WOW, that makes my day to get a reply from the great JD!:)
I believe they talk extensively about economy in Lore of Running, but what do you believe, jtupper, to be the most important factor for improving economy? Is it the accumulation of miles, year after year? I think about the times I've raced very good older women who have been running for years-- they are so smooth! Can I expect to get 'smoother' if I keep truckin' with consistent mileage?
Cause and effect is a difficult thing to show in running research. Some original research in South Africa compared 3 groups -- those who had been averaging 50km a week, others who averaged 100km a week and a group that had been doing 150km a week. The 150 a week group proved to be more economical. However, the question is, were these runners already more economical, and maybe they were the ones who felt more confortable doing more mileage, which only meant that the more economical runners ran more mileage -- was there cause and effect? In addition, as I remember economy was tested at fairly slow speeds. When we compared 800/1500 runners to 10k and marathon runners we found the shorter-distance specialists to be more economical at faster speeds and the longer-distance runners more economical at slower speeds -- seems pretty logical that you get more economical at speeds you train more at, or do those who are more economical at faster speeds migrate towards shorter distance races? A not so positive finding was when, in 1993, we brought back our 26 elite subjects from 1968 research, we found their economy not to be as good (at age 49) as is typical of younger (24 yrs) runners. One 49 year old had a 76 VO2max compared with his 78 max at age 24. We hope to find some funding to again test this group -- they are all about 60 yrs old now. Hard to say you automatically get less economical as you age, even though it sort of makes sense since you probably don't train as much, nor do strength training, etc like you may have earlier. Maybe less flexible also so stride mechanics may have changed. Most important finding is that you must continue to exercise, which is better than not, even if you gain weight, you must keep active with aging.
jtupper,
Thanks for the interesting post. I have a question that you may not be able to help me with. I got my vo2 max tested the other day and my number was much higher than expected. The next day I was there for the testing of another athlete, and even though he was essentially brand new to distance running he tested out at 66. Therefore I'm pretty sure the machine is reading high.
The machine is new and fairly expensive, although there are probably more expensive machines on the market. Basically you put on the a mask and a tube runs from the mask into the machine. I think the machine is made by "cardio trainer." So my question is, is it likely that the machine is inherently inaccurate? If it is inaccurate is there anything we can do to try and fix it? Should I tell the owner to send it back and purchase new equipment from someone else? If so, what equipment, if any, would you recommend short of the old stuff that you can no longer get?
Thanks,
Jon
VO2 Max = 57
3k PR = 7:47
5k PR = 13:42
10k PR...let's just say I can beat the shit out of Bekele.
Hey, all this stuff is great, espeacially the V02 to running efficency comparison at the longer distances. But where the hell can I get a V02 test (I live in the Orlando area of FL)???
Thanks.
62.1 ml/kg/min.
Male
5'11" 168lbs
Road PRs:
16:10 (5K)
34:28 (10K)
57:30 (10M)
1:18:something (Half Marathon)
bump
72 VO2 - Tested at Cooper Aerobics in Dallas
PR's
1:53
3:50
4:08 Mile
8:32 3k
14:48 5k
31:38 10k
49:17 15k
ANSWER ME! I DEMAND IT!! DONT MAKE ME USE ME DARK ELF MAGE SKILLZ!!
Try your nearest college. Most of them have a decent exercise physiology lab where they can test you. Most of the time they are looking for test subjects. This way you can get it tested for free.
[quote]luv2run wrote:
"The AIS has used VO2max tests as a talent ID tool. If one's VO2max is not above some value, you cannot get into their programs. I am not sure that is the best use of a VO2max test."
True! If AIS was smart, they would realize that setting a Max VO2 minimum standard is just plain stupid. Derek Clayton, the former holder of the world's best marathon time, would never have met their standard. He was under 70 mls/kg/min at max, yet he could run under 5 minutes per mile and barely raise his lactate levels from rest according to Dr. David L. Costill.
VO2 max as a criteria for selection is just not practical. Rather, race performance (time) would be a far better criteria.
Tinman
where could i find a video of this derek clayton guy running? do any even exist?
kartelite wrote:
Actually, if you find out your VO2 Max is 56 you probably have a lot more room for improvement than if it is 80. You're a lot closer to the tip of the bell curve with a max of 80, so you would have less reason to expect much improvement.
So, is it possible to increase VO2max (not vVO2max) with proper training? I know Noakes says one can make only minimal improvements his or her VO2max, especially in well-trained individuals. It seems like if you placed your improvement as a function of VO2max (y) vs time (x) (or increased training) you would have a sharp incline followed by a major levelling off at your maximum potential. Is this true? Do I understand the nature of VO2max improvement correctly? You mention a bell shaped curve. I am not sure I follow. Is this plotting %population versus VO2max? Or is it a graph dealing with improvement? I would like to know everyone's thoughts on this subject.
kartelite wrote:
And also, it is "running economy" which measures the change in distance traveled for a given energy consumption. People tend to think of "efficiency" as running technique/form, which is not what "economy" is at all. It is simply the residual of what is not explained by VO2 Max as it relates to performance capabilities, nothing more, nothing less.
So if one can make only minimal improvements to his or her VO2max, that person must rely on becoming more economical. How do we do that? Obviously Dr. Daniels' VDot system takes this into consideration by setting training paces based on how well a person has raced. So, do we take a hollistic approach and train generally to improve our Vdot or do we break each component down and improve on each little one? Both systems will probably look very similar in application but conceptually I think they are different. Any thoughts?
bump
im 19 with a VO2 of 97 but i run a 454 mile but can cross country ski a 10k in 21:50.
im a very slow runner but here it goes
7:15 for mile repeats
15 Min. for two miles
22:50 for 3 miles and
1:30 for 10 miles
71 ml/kg/min
was not running really long yet then
ran at that value
HM 1:28
10k 37:18
5k about 18 minutes
now quite some months later
vo2max ??
HM 1:21
5k under 17:40
10k 36:58
2 Mi 10:10(last race)
all road races so distances are not always what they are.
Also broke 5 minutes for the mile last summer just before running 1:21 HM.
I am really not econommical as you see,Lt isnt the fault either when i ran at the test my anaerobic thresshold was at 90% of my vo2max.
74 ml/kg/min 3 years ago
145 6'2"
22 years old
3K - 9:32
5K - 16:22
10K - 33:17
Half - 1:14.02
Full - 2:37.00
Jtupper
I have been tested with a very high V02 max on multiple occasions, but I feel that my running economy and efficency is far behind. I am still relativly young (19). How can I improve on runninc economy? Does milleage simply do the trick or would you reccomend drills and weights? Thanks for any advice.
VO2 MAX is 78
My best event is the 3k, which I have run in 7:58.46. PLanning on a big 5k this weekend.