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

VO2max is only one part of the toolbox you need for a 20km race, duh.

How do you do in sprints?

Clarify me wrote:

VO2 is King wrote:

Your reading comprehension is as low as your VO2.

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

You said you can't have a high VO2 and not be a great runner. Read again.

You're done.

Incorrect. I said you can't be elite without having a high number and those with a high number who do not run as well as their number may indicate they might should find another endurance sport.

I'm just getting started.

Oh shut up. If you know so much then answer my question and win your $100.

Should be easy money for someone who actually undestands the variables?

that's because wrote:

Oh shut up. If you know so much then answer my question and win your $100.

Should be easy money for someone who actually undestands the variables?

No, max is not achieved at max heart rate so there is no reason to explain why it is achieved at max heart rate.

HardLoper wrote:

There is low correlation between VO2 max and running ability and also high variance between VO2 max tests at different facilities. Thus, it is meaningless.

Wrong.

There is a strong correlation between VO2max and endurance ability in a heterogeneous population. If you took EVERY person in your city and had their VO2max measured and had them run a 5k you would see a strong correlation with high values finishing faster than lower values. Yes, you will have people with high values run slower than others with the same values, but across the entire population you would see a really good line.

One of the problems is that we often see Vo2max values of elite athletes that are so close to one another in values that the correlation falls away. It would be like trying to figure out which Mensa member is going to be best at chess based on IQ. They are in such a narrow range that predictiveness falls apart.

Yes, there can be high variations in scores based on equipment although protocol differences are probably the bigger factor. Some labs might do a longer test that might produce lower results. There are a lot of protocols for testing and even some with the same name are not conducted in the same way. I learned that the Balke protocol (a common one in a "stress test" at a hospital) we were using in our lab in grad school was not the actual original Balke protocol. Learned through writing others that they were also using a different version although we all were calling it the Balke protocol.

VO2max Madness wrote:

Lance an 84??? I think that might be a little on the drug-induced side...imagine that. 😅

That is legit even without doping. Even at moderate altitude he was in the low 80s. The guy did not desaturate like most folks.

RE also seems to have a relationship to the paces you train at a lot. So a miler will have a better RE at a fast pace than a marathon will and vice versa.

For those who do not know, Running Economy is measured at a fixed pace. There is no single standard for what that pace is although for highly trained I see 16 kph used pretty consistently.

In the study done on Pre, Shorter, et al. Shorter's RE is very good (one of the best IIRC) and the test pace was one that he trained at a lot.

Slamin wrote:

You guys say that weight affects VO2 a lot. How would OP being 6’8” affect his max?

Depends on how you express VO2max.

The numbers everyone tends to throw around are often milliliters of oxygen per kilogram of body weight per min (ml/kg/min). That is great for comparing people are very different sizes. However, if you want to compare yourself from time point A to time point B to see if your cardiorespiratory system has improved then I say eliminate the body weight component and go with L/min. If that has increased then you have gotten fitter and not just lost some weight.

This is not to say that weight does not matter in performance, but if you run faster you might not have improved your ability to consume oxygen but just have less mass to move.

so what? wrote:

that's because wrote:

They are either fat or fast twitchers or both.

Cheetahs and racehorses are fast twitch. A racehorse has a VO2 of around 220.

Here is data on detrained thoruoghbred (129 ml/kg/min).

And more on equines

Around 200 ml/kg/min according to this article.

Love that stroke volume is 1.3 L/beat at test. For humans it is in the neighborhood of 70 ml/beat

You might be underperforming. I had a big Vo2max (measured many times) and never achieved the potential that it showed.

Also the more muscle mass used the higher Vo2max will be.

luv2run wrote:

There is a strong correlation between VO2max and endurance ability in a heterogeneous population. If you took EVERY person in your city and had their VO2max measured and had them run a 5k you would see a strong correlation with high values finishing faster than lower values. Yes, you will have people with high values run slower than others with the same values, but across the entire population you would see a really good line.

One of the problems is that we often see Vo2max values of elite athletes that are so close to one another in values that the correlation falls away. It would be like trying to figure out which Mensa member is going to be best at chess based on IQ. They are in such a narrow range that predictiveness falls apart.

I agree, though I would be interested in seeing how strong the correlation is if we could control for the aspects of VO2max that respond to training and those that don't (i.e., talent).

For instance, although it's well understood that VO2max doesn't really respond much to training, after a certain point, I think it's a safe assumption that the average hobby jogger hadn't yet reached that point, much less the average adult who we might subject to a fitness test.

The other aspect of VO2max that changes a lot is the weight denominator. All things being equal, low body fat = high VO2max. If everyone were rail thin, then the distribution of VO2max values in a population would be much more tightly clustered.

I'd be interested in looking at the relationship between VO2max and performance for a non-elite, but still well trained population. I would also be interested in looking isolating the effect of extra body fat on that relationship.

I'll take the 100 wrote:

that's because wrote:

Oh shut up. If you know so much then answer my question and win your $100.

Should be easy money for someone who actually undestands the variables?

No, max is not achieved at max heart rate so there is no reason to explain why it is achieved at max heart rate.

Correct. It was a trick question. Aren't I cruel?

But can you explain why not?

No, that's too easy, reduced stroke volume. But what is the effect of extra adrenaline on a reduced stroke volume? Does it increase again?

Can you have both? Explain the variables involved in oxygen demand and delivery including changes in hemoconcentration?

luv2run wrote:

You might be underperforming. I had a big Vo2max (measured many times) and never achieved the potential that it showed.

Everyone underperforms compared to the fittest runners.

So you had a high VO2 max and never broke 17 for 5k luv2run?

That's because VO2 max in itself is meaningless.

You would probably get a correlation, but it might not be that strong.

I don't think the VO2max of elite athletes are so close. Elite athletes whose finish times vary by 5% might have VO2 max values that vary by more than 30%.

that's because wrote:

I'll take the 100 wrote:

No, max is not achieved at max heart rate so there is no reason to explain why it is achieved at max heart rate.

Correct. It was a trick question. Aren't I cruel?

But can you explain why not?

No, that's too easy, reduced stroke volume. But what is the effect of extra adrenaline on a reduced stroke volume? Does it increase again?

Can you have both? Explain the variables involved in oxygen demand and delivery including changes in hemoconcentration?

No Jon, I don't have to explain anything. Give me the money and stop welshing.

Are you also the guy who creates those dumb riddles with no answer?

Also adrenaline increases energy expenditure which counters your whole efficiency premise.

Of course there is a corellation to some degree since the local 5k in your city and VO2 max because, well duh, it includes fatties and non endurance runners.

And yes I agree with your second statement also.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555089/figure/Fig4/

I'll take the 100 wrote:

that's because wrote:

Correct. It was a trick question. Aren't I cruel?

But can you explain why not?

No, that's too easy, reduced stroke volume. But what is the effect of extra adrenaline on a reduced stroke volume? Does it increase again?

Can you have both? Explain the variables involved in oxygen demand and delivery including changes in hemoconcentration?

No Jon, I don't have to explain anything. Give me the money and stop welshing.

Are you also the guy who creates those dumb riddles with no answer?

Also adrenaline increases energy expenditure which counters your whole efficiency premise.

I'll give you the $100 if you can describe the variables of oxygen demand and delivery and economy and overall efficiency.

Notice I say demand and delivery and economy. Not reductionism, but holism.

Your energy expenditure hypothesis is incorrect because oxygen uptake and adrenaline correlate.

If you could do what you say you can and explain things better than me, then do it, it would be better than posting endless dogma. Give me a reason to respect you.

The full text. 232 references and they didn't even get funding. Now that's what I call research:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4555089/

that's because wrote:

I'll take the 100 wrote:

No Jon, I don't have to explain anything. Give me the money and stop welshing.

Are you also the guy who creates those dumb riddles with no answer?

Also adrenaline increases energy expenditure which counters your whole efficiency premise.

I'll give you the $100 if you can describe the variables of oxygen demand and delivery and economy and overall efficiency.

Notice I say demand and delivery and economy. Not reductionism, but holism.

Your energy expenditure hypothesis is incorrect because oxygen uptake and adrenaline correlate.

If you could do what you say you can and explain things better than me, then do it, it would be better than posting endless dogma. Give me a reason to respect you.

So now you're trying to pay people to agree with you and your crazy ideas?That's desperate.

It's like delusion prostitution or something.

You're as bad as rojo when it comes to losing a bet.