I think I understand the difference between VO2max and vVO2max but...

For someone who is already decently trained, improving VO2max (aside from losing weight) requires working at near that intensity say 90% of VO2max. Tempo runs (if decently trained) are not going to budge that number as the intensity is too low.

There are several definitions out there of vVO2max: the definition I use is the minimal velocity to achieve VO2max.

VO2max and vVO2max are essentially the same. The latter is just the pace at which the former is reached. It's velocity at VO2max. What pace brings a runner to their VO2max.

The best way to improve VO2max is to spend time exercising at or near VO2max, so if you're running, that would be 3k-5k pace for most runners. Example workouts would be 4x1600m @ 5k pace, 6x1000m at 3k pace, etc, with the rest being around 70% as long (in time) as the running duration. VO2max workouts are generally very intense though, so it's easy to overdo them. Personally, I wouldn't recommend doing more than one per week, but some people may argue two a week is okay during certain parts of the season.

I STRONGLY recommend reading Daniels' Running Formula since he explains everything in crystal clarity and in more depth than I can on this messageboard.

I'll read up on that. Done some other reading but it was very technical and I thought a message board might be helpful.

Taking a VO2max test as part of an elective course next week. Trying to pull out some insight before then.

Most running will improve VO2 max, especially intense training that causes you to reach VO2 max. Skiing will improve VO2 max even more but it will not make you a better runner. Most running will also improve vVO2 max, especially relaxed and controlled running at vVO2 max pace.

Sparkey wrote:

I'll read up on that. Done some other reading but it was very technical and I thought a message board might be helpful.

Taking a VO2max test as part of an elective course next week. Trying to pull out some insight before then.

Yeah, I hate to respond with, "Just read this book," but DRF really is THE book to read if you want to learn about training theory and science. There are other books to build on DRF, but if a person was only going to read one, DRF is what I would recommend. I've read 20 or so books on running and training and related topics, so take that for what it's worth.

The Gospel for me is:

Daniels' Running Formula

Running to the Top

Better Training for Distance Runners

Anyone who reads and understands everything in those three books will be more knowledgeable than 90% of runners and coaches out there assuming they have a running background themselves.

VO2max and vVO2max are the same thing, just different units:

- VO2max: ml/kg/min

- vVO2max: m/s

These are alternate measures of fitness, comparable to something like your current 10K (or whatever your event) capability. They are not goals in and of themselves, but just benchmarks. It's like asking, what is the best way to train to reduce my 10K race time. It's the same answer: you train for a 10K.

How do you train to improve your VO2max and vVO2max: you train for your event like you normally would if you didn't know your VO2max or vVO2max.

luv2run wrote:

For someone who is already decently trained, improving VO2max (aside from losing weight) requires working at near that intensity say 90% of VO2max. .

Someone who is decently trained is not going to improve their absolute VO2max are they?

luv2run, you should know this you have been here even longer than me and I've been posting here for 13 years.

Why don't you do something useful with your life and post some really informative stuff instead of the usual dogma?

Forget about training VO2max, you ain't gonna improve your absolute oxygen uptake because your heart is not going to grow any bigger. You

Improving vVO2max or velocity at any intenstity is what all comepetitive runners are striving to do.

This means improving your biomechanical efficiency, which has nothing to do with muscle or cardiovascular metabolism, even though vast amounts of literature and internet posts specify this because 99.999% of people just don't know any better.

Biomechanical efficiency is controlled by the brain, it is a set of skills that we can continue to improve for years. There should be both conscious awareness of good running technique in much of your training, and sub conscious awareness in faster running and racing where you apply what you have learned without thinking about it.

It all starts with the feet. Everything else should follow on from that. To run efficiently we need to develop and maintain a whiplash motion (for want of a better description) with the feet, to achieve maximum elastic recoil. This elastic recoil is present in all of the skeletal muscles and it's free energy, a natural spring. This natural spring and free energy is the source of you improved vVO2max and submaximal efficiency. So when you set off for a run, start slowly and try to get as much from your feet as possible without altering your natural running style. And as you get a feel for it, you will be able to increase the pace gradually.

Most runners think they have to 'run hard' which just makes them tired and is a very vague prescription and very hit and miss.

My mantra for efficiency is; don't force the pace, let the pace come to you and it will.

Everyone on this thread and everyone who has ever visited LR....

Do not listen to what this clown Jon Orange is saying. It's nonsense.

He was banned a few years ago under another name and now he's back spouting his, "it's all neurological ... nonsense"

This would be like saying to geologist, "stop trying to figure out what type of rock that is...it was all created by god and you have no control over it..."

"Most runners think they have to 'run hard' which just makes them tired and is a very vague prescription and very hit and miss."

Tell that to Steve Jones and see if he agrees with you Jon...

Oy!

You will get a lot of idiot advice like the Guru guy. Efficient running is a matter of neural control, that is basic physiology and has been know for a very long time, but which most runners have no clue about.

Sparkey wrote:

The Gospel for me is:

Daniels' Running Formula

Running to the Top

Better Training for Distance Runners

Anyone who reads and understands everything in those three books will be more knowledgeable than 90% of runners and coaches out there assuming they have a running background themselves.

You forgot Adam Goucher's Book - Running the Edge!!!!!!

Guppy wrote:

I STRONGLY recommend reading Daniels' Running Formula since he explains everything in crystal clarity and in more depth than I can on this messageboard.

It's not crystal clarity at all, it's as clear as mud in comparison to his actual research which conflicts with his training concepts.

The problem with Daniels is that like most PhDs he has tunnel vision, his thesis was oxygen uptake and he bases his training concepts on this very narrow field, ignoring the neuroscience, hence the disparity between his 'running economy' observations and his training advice.

In short, brilliant research, but very reductionist phsiological concepts of training.

As Guppy says you should read Daniels since the concept of vVO2max as a basis for training is his thesis. The concept is that there are "optimum" paces for training specific physiological parameters that are correlated with running performance and that these paces are proportional to vVO2max.

As a short direct answer to your questions per (my interpretation of) Daniels.

1) Optimal pace for VO2max development is Daniels "I pace" which is vVO2max pace or the pace that one can race for about 10 minutes all out.

2) Daniels prescribes "I pace" workouts nominally as 3 to 5 minute repeats with approximately equal recovery time.

3) Daniels 5-10k training template has emphasis on "I pace" workouts in the 3rd of 4 phases, but they are done in phase 4 as well.

Jon Orange, can you tell something about this "whiplash motion"? Is this, or should this, motion [be] observable when we look at someone running by?Is it just another word for pawback?

I am interested too. Never heard it before, whiplash motion.

Don't leave us hanging Jon!

Jon Orange, can you answer me please?

Man, you write a whole story and throw some catchy words ["whiplash motion"] around, nobody but me even responds to you and now you you don't care to respond? You spilled your seed, you emptied your sack and now youre done?

What is this whiplash motion?

I am interested too. Never heard it before, whiplash motion.

Don't leave us hanging Jon!

OP, just listen to citizen runner.

polar bear wrote:

Jon Orange, can you tell something about this "whiplash motion"? Is this, or should this, motion [be] observable when we look at someone running by?

Is it just another word for pawback?

I don't know about pawback. I am refering to the elastic potential of the muscles and tendons of the feet and ankles which allow a very powerful stride if you train them properly.

When you look at someone running by, you will notice how much more elastic their stride is compared to a less well trained runner.

This action is very similar to jumping on the spot, in respect of the fact that to gain most power, we need to time the movements just right. When you jump on the spot you will notice your push off action, but you might not notice it when you run.

Some awareness of this motion and the timing of the movements can help you improve your running efficienty a lot. As you continue to improve there must also be more an more running where you don't think about the foot work but let it happen naturally.