highest vo2 max

Bjoern Daelhe (that's how you spell his name) scored a 94 in a running test and later a 98 on a treadmill specifically made so he could ski on it with rollerskis.

It should certainly say something when he can score higher while not doing his primary sport than all but 1-2 people in the world. This actually makes perfect sense no matter what the limiting factor of VO2max is. If it is limited by the muscles' ability to accept oxygen, he's trained these systems better than any runner since he could train with more volume (30hrs/wk). On the other hand, if it is limited by the stroke volume of his heart, he could work his heart harder than any runner because of the higher demand of oxygen from many more muscle groups.

And one last thing. Without any track preparation, flat running intervals, or really anything that would be considered quality running specific to track running, he could jump on a track and run a 3k time trial in just over 8 minutes. And if you think that's impressive, just watch an old video for what he could do to ski course.

malmo wrote:

Mr Hinkley, you were supposed to take your medicine when we let you out. You promised!

malmo, took my meds and posted this on the coaches are gods thread--didn't want you to miss it:

Who would want to say I have a degree in coaching? What schools would want to have claimed Bob Knight or Dave Bliss or Jackie Sherrill or Jim Harrick as graduates of their schools of coaching? Should coaches have to pass proficiency tests and be licensed like MDs? Is a long formal education and an advanced degree at all related to success in coaching?

Some of the coaches who post here act like they have PhDs in exercise physiology, sports psychology, nutrition, and women's menstrual periods. Why do we need to bestow them with degrees if they already know they know everything?

Oh, then we get into "Okay, smarta$$, how many Olympians have you coached? How many NCAAs have you(r athletes) won? Have many Super Bowls have you(r players) won?" Well none, but there've been plenty without even college degrees.

I know plenty of smart athletes that got into med school and plenty of dumb ones got into coaching, but not many vice versa. When you show up for treatment in my emergency room with a gunshot wound, you'll care a lot less about how many Olympians I've coached than about how well educated, tested, boarded, certified, and licensed I am.

pre had a high one, and so does lance armstrong.

obviously a marathon runner will not be able to achieve a high vo2 max without specific vo2 max training.

in other words, to achieve our highest score, we have to be in our top 3000m/5000m condition.

being in top marathon shape will lower our score considerably, since our lactate tolerance will be much lower than what we can really achieve.

Lance Armstong is the highest human ever tested

Miguel Indurain tested higher, probably out of season I am guessing.

Actually I don't believe the figure to be accurate.

quoete Bjoern Daelhe (that's how you spell his name) scored a 94 in a running test and later a 98 on a treadmill specifically made so he could ski on it with rollerskis. quote end

The highest Bjoern tested was 92.11 back in his prime years. I got the exact test scores. He did test a 96.14 but the machine was uncalibrated and they found the error right after the test. Vegard Ulvang, another world class skier also tested around 92 mmol.

Khalid Skah had 87.8 when he won the Olympics in 1992. I tested 87.6 back myself back in 1998-99 (tested several times - different locations). Sources say Gebreselassie is around 92-93. Most Kenyans are +/- 80, but with very high thresholds of 20-21 km/hr = very high efficiency, not only in terms of % runing economy, but also cellular fatigue.

Marius

http://www.mariusbakke.com

Marius, doesn't all of this show us that we can't trust the figures as being accurate?

surely your 5000m time is a better indicator?

JonnyO wrote:

surely your 5000m time is a better indicator?

Of................?

I had a test of 87.9 whilst using figures of my weight with street clothes (upon entering the clinic). Thus it was calculated after the test at 88.9. This was done at Bengt Saltin's Stockholm clinic (highly reputable, ask Owen Anderson). BUT - the highest then was something in the mid nineties by a swedish (not norwegian) skier in the 1980's called Thomas something, who was the best before the legendary Gunde Svan.

VO2 counts for little - running economy is a far better 'talent' predictor.

Anyone interested in this stuff should contact Saltin - he has hoards of extremely interesting info on the stuff...

Anyway, gotta run - got a plane to catch.

Malmo,

I agree with your anti-VO2 max thoughts (you have valid points that VO2 max is a poor predictor of performance). But, I do want to bring up something others have brought up before-

You have a definite anti-science bent to many of your posts, especially exercise physiology. BUT, sometimes when you want to back-up one of your own arguments, you will quote scientific studies to support your own biases, theories, etc. I just find a bit of an inconsistency there: that you routinely bash scientific studies on training (and you are bashing these studies NOT on the merits of the protocol or methods used, but just because they are, IYHO, a waste of time because running is not a lab experiment), but then when it suits you, you will call on science to back you up. I really don?t think you can have it both ways (have a big disdain for the exercise sciences/scientists, but then ask for their ?help? when you want to defend a point.)

Do you agree that you are inconsistent in this area sometimes?

Tobytan...I bet you're thinking of Thomas Wassberg, an animal in the nordic ski world back in the late '70s to mid '80s. The Swedes really had it going back then, just dominant (along with the Soviets, clearly ahead of the Fins and Norwegians).

Anyone know anything about how Bill Koch tested out back in the day?

How about max heart rate? Anyone got any data on various athletes max heart rates? Or comparisons of different sports, i.e. runners max heart rates vs skiers heart rates. I'm not trying to say it means anything (performance-wise), but I'd be interested in hearing of differences between sports. Personally I top out at about 175bpm running but get up over 205bpm nordic skiing. Running is my main sport but I get in 75-100 days of nordic skiing a winter so am fairly efficient in both sports. I've always attributed the difference to using the upper body so much in nordic skiing.

Admiral Stockdale wrote:

Do you agree that you are inconsistent in this area sometimes?

Not at all. You simply refuse to listen to what I've said and instead insert what you want to hear. I cannot do anything about that.

OK, then explain to me where I went wrong. And don't worry, I knew it was probably I who misunderstood you, and not that you were really possibly inconsistent in something you wrote. Because that has never happened before, or has it?

So, really, explain to me how you are never inconsistent in your bashing of, and then reliance upon, excercise science.

You're going to have to give me a real world example to which to respond to. I cannot read your mind "Just say no"

Admiral Stockdale wrote:

OK, then explain to me where I went wrong. And don't worry, I knew it was probably I who misunderstood you, and not that you were really possibly inconsistent in something you wrote. Because that has never happened before, or has it?

So, really, explain to me how you are never inconsistent in your bashing of, and then reliance upon, excercise science.

Maybe you're misunderstanding Malmo and a few others. Obviously, VO2 max isn't the end all in terms of being a top runner. Runners with higher VO2 max numbers have been routinely outperformed by runners with lower VO2 max numbers. Heart rate isn't an end all either, with runners like Jim Ryun having a resting heart rate just under 70 while at his peak! Same goes for max hr. Depends on how much oxygen gets to the muscles - or - on how well the muscles utilize the oxygen. Lots of variables.

The cyclists and skiers have higher VO2 max numbers because of the activities they are forced to do in training and racing. Cycling is more of a power event - this is probably why you won't ever see too many if any E. African cyclists at the top, no matter how they take to the sport. It's different work from running, and forces the body to develop VO2 max more "fully" - because the athlete needs it. In running, other factors besides VO2 max play more of a role, hence the (usually) lower numbers at the top rung for runners compared to cyclists. The skiers also use their arms, which makes a difference in the amount of muscle tissue involved in the activity. Laugh, but this affects the required intake of oxygen as well. This is going on too long, but you get the idea.

i think he was putting in those VO2 max values to show that they varied but the runners associated with them were still very successful

VO2 max is not totally irrelevant. It is a measure of aerobic work capacity for endurance athletes and, since it's measured per unit weight and per unit time, it does measure efficiency at maximum steady state, Sure, 5K time is a better comparison of one 5K runner vs another than VO2 max for one's ability to run a fast 5K, but VO2 max is a barometer that can compare maximum steady state workload capacities for those with different physiques, biomechanics, and physical efficiencies that May favor one type of endurance activity over another. That is, it is a way to compare elite cyclists vs xc skiers vs runners etc w/o subjecting them to the at least as unfair vagaries of a cycling, skiing, running (whatever) triathlon (x-thlon). But yes, there are different ways to measure VO2 max, ie on a bicycle ergometer, treadmill, skiing simulator, etc. So maybe the only valid comparison among different sport athletes is to do a multisport VO2 max, ie a triathlon VO2 max, in a single lab with the same equipment and all other variables applied to each of those tested and average the score of each technique. So yes, it's not as straight forward as taking the temperature with a well calibrated thermometer. And yes, cyclists will always be apples while runners will always be oranges. But in a well controlled lab using multiple different VO2 max testing techniques minimizing as many variables as possible, it's about the best you can do to compare apples with oranges. Granted, it's only of academic (and web board) interest and I doubt they'll ever award medals for VO2 max, but it is not completely irrelevant.

But that's JMHO and, as I keep getting told by many here, that IS totally irrelevant. So............never mind.

So maybe the competition should be top cyclist, top skier, top runner each on a treadmill, facing each other with each TM set at 20% grade and 7MPH (not fast enough to give the runner an advantage and quad-specific enough so the cyclist will get to use his strength). Give $100,000 to the one who stays on the longest -- a new reality show