and compete with the best there.

MacDaddy wrote:

Took the Beep test/Pacer test and my results equaled a 59.8 VO2 Max. I can also hold my breathe for 2+ minutes.

PRS:

400: 51.8

800: 2:01

1500: 4:27

5K: 18ISH

8k: 31:02

6' 175 pounds...

I know these are random testings/info, but it doesn't make any sense to my why I can't run distance at all.

Any info/help?

you weigh too much.

The bleep test is 50% aerobic capacity and 50% testing your fast twitch ability. You seem like more of a sprinter so your high score on the beep test is likely due to your fast twitch ability to stop and start quick.

Your real vo2 max is probably around 56 ish.

Get a lab test, bleep test ain’t accurate. wrote:

The bleep test is 50% aerobic capacity and 50% testing your fast twitch ability. You seem like more of a sprinter so your high score on the beep test is likely due to your fast twitch ability to stop and start quick.

Your real vo2 max is probably around 56 ish.

Or you could just be undertrained for distance. Vo2 max is found during efforts that last between 6 and 12 minutes... a 5k race is 18 minutes long therefore not your vo2 max but just below. Maybe you are aetobically weak and your 3k predicts a 60 vo2 but your 5k predicts a few points lower.

MacDaddy wrote:

Took the Beep test/Pacer test and my results equaled a 59.8 VO2 Max. I can also hold my breathe for 2+ minutes.

PRS:

400: 51.8

800: 2:01

1500: 4:27

5K: 18ISH

8k: 31:02

6' 175 pounds...

I know these are random testings/info, but it doesn't make any sense to my why I can't run distance at all.

Any info/help?

The denominator in VO2 max is weight so you can increase your max by burning off some weight if you have a high body fat ratio. If you're already "dense" the longer distances are going to be more difficult at that weight.