4:18 Miler Scores 81 on VO2 Max Test????

V02 Max is far from a good predictor in performance. It looks nice on charts and stuff but real-world use is largely useless.

Want to improve it? Take a test. Then cut your arm off below the elbow and re-do the test. You'll score higher. Let me know how your race goes though.

KAV wrote:

I have tested myself 72 recently (and am 48) and am obviously nowhere near those guys in the list. I also know a middle aged lady who used to do skiing of the alpine variety in her youth and tested regurarly over 70. She is still fairly fit and yet she struggles to run half an hour continuosly...

"Ubi Maior Minor Cessat...."

How do you know your test was accurate?

And body weight can come into play. There are cyclists with 80+ VO2's who can't climb the high mountains or do long hilly TTs as good as other cyclists over 80. The difference being body weight. Case in point: Peter Sagan (84), a sprinter & classics rider, who can't climb very well or ride the long TTs. He's a big cyclist at 6-0, 175-180 lbs, compared to those dimuinitive flyweights who can climb like Billy goats. Because of his weight & size, Sagan ain't going to win a Tour de France anytime soon. 😉

VO2 is King wrote:

There is a high correlation between great running ability and a test showing that you have a high max.

The original study done took a bunch of elites and big surprise, they all tested high.

You can't be one without the other.

Wrong.

That correlation works within a sport, not for people who haven't trained in it.

Many elite swimmers and rowers have off-the-charts VO2 and couldn't run HS times in a mile or 5k. Same for cycling and XC skiing though these transfer to running someone better.

Many elite runners have off-the-charts VO2 and couldn't swim/row/bike/ski with 10 year-old competitors.

vail was 1st wrote:

VO2 is King wrote:

The runner showing a lower max during champs season is sandbagging the test and saving themselves for actual races.

Testing DURING a race would show the truth.

You can't "sandbag" a VO2 max test. O2 consumption reaches a max and levels off long before you reach max effort.

VO2 king shows his ignorance!

V02 What wrote:

V02 Max is far from a good predictor in performance. It looks nice on charts and stuff but real-world use is largely useless.

Want to improve it? Take a test. Then cut your arm off below the elbow and re-do the test. You'll score higher. Let me know how your race goes though.

C'mon Man! ...corney post. I'm an old fart who tested at a puny 58 back when I was a young buck, but yet I trained like a madman, with decent mileage, and never made it to sub-elite. Why? Because I didn't have the genetics for a higher VO2max. VO2max is primarily determined by genetics...who would have thought. You can train like a madmen, do all the correct mileage, speedwork, cross train, eat right, etc., but you're not going anywhere in distance running without a high VO2max.

I guess you can say the same thing of any VO2 MAX test done on a threadmill...

I think you got me wrong. If you followed the thread I was replying to that guy who thumbed down one of the few elite runners who post here (SC) and who thinks that VO2 Max is the golden standard.... I am the proof that is NOT as i am nowhere near any of those guys.... and yes weight counts a lot....

Clarify me wrote:

VO2 is King wrote:

There is a high correlation between great running ability and a test showing that you have a high max.

The original study done took a bunch of elites and big surprise, they all tested high.

You can't be one without the other.

Wrong.

That correlation works within a sport, not for people who haven't trained in it.

Many elite swimmers and rowers have off-the-charts VO2 and couldn't run HS times in a mile or 5k. Same for cycling and XC skiing though these transfer to running someone better.

Many elite runners have off-the-charts VO2 and couldn't swim/row/bike/ski with 10 year-old competitors.

Your reading comprehension is as low as your VO2.

People with high umbers need to find their sport, however obscure the sport may be.

Doesn't really mean much. I tested at 44 but racing results would put me at more like 58.

Elite skier friend tested in the 50s when in reality hes probably about 70.

This list kind of demonstrates the opposite of your point. There are only two people on the list below 70, one of whom is a woman (they tend to have VO2max about 15% lower than men). A "good" normative value for a male in his 20s is 42-46. "Excellent" is 46-52. "Superior" is above 52. That's as high as the charts go, because so few people test that high. To be an elite distance runner, you need a VO2max in the 70s or above (mid 60s for women), which is exceptionally rare. If you're on the low end of that (or slightly below, like Clayton), you must have some other exceptional quality that makes up for it, like running economy (which was the case for Shorter).

Ultimately, VO2max, economy, and lactate threshold all matter. It's a three-legged stool. No single element can predict performance, but the combination of all three has to be good. And even then, of course, there are lots of other factors that determine who actually wins races, like muscle characteristics and psychological profile. But to argue VO2max "doesn't matter" to running success is only true if you're looking at a restricted population (e.g. elite runners) who all have a very high VO2max.

Max's VO2 wrote:

[quote]Beautiful Day wrote:

VO2 max isn't everything.

I scored higher than anyone the lab had ever seen when I was in college, and I was toward the back of my team. Not 84, but not 78.

VO2 Max doesnt mean anything!

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

who?

Clarify me wrote:

vail was 1st wrote:

You can't "sandbag" a VO2 max test. O2 consumption reaches a max and levels off long before you reach max effort.

VO2 king shows his ignorance!

He's trolling. This is just a typical click bait thread.

troll alert wrote:

Clarify me wrote:

VO2 king shows his ignorance!

He's trolling. This is just a typical click bait thread.

But correct. People hate other people who are right when it contradicts their delusions.

Troll off troll.

What is interesting is the vVo2 - the pace at which you run at you peak Vo2. Your guy can have a Vo2-max at 81, but only rundt at 4:50/mile at vVo2-max. While someone else, like Rodgers for example (as mentioned), could probably run 30 secs a mile faster at vVo2-max.

djcdjfjd wrote:

What is interesting is the vVo2 - the pace at which you run at you peak Vo2. Your guy can have a Vo2-max at 81, but only rundt at 4:50/mile at vVo2-max. While someone else, like Rodgers for example (as mentioned), could probably run 30 secs a mile faster at vVo2-max.

Right. What's also interesting is how there appears to be an inverse relationship between economy and vo2max, at least for elites:

Now, one might say that if we've already selected elite athletes, then someone with a low VO2max would have to have high economy, which is true, but it's interesting that there are basically no athletes who have both. Maybe relevant genetics have no relation to one another, so it's just incredibly unlikely to be world class in both metrics. But still, it's a big freaking world out there. You'd think there would be some people who have both economy and VO2max. It suggests that there might be something mutually exclusive about the necessary attributes.

This is interesting...and not surprising. There are certain individuals who have better (Relative) Running Economy at different paces.Whether that "most efficient/economical" pace is close to Vo2max or not of course depends on genetics and training.So a really fast 800m/miler might have very good running economy at 110%-120% velocity at Vo2max (those are fast events!). But then their economy is crappy at 10km-half marathon and marathon paces.Likewise you have a very fast marathoner whose economy is great at Lactate Threshold (maybe 92% of VO2max) and Marathon Race pace, but at the 5km and below they are less efficient.I got tested by Shalaya Kipp earlier this year in the CU Boulder lab (Vo2max was 68) and the data that was most interesting to me was the Running Economy data at different paces. Running Economy doesn't necessarily deteriorate with a faster pace. So you could have the same value at 3:00-min/km as you do at 4:00-min/km. It is oxygen usage to cover 1km....a measure of efficiency that takes biomechanics (specific to running/racing paces) into play.Now of course if one has a very high Vo2max they have the luxury of more "wiggle room" in terms of being less economical at different race....but in long distance racing (esp. over 5km and beyond) gains at the elite level are usually pretty marginal because people have "tradeoffs" in their talent (high Vo2max vs. great Running Economy). The good thing is Economy can be improved over longer periods of time with training (and at much older ages)....Vo2max is going to kind of peak with high intensity training in one's early 20s.... So you can get a higher velocity/running pace at Vo2max through improved Economy without an actual increase in Vo2max.

Exactly. The original VO2 max hypothesis assumes VO2 max and "running economy" are independent. Yet if someone had a relative VO2 max of 80+ L/min/kg and Salazar's "running economy," their vVO2 max would essentially indicate 11:00 5K ability. Obviously no one close to this exists. Similarly, a study on average athletes taking EPO showed something like a 6% increase in VO2 max but only a 2% increase in running ability. In other words, EPO caused their "running economy" to decrease by 4%, which makes no sense if you think of running economy as mechanical efficiency independent of oxygen uptake and indicates VO2 max is not the driving factor it was assumed to be.

Tadese seems to have both.

Vo2max is just a number. There’s many numbers involved in distance running success....place and time being of most importance.

I was measured at 79.4. Ran a 15:43 5k a month later. That’s my PR. Also 4:27mi, 9:32 2mi.

Ran upwards of 120+ Miles a week. Never injured. Ran the usual workouts of the times...400s, 800s mile repeats, tempo runs, etc.

But, I was short (5’6”), and always had a stocky build for a runner (140-45), even when running 120-140mi a week (I didn’t start lifting until after I stopped competitive running). Also had a vicious outward lower leg swing when I ran.

Running economy will bite you in the rear every time. Maybe your 4:18 miler just had not quite so good biomechanics? If I was 5’6” 120, or 5’10 140....

Alan