What does a high VO2 Max give you as a distance runner?

The training that worked best for me was lots of fast tempo stuff. Interval work never moved the needle for me, but doing hard tempos 3-4 times/week worked well. Of course doing that many tempos also got me injured, but if I timed it right I could have a month of great performances before I broke down.

The 7aji wrote:

Say you run around 45 mpw with a VO2 Max of 75 and just started distance running with no background whatsoever, what will that mean for that runner. Does it mean they will do better off low mileage and higher ratio of quality workout miles? Again, new runner and the VO2 Max is before getting trained

VO2max gets so much bashing here. As the great Andy Coggan, PhD likes to say (paraphrasing): if you want to be a successful endurance athlete you need a sufficiently high VO2max. The number of elite endurance athletes with a "low" (let's say below 65 ml/kg/min for men) VO2max is pretty small.

VO2max sets the upper limit. It is but 1 factor though. Lactate threshold (especially 5K and up is also a critical factor. Having a LT that is a high percentage of your VO2max bodes well. Running economy is the third leg (and oddly often is poor in those with extremely high Vo2max).

So given your druthers, you want a pretty high VO2max, but it does not guarantee success.

I sympathize. I had a high Vo2max and my times never were close to what one would expect.

bestes@emerson.com

wrote:

I’m no doctor but it really means that your cardiovascular system is capable of delivering a lot of oxygen to working muscles. As noted by others, this high value doesn’t address the condition or limitations of the muscles receiving the oxygen. Rarely will you complete an event or competition where VO2 max will be the decisive factor

So you don't think at the local Turkey Trot the people with high Vo2max will come in ahead of the people with low Vo2max?

One issue when looking at elite athletes is there their VO2max are so close and in such a narrow range that it is not a differentiator.

And isn't sprinting and raw speed training the best way to improve running economy?

Similar story here. Had my VO2 max measured by Jack Daniels in a lab at NAU in the early 00's. Came in at 76 point something, but you'd never know it from looking at my race times. I'm like you though - it's damn near impossible to get out of shape, even into my 40s. Coming back now after a three month break. First week was kind of tough, after that it felt almost like I hadn't taken any time off at all.

VO2max gets bashed because it doesn't provide you with any new information that you couldn't already figure out from more direct metrics such as race times. VO2max is also inversely proportional to running economy among elites, suggesting that it's not the driver of fitness some believe it is. VO2max is overrated and believed to be important only because it's been measured for so long and sounds science-y, when in reality most people would be better off focusing on race times and training paces relative to race pace. Running economy on the other hand is highly valuable, at least for measuring which running shoes are best for you.

Luv2Run wrote:

bestes@emerson.com

wrote:

I’m no doctor but it really means that your cardiovascular system is capable of delivering a lot of oxygen to working muscles. As noted by others, this high value doesn’t address the condition or limitations of the muscles receiving the oxygen. Rarely will you complete an event or competition where VO2 max will be the decisive factor

So you don't think at the local Turkey Trot the people with high Vo2max will come in ahead of the people with low Vo2max?

One issue when looking at elite athletes is there their VO2max are so close and in such a narrow range that it is not a differentiator.

If 20+ points is a narrow range then yes its an issue. Difference between 70 and 90 is 28 or 23 percent depending on which side you look for which is significant anyway. From studies threshold correlates with performance way more than VO2max. I mean there was an athlete tested who requires only 38 ml of O2 per minute per kg to run 16km/h. I know a middle distance runner who ran 3:50low 1500 with 63 vo2max. Now he is an 800 runner primarily but still.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

Charles Martel wrote:

A high VO2 max is one of several factors involved in being fast. It is the aerobic engine.

As the dump truck says, it is not the be-all end-all. And I would wager if he had 52 speed he would've been knocking on the door of sub-14 for 5k.

You don't need to have 52s 400m speed to run sub 14 if you are an aerobic monster. Salazar never ran faster than 57s (pure slow-twitch, easily got outkicked in slow races), and ran substantially faster over any aerobic distance. Salazar had no speed, but a VO2MAX at 80-82, and was able to run marathons at an extremely high % of his VO2MAX.

I think you are one of the worst posters on here.

Where did I say you need 52 speed to run sub-14? Of course Salazar could easily do it with much slower 400m speed because his VO2 max was in the 80s, which is a different universe from 75. And because he was an endurance-based guy for whom the 5k was probably too short. My point was that the Dump Truck would've needed that kind of speed to break 14 because his engine isn't nearly as big as Salazar's.

Juice Springsteen wrote:

The faster your all out speed is, the faster your easy pace is. The faster you can run one mile, the faster you can run 3, etc.

Is that true in distance events? In sprints I have found it to be opposite. Getting better at my 50 free did not immediately make me better in the 100. In fact I got worse! Not raw speed necessary for an event like the 50 did not allow for the aerobic development necessary for a 100 or beyond.

Charles Martel wrote:

Where did I say you need 52 speed to run sub-14? Of course Salazar could easily do it with much slower 400m speed because his VO2 max was in the 80s, which is a different universe from 75. And because he was an endurance-based guy for whom the 5k was probably too short. My point was that the Dump Truck would've needed that kind of speed to break 14 because his engine isn't nearly as big as Salazar's.

The guy we were talking about (Dump Truck) ran collegiate (Big Ten) 15:10/31:20, with a best 400m time of 57s. You are saying, if his 400m time was better, like 52s, he could have run 14 flat.

You are wrong in assuming that his 400m time wasn't maxed out - do you think he and his coaches of a Big Ten school didn't try to make him faster? 57s was the fastest he could run (under normal circumstances, he might be able to get 1-2s faster in a life-threatening situation being chased by a tiger or lion).

So saying IF he had 52s 400m speed, he could have run 14 flat with his VO2MAX is like saying IF his VO2MAX would be in the 80's, he could run 14 flat with his 57s 400m speed.

Reality is, both his endurance AND speed were maxed out/extremely close to maxed out in college, and the 15:10/31:20 were around his ultimate potential in running (without using PED's).

Also, I don't consider 57s 400m speed for a 15:10 runner to be extremely underdeveloped. I'd say around 55s is what most 15:00-15:20 guys could do in a 400m, with deviations to ~50s for speed-based guys and 60s for very slow-twitch, marathon types.

You really don't understand how most college runners train. They don't do sh!t for speed development.

Mikeh33 wrote:

Juice Springsteen wrote:

The faster your all out speed is, the faster your easy pace is. The faster you can run one mile, the faster you can run 3, etc.

Is that true in distance events? In sprints I have found it to be opposite. Getting better at my 50 free did not immediately make me better in the 100. In fact I got worse! Not raw speed necessary for an event like the 50 did not allow for the aerobic development necessary for a 100 or beyond.

I agree. But the mental side is improved by the faster shorter runs.

Guys guys ... LRP has stated time and time again on different threads that he was a computer gamer then only got into running 2-3 years ago. Now it's obvious that he got all his knowledge from book reading instead of experiencing things for himself. Give him a break. Cheers