My watch, paired with a heart rate monitor, says my VO2 max is 65 and I'm 16 years old. Is this good, bad, or average? What is this supposed to mean? I know it's an important term but I honestly don't quite understand its meaning.
My watch, paired with a heart rate monitor, says my VO2 max is 65 and I'm 16 years old. Is this good, bad, or average? What is this supposed to mean? I know it's an important term but I honestly don't quite understand its meaning.
Above average but probably not very accurate.
People with high numbers have a higher potential ceiling of performance.
It's how much Oxygen you can consume in mm per kg per minute.
Cue the "It mean NOTHING" crowd.....
VO2 is King wrote:
Above average but probably not very accurate.
People with high numbers have a higher potential ceiling of performance.
It's how much Oxygen you can consume in mm per kg per minute.
Cue the "It mean NOTHING" crowd.....
Yeah I figured it wouldn't be very accurate. So is it possible to improve your VO2 max?
Skywalker1005 wrote:
VO2 is King wrote:Above average but probably not very accurate.
People with high numbers have a higher potential ceiling of performance.
It's how much Oxygen you can consume in mm per kg per minute.
Cue the "It mean NOTHING" crowd.....
Yeah I figured it wouldn't be very accurate. So is it possible to improve your VO2 max?
Of course. How much you can improve it varies considerably from person to person.
It is a good score although not always accurate, they are normally ballpark estimates. If you have a true vo2 max of 65 you should be capable of around a 33 minute 10k.
Skywalker1005 wrote:
My watch, paired with a heart rate monitor, says my VO2 max is 65 and I'm 16 years old. Is this good, bad, or average? What is this supposed to mean? I know it's an important term but I honestly don't quite understand its meaning.
It's not bad, but not spectacular. And your garmin probably isn't an accurate way to measure it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_maxNote also that there's quite a big variation in VO2 max in top level athletes...
pr100 wrote:
Skywalker1005 wrote:My watch, paired with a heart rate monitor, says my VO2 max is 65 and I'm 16 years old. Is this good, bad, or average? What is this supposed to mean? I know it's an important term but I honestly don't quite understand its meaning.
It's not bad, but not spectacular. And your garmin probably isn't an accurate way to measure it.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_maxNote also that there's quite a big variation in VO2 max in top level athletes...
If top athletes were tested in a race scenario they would probably measure closer together and at the high end of the chart.
The Shorter/Pre comparison is frequently made but Pre attacked the test while Shorter did not.
Shorter probably had a higher number.
The only numbers that matter, the only thing that matters is race performance! To improve that you need a training programme that covers all aspects of your event and several years of following that programme!
All these VO2 max numbers from different athletes are pretty meaningless unless they were all tested in the same centre by the same team of physiologists - otherwise too many variables can creep in to make comparisons meaningful.
The watches tend to underestimate vo2max. What are your best times?
RunSprintRun wrote:
The watches tend to underestimate vo2max. What are your best times?
1600: 4:49
3200: 10:13
5K: 16:46
Half marathon: 1:25:15
My VO2 max says that these should be much faster, so if anything, my watch overestimated it. In my opinion.
VO2 is King wrote:
Above average but probably not very accurate.
People with high numbers have a higher potential ceiling of performance.
It's how much Oxygen you can consume in mm per kg per minute.
Cue the "It mean NOTHING" crowd.....
"It means nothing" is kind of a complicated assertion.
When people say it, they really mean three things:
1) VO2 max DOES correlate well with speed. But all that really means is that, well, of course you're using more oxygen to move faster.
2) If you did a multi-variate regression (a statistical technique) to try to predict performance based on all the factors measured by the treadmill test (or your watch), the VO2 max actually matters very little in the analysis.
3) Having a high VO2 max doesn't suggest that you have untapped talent, are best at certain events, or are a certain type of runner.
I haven't confirmed these assertions myself, but that's what people are saying when they say "It means NOTHING."
It's like trying to predict running ability by having people run a marathon, and then measuring how many sub-5:00 (or 6:00 or 7:00) splits each one has. This would give you quite a good idea of who is faster than whom, but it's not for any profound reason -- you're just imperfectly measuring their final time.
I see your point. Are you currently well-trained? And are you over your ideal running weight (I believe the Garmin calculator uses weight in their vo2m equation)?
RunSprintRun wrote:
I see your point. Are you currently well-trained? And are you over your ideal running weight (I believe the Garmin calculator uses weight in their vo2m equation)?
I'm 5'9" and 123 lb. I'm pretty sure that is very close to my ideal weight, since there are others who are shorter, heavier, and still run faster than I can.
Use vDot instead of VO2Max
somewhere between 61 and 62
VO3 to the max wrote:
3) Having a high VO2 max doesn't suggest that you have untapped talent, are best at certain events, or are a certain type of runner.
However, VO2max is the most important physiological variable determining performances in races of 1500 to 5000 meters.
VO2maximum wrote:
VO3 to the max wrote:3) Having a high VO2 max doesn't suggest that you have untapped talent, are best at certain events, or are a certain type of runner.
However, VO2max is the most important physiological variable determining performances in races of 1500 to 5000 meters.
Except 30m sprint time and vertical leap distance - i.e. measures of explosive power not aerobic capacity - predict 5K times way better than VO2max does.
nothing gained wrote:
VO2maximum wrote:However, VO2max is the most important physiological variable determining performances in races of 1500 to 5000 meters.
Except 30m sprint time and vertical leap distance - i.e. measures of explosive power not aerobic capacity - predict 5K times way better than VO2max does.
No, if that is true then football players and basketball players would run the best 5ks.
Mike Jordan wrote:
No, if that is true then football players and basketball players would run the best 5ks.
The absurd absolute tell for cognitive dissonance. What "nothing gained" said is scientifically observed, but you don't even want to look it up.
nothing gained wrote:
Except 30m sprint time and vertical leap distance - i.e. measures of explosive power not aerobic capacity - predict 5K times way better than VO2max does.
That's plain goofy...do you have any scientific references to support that? In all my years of research I've never, ever, heard of explosive sprint power & vertical leap ability being predictors of maximum aerobic capicity for the 5k. I really think someone is giving you the business. 😉
The first fallacy is that "nothing gained" referred to "5K times" and you substituted it in your mind to "maximum aerobic capacity", which is a different concept.
But on the subject matter, take a look at this link for instance:
http://www.ergo-log.com/strength-training-speeds-up-3k-and-5k-runners-too.html
:
If you spend your "all years of research" reading the McLaren report and getting excited about OFF-Scores, you fill not find the information..