Vo2Max Question

That's the whole idea of the VDOT tables -- using performance to determine how fast you can run. Of course there is a very high correlation between running performance and VO2max if you want to find one -- just test a wide variety of runners, from people with a max of 30 up to 80 and the correlation will be outstanding. But it is no secret that among a group of elite runners the correlation is weak. VO2max testing can be useful when you follow the same individual over time, because it can give you a clue as to the benefits (or lack thereof) of the training you are doing (or maybe if a stay at altitude had any effect o VO2max, etc)

Are we asking the right question? If Joe Runner wants to see how he stacks up against a random population, surely he should race them rather than arranging a complicated, costly VO2 max protocol. If Joe is reasonable, he should care about a different set of questions: will HIS running improve as a direct result of improving his own VO2 max? Should he do specific sessions to isolate VO2 max improvement, or will it simply improve in tandem with generalized running improvement? To answer these questions we need longitudinal rather than cross sectional data, no?

.... wrote:

I know the OTC isn't for everyone to just walk into. Infact i don't know of a place you can just walk into to get that tested. I was just stating where i got mine done for reference.

To the guy who has a 90. Where were you tested? That is extremely high and unbelievable.

Your statement made it sound like anyone could just walk in. There are universities that do testing for the public. You need to call ahead and schedule it. There might be a reason that they would not test you that would be determined during a screening interview or health history.

There are several places around the country that are private facilities that will do the testing as well. I am leery of them for a lot of reasons.

Slim wrote:

[quote]High V02 wrote:

Your VO2 max is a measure for the aerobic power you can produce per kg of body weight. It tells you nothing about your efficiency. In addition anaerobic power also contributes to distances shorter than 10K.

The anaerobic contribution even at 10K is pretty small. Gastin recently did a review of the literature and found that in an all out effort lasting 100 sec (which is almost exactly the WR for the men's 800), aerobic energy contributed 60% of the energy.

Duffield and Dawson in New Studies in Athletics 18:4, 47-56, 2003 showed that for men the 3000m was 86% aerobic/14% anaerobic.

ignoramus wrote:

Are we asking the right question? If Joe Runner wants to see how he stacks up against a random population, surely he should race them rather than arranging a complicated, costly VO2 max protocol. If Joe is reasonable, he should care about a different set of questions: will HIS running improve as a direct result of improving his own VO2 max? Should he do specific sessions to isolate VO2 max improvement, or will it simply improve in tandem with generalized running improvement? To answer these questions we need longitudinal rather than cross sectional data, no?

I would agree that the best use for an individual is testing-retesting. However, scientists (of which I am one) can do studies that are beneficial.

I have seen very good coaches (Vigil) use the data from VO2max testing to assess the training and also make adjustments in the training program for the upcoming phase.

Are you familiar with measuring a runners ability to maintain velocity at the doubling of distance. For Example:

Kenninisa Bekele:..5000m..12:37,= 757 secs. 10000m..26:20,= 1580 secs. multiply 5000m time by 2, which equals 1514 secs, 1514/1580 = .958%, very simple.

Almost all world class runners are between .95 and .97. The highest I have found using 5k to 10k is Paula Radcliffe at .97. Meb Keflezhgi is at .9675 for his 5k and 10k PR's.

I believe this to be useful as a tool for analyzing any indivduals performances. Often for a young runner the number will be .85 to .89, showing that they need more aerobic training. It also shows the upper limit of what is to be gained from aerobic conditioning. If a runner achieves a .94 to .95, and they wish to improve their times, then most of the improvement will come from improving their speed at shorter distances.

Also this measurement seems to factor in variables like efficiency of stride and VO2. It's also an easy tool to use, road races are everywhere. Or you can run time trials on the track.

Jack Daniels said that Joan Samuelson's V02 max was the highiest he's ever tested for a woman. I wonder if Paula Radcliffe's is higher.

vo2 max counts, but real info comes from lactate threshold

Paula Radcliffe may have a higher VO2, or she may not have, It's like someone pointed out about Frank Shorter, he had a lower VO2 than many world class runners. But he had a very efficient stride so he did not need as high a VO2. That's why I like measuring a runners ability to maintain speed (velocity) at doubling of distance, it evens out all the other variables. There is great variance in VO2 and stride efficiency amongst world class runners, but all world class runners that I have checked are in the .95 to .97 range of this measurement.

real numbers wrote:

vo2 max counts, but real info comes from lactate threshold

Actually real info comes from PLACE followed by TIME. Those are the only real numbers that count. Where's Malmo when I need him. He's got a rather interesting take on place and time and which numbers really matter.

I've had both my Vo2max and threshold tested. Vo2max was 79.4 (at 5'6', 140lbs, 8% body fat), and threshold was at 85% of that (66.7) and I have yet to crack 15:00 in the 5k or 2:30 in the marathon. Believe me when I say both numbers are rather meaningless if you don't also have great running economy (O2 uptake at various speeds...ie: velocity at Vo2max, velocity at lactate threshold, etc)

Alan

runningart2004 wrote:

Actually real info comes from PLACE followed by TIME. Those are the only real numbers that count. Where's Malmo when I need him. He's got a rather interesting take on place and time and which numbers really matter.

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 of 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 separated 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 you get to the supreme ordinals, the better you've done, the closer you approach 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 supercede 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 of 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 numbers. 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.

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

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-physio-geeks: Sedentary individuals have a VO2 max of 40-50. Trained grasshopper runners 55-65. Mantis runners 65-80, and Super-Mantis runners 84-92. The truth of the matter is that there are no distinct boundaries separating these groups. Many grasshopper runners have higher VO2 max (80s) than mantis and super-mantis runners. Many super-mantis runners have lower VO2 max (70s) values than the grasshoppers.

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-physio-geeks from monastaries 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. Even using the EP geek's dogma for top runners (VO2 max of 84 to 92) the variation is over 8 percent! How is that predictive of performance?

As a generalization, I'll agree with you that trained runners will have higher VO2 max than the sedentary. That is called the common sense doctrine. We teach that Kung Fu at the Shaolin monastery. Within samplings of like-performing athletes, on the other hand, there is no direct correlation.

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

92.5 Greg LeMond, professional cyclist

92.0 Matt Carpenter, Pikes Peak marathon course record holder

88.0 Miguel Indurain, professional cyclist

84.4 Steve Prefontaine,US runner

73.0 Jeff Galloway, US Runner

72.8 Jarmila Krotochvilova,Czech Olympian 400M/800M winner

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

69.7 Derek Clayton, Australian ex-Marathon World Record holder

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.

Post of the Year!

Reality wrote:

Post of the Year!

Well, post of 1998 anyway.

That's a good post, and entertaining too, but it seems to be a non-argument. I haven't seen any knowledgeable ex phys people claim that VO2max IS an excellent predictor of performance among trained athletes. (On this board or in their books, I have never seen Daniels, Pfitzinger, tinman, et al. make this claim.) The only people who seem to get this impression are those new to the field and who don't consider all of the other variables involved. On the other hand, I would be willing to wager that VO2max is a decent predictor for a random set of the general population. If I picked 100 names at random from the phone book, I think their VO2max values might tell us something, although I certainly don't think it would give us the perfect pecking order. None the less, I think it is very important to let newbies know that they shouldn't get worked up over VO2max, theirs or anyone else's.

As far as TIME being the best predictor of TIME, that's also a non-issue. I mean, what's the first question anyone asks when they're asked about a performance at a certain distance X? Basically, they'll say "Well, how well have you done at distance Y?" Every performance table I have ever seen is based on performances at other distances, and they all come with the caveat that these are "equivalent performances", not a guarantee of results. I've never seen a performance table categorized by VO2max, weight, hair color, or mother's preference of salad dressing.

I do think there is an instance where TIME does trump PLACE, and that's for the average runner in a local road race. It is interesting to me that I have no memory of the times I ran during HS X-C. All I cared about was beating the guys on the other team. That's the way it should've been. Fast forward 30 years and here I am, a mid-40's guy at a local road race, no team, no championship. I care about my time because that's a personal performance indicator. Case in point: about a month ago I entered a local 5 miler and came in 6th overall with a 28:35 (young guys, please cease from laughing). Although that wasn't a master's PR for me, it was a course PR by 20+ seconds and I was satisfied with my result. My place was largely determined by who showed up. A handful of decent college guys were there. If the five guys ahead of me didn't show, I would've won easily (7th place was over a minute behind me) and probably wouldn't have run that time without their competition. What would I get for my 1st place? Basically, a somewhat larger plastic trophy. So what? Who am I trying to kid here? It's a local race, there's nothing at stake except my own sense of how well I did. I'd rather have that guy in front of me, pushing me to expend that extra effort, to try and beat him and fail, than just cruise to an easy victory.

I remember reading an article in RW a couple of years ago about improving your place at races. One of the hints was to find a smaller local race that didn't have stiff competition. I thought, "What the hell is that?" I'm just surprised that they didn't recommend challenging the kids at the grammar school and the folks at the senior home so that you could proclaim "I've beaten young and old alike!"

Ahhh, it's all just a rant on my part, nothing serious... For the most part we agree.

1998? Didn't know that post has been around that long. God I'm starting to feel old at 26. Posts about Vo2max = performance or what is "average" or "good" go hand in hand with the "what is a good running weight" posts. In both cases if you just run and train hard then the other stuff will take care of itself, meaning it will assume a number that best fits you and as long as TIME and PLACE are improving then that's all that should matter. If TIME and PLACE isn't improving then the problem doesn't lie with weight or Vo2max or lactate threshold, the problem lies with TRAINING.

Alan

Have you ever heard of periodization? You know, when you focus on one aspect of training first because it is foundational to another.

Hence the value in VO2max testing for an individual. One may work to improve one aspect of their physiology without being race sharp or peaked. The object of training is not to be in peak shape for every race, but to peak at the important races. Time and place at a season opener are meaningless in comparison to an end of season championship. There is value in working on aerobic capacity for a certain training phase--at the expensive of faster work which might temporarily improve time and place. Measurements are helpful in ascertaining the effectiveness of the program in the absence of time and place data.

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

From an argumentative perspective belittling something as absolutely worthless is almost sure to be wrong. Life is not black and white and very few if any absolutes exist. Wisdom is found in knowing the proper application and limitations of a concept or thing. There is a whole lot more to running than VO2max. In my mind consistency trumps everything. Nonetheless, a careful coach can use VO2max, LT, etc. measurements to the benefit of their athletes.