65 VO2 max -- not bad, good or great?

Much more interesting is your running speed at VO2max? The so call vVO2max.

lexel wrote:

Much more interesting is your running speed at VO2max? The so call vVO2max.

AKA what is your 5k.

Renewed Marathoner wrote:

I am slow as f.

314 marathon pr and my vo2 max is 69.5

So Im Not sure how helpful v02 max is as an indicator of speed.

You are right. An elite swimmer or rower would commonly have a VO2max over 70, and many of them couldn't break 20:00 for 5k because they are trained for entirely different sports.

And as 2004's list shows, even among runners there is tremendous variability in running efficiency relative to O2 uptake at a given speed.

Track your own VO2 if you want. Don't compare to others unless you have an identical twin in the same sport.

Alpha Runner wrote:

Not bad - you have one of three of the most desirable things for a male runner (the "3 sixes"): 60+ VO2 max, six-pack abs & 6 inches.

Get the other two and you'll be studsville for a male runner! 👍💪

That's funny that you call yourself alpha, yet you think #3 is something special. Under 7 doesn't even count.

Treshold pace and running efficiency aswell as economy are more important in my eyes. Having a 90 Vo2max isnt very helpful if you reach your treshold at 50% of vo2max. Vo2max is also often hard to increase and is therefore something an athlete over the age of ~25 should not focus on. Even for younger athletes a treshold focused training regime is efficient as you will see improvements in vo2max but the risk of injury and overtraining are reduced.

If you compete in trail or ultra running, that's excellent VO2max.

Generally, it's also not something to worry too much about, as your running economy, skill, and natural speed are just as if not more important to how you do in races.

47.0 Dirty Duck, 4:18 miler.

(According to my Garmin. Not sure if it takes gases for the calculation.)

Don't feel bad. My VO2Max is only 47-50, and I'm being honest!

Same. My VO2 max is only 55 according to both Apple and Garmin. Mediocre times of 19 min 5k and 3 hr marathon. Not winning any races soon.

The only thing that really matters is running economy. Running economy is the energy demand for a given velocity. It's also very very specific to the given velocity.

None of this is new. We just create funny names for things we can measure in a lab. Run at "race pace" to get better at running at "race pace".

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

The only thing that really matters is running economy. Running economy is the energy demand for a given velocity. It's also very very specific to the given velocity.

This, for sure. vo2 max isn't quite a myth, but it really doesn't mean as much as people think in terms of how fast you are actually able to run a given distance. A monster vo2 max won't save you without good efficiency.

True up until a point.

You can have a massive engine (VO2) and poor economy and run fast.

You can have a smaller engine and great economy and still run fast (example - Frank Shorter).

Your VO2 sets the upper limit of how much energy you can produce aerobically. In the context of distance running, your running economy and lactate threshold will dictate what percentage of that VO2 you can maintain. If you take a look at the work from Andy Jones (physiologist who has worked extensively with Paula Radcliffe and Eliud Kipchoge), you can see the calculations required to hit different running speeds as it pertains to capacity (VO2 max) and efficiency (energy cost of running at a set speed) and see how they are related.

From his paper on the Physiological Demands of Running at 2-hour marathon race pace:

"...a 59 kg athlete with a VO2peak of 4.5L/min (or 76mL/kg/min) and O2 cost of submaximal running of 191 mL/kg/km, would need to sustain 88% VO2peak to run a 2-h marathon. But, with the same O2 cost of 191 mL/kg/km and a higher VO2peak of 80 mL/kg/min, a 2-h marathon would require 84% VO2peak. Alternatively, for an athlete with a VO2peak of 76 mL/kg/min but a lower O2 cost of 180mL/kg/kmand therefore a VO2peak of running at 21.1 km/h of 3.8 L/min, a 2-h marathon would require 83% VO2peak."

Unless you have a legitimate VO2 max test done in a lab, it’s really a moot point. The estimates on HR monitors and watched are really pretty useless, even the really high end ones. They’ve gotten better over the years but it’s generally just a ballpark, at best.

You have no idea what slow means. I was tested in a lab at 63 vO2 max, and my 10k PR is 43:25. Broke 20 in a 5k once in my life.

I had my V02Max done in a lab. Full breathing apparatus (or whatever it's called) and then they ran me on a treadmill on a crazy incline and increased the speed until I gave out. They also put me in a bodpod and my bodyfat was 11.2%.

My max was 67 flat. I was running 50mpw at the time.

My PRs were.

4:53 Mile

17:30 Road 5K

Obviously not elite times at all, but I do wonder if I was a major under performer in races.

Breakfast In Bed wrote:

If you compete in trail or ultra running, that's excellent VO2max.

Generally, it's also not something to worry too much about, as your running economy, skill, and natural speed are just as if not more important to how you do in races.

In trail running for the last 4 months, ultras are something new for me.

Mr. Donut wrote:

I had my V02Max done in a lab. Full breathing apparatus (or whatever it's called) and then they ran me on a treadmill on a crazy incline and increased the speed until I gave out. They also put me in a bodpod and my bodyfat was 11.2%.

My max was 67 flat. I was running 50mpw at the time.

My PRs were.

4:53 Mile

17:30 Road 5K

Obviously not elite times at all, but I do wonder if I was a major under performer in races.

Same here. In a lab. Twice in 6mo. Last time right before my 5000m track PR (only time ever running 5000m on a track....long story).

79.4 Vo2Max (treadmill, gas exchange)

5'6"

143lb

8.5% body fat (underwater)

5k: 15:43

Half: 1:09:40

Marathon: 2:32:45

What held me back is simple biomechanics. My weight and stride. Is what it is. I wasn't built to run but I made the most of my huge engine in a Yugo body :)

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

What held me back is simple biomechanics. My weight and stride. Is what it is. I wasn't built to run but I made the most of my huge engine in a Yugo body :)

Are you referring to a relatively short stride length?

65 ml/kg/min is either really good nor bad. It is respectable.

So called moderately trained. Above recreational but below highly trained or elite level.