Solinsky's VO2 MAX?

I believe this kid tested over 90ml/kg/min:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_Phinney

He's over 180 pounds.

In general, a larger person will take in more oxygen.

In general, a larger person is larger.

In general, these two are largely correlated.

We've been here before....

RE: Top VO2Max in history? 3/6/2007 11:42AM - in reply to AndrewTn Reply | Return to Index | Report Post

VO2 Max doesn't mean anything.

It's an oft-used and little understood term used by grad students to justify to their parents that their efforts and money have not gone to waste. University administrators have been duped by this sciolistic fog-machine, as well. How else could the waste of valuable resources, time and money, be covered-up? Parents and other intelligent, rational thinking adults could not possibly decipher this code. Do not try to yourself. You'll only make yourself look foolish reciting the catechism of the exercise-physio-geeks.

This nascent science of exercise physiology was born out of a failed genetics experiment in the early 60s; the breeding of an economist and a sociologist. The offspring from this pairing would say more and mean less than the combined blather of the two parents put together. Common sense would have told us how this experiment would have ended, but stubborn researchers pushed ahead, nonetheless.

The only numbers that matter are the ones that you receive at the end of the race. The most important of these is called PLACE, and is represented as an ordinal. A '1' is the best indicator of your performance. If you get a '1' then you've done excellent. It's no small coincidence that '1' is a homophone for 'won'. Other excellent numbers to receive are '2' and '3'. Not nearly as good as a '1', but by tradition and convention the numbers '1', '2' and '3' are deemed to be the 'supreme ordinals'; that is to say, worthy of gold, silver and bronze, and are segregated from the other ordinals. The rest of the ordinals are represented by the formula: n + 1...(to infinity). There is a direct, inverse relationship between ordinal value and its worth. The closer to the supreme ordinals, the better you've done, the closer to infinity, the worse you've done.

One of the other numbers that matters much more than VO2 Max is TIME. TIME is always secondary to PLACE in it's value. Neither PLACE nor TIME are given in the gerbil-wheel lab tests conducted by the exercise-physio-geeks. You will only receive them in the experiment that the real experts call COMPETITION. TIME does not supersede PLACE, but it is a way of comparing the PLACE of two or more experiments from different venues and eras. The juxtaposition of TIME and PLACE is the business of track statisticians, who, by the way, are also the progeny from the aforementioned failed genetics experiment.

Physicists have proven, through complex mathematical machinations, that it is physically impossible for VO2Max to supersede either TIME or PLACE. Richard Feynman once said, "VO2Max and five bucks will get you a cup of joe at Starbucks."

So far, in the history of sports, not one award has ever been given, nor has there been remuneration for, VO2Max results.

Long ago, TIME was measured as a fraction of the earth's rotation in base 60: hours, minutes and seconds. It's still expressed as such, however, the predecessors to the exercise-physio-geeks have determined that TIME should now be measured in terms of the vibration frequency of irradiated Cesium atoms. Your watch has quartz crystals in it that will simulate this experiment for you (without the attendant radiation and disposal problems) and convert the results automatically, presenting them to you in the form of easily recognizable numerical glyphs. No complicated formulae to memorize!

There are many other factors that are much more indicative of athletic performance, or the potential for performance, than VO2 max. I couldn't possibly begin to list them all: height, weight, hair color, skin color, shoe size, favorite TV show...the list is endless.

----------------------------------------

RUNNING PREDICTS RUNNING BETTER THAN PHYSIOLOGY

Noakes, T. D., Myburgh, K. H., & Schall, R. (1990). Peak treadmill running velocity during VO2max test predicts running performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 8, 35-45.

Marathon runners (N = 20) and ultra-marathoners (N = 23) were tested for VO2max, peak treadmill running velocity, velocity at lactate turnpoint, and VO2 at 16 km/h using an incremental (1 min) treadmill test.

Results. Race times at 10, 21.1, and 42.2 km of the specialist marathoners were faster than those of the ultra-marathoners, however, only the 10 km time differed significantly. Lactate turnpoint occurred at 77.4% of VO2max and at 74.7% of peak treadmill velocity. The average VO2 at 16 km/h was 51.2 ml/kg/min which represented 78.5% of VO2max.

For all distances, performance time in other races was the best predictor of performance (r = .95 to .98).

The best laboratory predictors were: (a) peak treadmill running velocity (r = -.89 to -.94); (b) running velocity at lactate turnpoint (r = -.91 to -.93); and (c) fractional use of VO2max at 16 km/h (r = .86 to .90). The predictive value of the lactate turnpoint measure increased as the distance increased.

The poorest predictors were: VO2max (r = -.55 to -.81) and VO2 at 16 km/h (r = .40 to .45).

Conclusion. There may be no unique physiological characteristics that distinguish elite long-distance (10 km or longer) runners as is often promoted. Other factors determine success in high level sports among exclusive groups of superior athletes.

Implication. Running performance is the best predictor of running capability in elite long-distance runners. Physiological laboratory testing gives less information than does actual performance. Even the fastest speed of running on the treadmill is a better predictor than any physiological measure. This suggests that for at least endurance-dominated sports, actual performances in a variety of performance-specific situations will give more useful information than that which can be obtained in any physiology laboratory test.

malmo wrote:

73.0 Jeff Galloway, US snake oil salesman

Ha, got a nice little chuckle out of that

Big guys can have big VO2 maxes. Miguel Indurain was 6'2" and over 170 lbs at his lightest.

Fashionista wrote:

Big guys can have big VO2 maxes. Miguel Indurain was 6'2" and over 170 lbs at his lightest.

malmo wrote:

So confident? I'd bet he's closer to Clayton than to Lemond.

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 [and skiied]

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

...

Almost all of the guys at the top are either cyclists or XC skiers, both of whom use other musculature in their sport and with cycling, the number of hours that you spend on the bike is so large that it also helps develop larger VO2 scores.

Also, you should be aware that in any list of those with the highest scores on a test with some measurement issues, the high scores are more likely to have positive errors than negative errors -- that is, they are biased high.

malmo wrote:

wellnow wrote:

100 bucks?

anyways ml/kg/min I shoulda wrote.

If you can't accept published data, then you wouldn't accept any other data would you?

**********************************************

I accept data from someone who knows what they are doing.

More muscle mass = more oxygenation = higher VO2max.

That'll be one hundred dollars pleeeze.

neverknowing wrote:

VO2max is overemphasized:

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html

VO2 Max doesn't mean anything

It's an oft-used and little understood term used by grad students to justify to their parents that their efforts and money have not gone to waste. University administrators have been duped by this sciolistic fog-machine, as well. How else could the waste of valuable resources, time and money, be covered-up with impunity? Parents and other intelligent, rational thinking adults could not possibly decipher this code. Do not try to yourself. You'll only make yourself look foolish reciting the catechism of the exercise-physio-geeks.

This nascent science of exercise physiology was born out of a failed genetics experiment in the early 60s; the breeding of an economist and a sociologist. The offspring from this pairing would say more and mean less than the combined blather of the two parents put together. Common sense would have told us how this experiment would have ended, but stubborn researchers pushed ahead, nonetheless.

The only numbers that matter are the ones that you receive at the end of the race. The most important of these is called place, and is represented as an ordinal. A '1' is the best indicator of your performance. If you get a '1' then you've done excellent. It's no small coincidence that '1' is a homophone for 'won'. Other excellent numbers to receive are '2' and '3'. Not nearly as good as a '1', but by tradition and convention the numbers '1', '2' and '3' are deemed to be the 'supreme ordinals'; that is to say, worthy of gold, silver and bronze, and are segregated from the other ordinals. The rest of the ordinals are represented by the formula: n + 1...(to infinity). There is a direct, inverse relationship between ordinal value and its worth. The closer to the supreme ordinals, the better you've done, the closer to infinity, the worse you've done.

One of the other numbers that matters much more than VO2 Max is time. Time is always secondary to place in it's value. Neither place nor time are given in the gerbil-wheel lab tests conducted by the exercise-physio-geeks. You will only receive them in the experiment that the real experts call competition. Time does not supersede place, but it is a way of comparing the place of two or more experiments from different venues and eras. The juxtaposition of time and place is the business of track statisticians, who, by the way, are also the progeny from the aforementioned failed genetics experiment.

Long ago, time was measured as a fraction of the earth's rotation in base 60: hours, minutes and seconds. It's still expressed as such, however, the predecessors to the exercise-physio-geeks have determined that time should now be measured in terms of the vibration frequency of irradiated Cesium atoms. Your watch has quartz crystals in it that will simulate this experiment for you (without the attendant radiation and disposal problems) and convert the results automatically, presenting them to you in the form of easily recognizable numerical glyphs. No complicated formulae to memorize!

Through complex mathematical machinations, physicists have proven that it is physically impossible for VO2Max to supersede either time or place in value. Physicist Richard Feynman once said, "VO2Max and five bucks will get you a cup of joe at Starbucks."

So far, in the history of sports, not one award has been given, nor has there ever been remuneration, for VO2Max results.

There are many other factors that are much more indicative of athletic performance, or the potential for performance, than VO2 max. I couldn't possibly begin to list them all: height, weight, hair color, skin color, shoe size, favorite TV show...the list is endless.

------

What is VO2 max?

Simply put, the oxygen consumption capacity of the body during exercise. It's value is expressed as: Volume of oxygen (O2) consumed, per Unit Body mass, per time interval or: milliliters O2/Kg body/minute. Check that out, two variables and one constant in the formula. Look at the denominator of the formula: Kg body mass. Want to improve VO2 max without training? Lose weight.

At rest, the human body has a VO2 of 3-4 ml/kg/min. According to the exercise physiologists: sedentary individuals have a VO2 max of 40-50. Trained recreational runners 55-65. Competitive runners 65-80, and elite runners 84-92. The truth of the matter is that there are no distinct boundaries separating these groups. Many recreational runners have higher VO2 max (80s) than competitive and elite runners. Many elite runners have lower VO2 max (70s) values than some of the recreational runners.

Take a sampling of runners with PR differences of just 2% in their specialties. For example, that would be three sets of athletes collected together like so:

1) 1500m (3:29.7-3:34.0)

2) 5000m (13:00-13:16)

3) 10,000m (26:57-27:30)

Now fly in exercise physiologists from around the world and geek-out: treadmills, oxygen ventilators, calipers, rectal probes! Collect the data, crunch the numbers and what do you get? Sets of highly-trained runners with similar PRs (2% differentials) with VO2 max values that vary wildly: 10 to 15 percent (sometimes more)! Runners with slower PRs having higher VO2 max. How is that predictive of performance?

As a broad generalization, I'll agree that trained runners will have higher VO2 max than the sedentary. That is called the common sense doctrine. Within sampling sets of like-performing athletes, there is no direct correlation.

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

----------------------------------------

RUNNING PREDICTS RUNNING BETTER THAN PHYSIOLOGY

Noakes, T. D., Myburgh, K. H., & Schall, R. (1990). Peak treadmill running velocity during VO2max test predicts running performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 8, 35-45.

Marathon runners (N = 20) and ultra-marathoners (N = 23) were tested for VO2max, peak treadmill running velocity, velocity at lactate turnpoint, and VO2 at 16 km/h using an incremental (1 min) treadmill test.

Results. Race times at 10, 21.1, and 42.2 km of the specialist marathoners were faster than those of the ultra-marathoners, however, only the 10 km time differed significantly. Lactate turnpoint occurred at 77.4% of VO2max and at 74.7% of peak treadmill velocity. The average VO2 at 16 km/h was 51.2 ml/kg/min which represented 78.5% of VO2max.

For all distances, performance time in other races was the best predictor of performance (r = .95 to .98).

The best laboratory predictors were: (a) peak treadmill running velocity (r = -.89 to -.94); (b) running velocity at lactate turnpoint (r = -.91 to -.93); and (c) fractional use of VO2max at 16 km/h (r = .86 to .90). The predictive value of the lactate turnpoint measure increased as the distance increased.

The poorest predictors were: VO2max (r = -.55 to -.81) and VO2 at 16 km/h (r = .40 to .45).

Conclusion. There may be no unique physiological characteristics that distinguish elite long-distance (10 km or longer) runners as is often promoted. Other factors determine success in high level sports among exclusive groups of superior athletes.

Implication. Running performance is the best predictor of running capability in elite long-distance runners. Physiological laboratory testing gives less information than does actual performance. Even the fastest speed of running on the treadmill is a better predictor than any physiological measure. This suggests that for at least endurance-dominated sports, actual performances in a variety of performance-specific situations will give more useful information than that which can be obtained in any physiology laboratory test.

More on VO2 Max

------------------------------------------

As I've said in the satire above, "VO2 max doesn't mean anything."

Even the crazy Finns have read "VO2Max doesn't mean anything"

You can't really compare cyclists, Nordic skiers, rowers and runners in VO2peak. Aside from the obvious specificity issue, testing protocol differences, scaling factors and other considerations --especially in regards to cycling-- all invalidate the comparison. Basically ml/kg/min is ridiculous for cyclists and actually not so great for runners either. Plain old VO2 is just fine for cyclists,absurd for distance runners.

As for Solinsky, his vVO2peak (based off track times) we already know 59-61/400m....

Of course you could get 20 different V02peak estimates for Solinsky depending on what test you give. And of course he could improve his V02peak on some running protocol and run faster, slower or the same in terms of track times.

Daehlie's was measured at 96.5

Citizen Runner wrote:

malmo wrote:

I'll bet it's not. High body weight.

Runningart2004 wrote:

You may have to explain that one to the masses Malmo, most don't quite get the "/kg" part of the equation...

Alan

Bjorn Daehlie is about 6' and competed at around 170 lbs. He had kind of a high VO2max.

From "Solinsky ran fast" it doesn't necessarily follow that he has an extraordinary VO2max, but his size doesn't necessarily contradict the possibility. Running with the Nike group, I've got to believe that he's been measured, but they may choose not to share those measurements.

When XC skiers measure their Vo2max they roller ski on a treadmill, so their Vo2max values get much higher. If Dählie had done a running test his value would have been much lower.

So why don't we see any 40's in the mix of elite athletes?

Anyone who can't see the correlation between high numbers increasing potential must also have a hard time believing Africans are more predisposed to running fast.

You guys should buy a couple of Budweiser Clydesdales and go for the Derby. They have really low V02 numbers and we all know build and muscle type means nothing.

1) I seem to remember that acc. to Daniels, Joaquim Cruz had a low VO2 Max.

2) At the risk of stating the obvious, what diff does it make whether Solinsky's VO2 Max is 70 or 90? He still ran sub 27 and won the race, whatever his number.

3) Speculating on potential is the ultimate what-if game and is useless based on one number.

wellnow wrote:

I accept data from someone who knows what they are doing.

More muscle mass = more oxygenation = higher VO2max.

That'll be one hundred dollars pleeeze.

Give those dollars to malmo.

It depends from the quality of the muscle mass. Or then the bodybuilders would have the highest VO2max.

Well now,You need to do more homework. You left out the already mentioned factor which undermines your math:More muscle mass = more kg = lower VO2maxSo a better equation is:More muscle mass = (more oxygenation)/(more kg) = ??We need real data to determine the answer, not to mention an agreed upon threshold between high and low. (If it's 72, is that high or low?)I leave it as an exercise to the reader...

wellnow wrote:

More muscle mass = more oxygenation = higher VO2max.

That'll be one hundred dollars pleeeze.

The point I'm making is simple. Two distance runners, the same age and ability, one has much less muscle mass than the other. The one with the greater muscle mass has a much higher VO2 max.

Why is this? Well according to the shorter heels - better econonomy study (remember that) the larger framed runner needs that muscle mass and the higher VO2 max to overcome his relative lack of mechanical efficiency.

A good question would be: what are the advantages and disadvantages of a higher VO2 max?

My point is simpler. To win the bet, you need to:

- have a bet (did malmo accept it?)

- define the low/high threshold. Would 72 be high or low?

- make the measurement

You can create all the logic you want, but before claiming victory for a $100 bet, you need real data, and objective criteria. We already know Solinsky is an outlier. Maybe he has kangaroo-like tendons, and super-human neuro-muscular coordination, leading to unusually high economy.

I vaguely remember the short heel study. Does Solinsky have short heels? Does he wear high heels? Did they measure heel heights in the study? I recall a lot of things weren't measured. I also recall some low correlation co-efficients.

Maybe more by scientists in research, than successful coaches and athletes.I found reading this paper painful. Most of the conclusions and logic are fine, but I had a lot of problems with the assumptions and alleged realities.

neverknowing wrote:

VO2max is overemphasized:

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html

Malmo wouldn't accept the bet, he knows better than to argue with me.

72 would be medium I suppose for a distance runner.

Solinsky got into shape, got into the race, and then got racing, and ran a tactically superb race.

Conditions must have been good. What is it about that race that it produces such fast times?

The record was bound to be broken in the right race. All the fuss about sub 27 is a bit silly really. It highlights the low self esteem of American distance running, which hopefully is turning around. Here in England as you know things are even worse.

Solinksy breaks the silly stereotypes, but I want to see this progress continue with faster and faster times. However, times are just a number aren't they? An American could do an even better performance with a much slower time and who would care? That runner might have a relatively low VO2 max, well below 70?

What's this "shorter heels" lark people are going on about?