VO2 max data from world class runners

Runningart2004 wrote:It's been around for about as long as this forum has been around.

Alan

Longer.

This deserves re-emphasis. Everyone want to know what is 'high'. Well, US college track males (57.4) are higher than US college male students (44.6). Elite professional runners/endurance athletes, as illustrated above, are even higher (above 60). The results speak for themself. Everyone talks about cross country skiiers having some of the highest recorded VO2 maxes.... obviously, because cross country skiing is a greater stress to the heart and it adapts to be stronger. You can't say VO2 max is meaningless. However, it is only one of many predictors of performance, with economy and lactate threshold also factoring in.

There is also the isssue of how the test is performed. A runner is on a treadmill and obviously using mainly the legs and breathing muscles to utilize oxygen. Cyclists are using the largest muscle mass of the body to pedal and a ski specialist is using practically every muscle in the body. Those differences account for bikers and skiers having larger values. Not because their heart is stronger but because more muscle mass is actually trying to extract oxygen.

Tour Rider wrote:

There is also the isssue of how the test is performed. A runner is on a treadmill and obviously using mainly the legs and breathing muscles to utilize oxygen. Cyclists are using the largest muscle mass of the body to pedal and a ski specialist is using practically every muscle in the body. Those differences account for bikers and skiers having larger values. Not because their heart is stronger but because more muscle mass is actually trying to extract oxygen.

Very true. We're throwing out results for cyclist, skiiers, swimmers, and runners, but should we be compare between these athletes, considering the testing methods were likely different (treadmill vs. bike vs. Nordic skiier)? Maybe it's just better to compare runners to runners... skiiers to skiiers, etc. I've taken a max treadmill test and a sub-max bike test, and my results were very different.

Yes, lets compare runners to runners:

87.4 Marius Bakken, Norwegian 5k record holder

85 Dave Bedford, 10k world record

84.4 Steve Prefontaine,US runner

84.3 "Physiologist in training," 15:12/30:55 runner

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

78.5 Bill Rodgers, 2:09:27 marathoner

77.4 Don Kardong, 2:11:15 marathoner

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

73.0 Jeff Galloway, US snake oil salesman

73.0 Buddy Edelen, marathoner

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

I'd be willing to bet there are many runningarts out there with 79+ VO2MAX numbers.

it also depends on the protocal used. If you use a flat protocal you will get different results from a ramp protocal and so on w/ speed increases and time at each level.

Let me ask this question for those science geeks:

what if you take a guy who is a strong hill runner, and do a ramp protocal. Then you take a flatlander who never trains on hills, and use a ramp protocal. My guess is that the flatlander does comparitively worse on a ramp vs. a flat protocall...

It's great to compare #'s but there are sooo many variables.

I once saw a well known (mostly cycling based) exercise physiologist put a runner through a VO2max test that lasted 25 minutes or longer... The results were crazy for this runner compared to his PRs and even past tests... I wonder why...b/c the normal test is concluded w/ in 10-15minutes!

Tour Rider wrote:

There is also the isssue of how the test is performed. A runner is on a treadmill and obviously using mainly the legs and breathing muscles to utilize oxygen. Cyclists are using the largest muscle mass of the body to pedal and a ski specialist is using practically every muscle in the body. Those differences account for bikers and skiers having larger values. Not because their heart is stronger but because more muscle mass is actually trying to extract oxygen.

NOT SO FAST. Don't assume those skiers tested high because they were tested while skiing. Most SKIERS test their maxVO2 RUNNING, and I believe that Bjorn Dahlie was running when his result was in the mid 90's.

And it may also surprise you that it's very common for skiers to have a higher maxVO2 during a running test than a skiing test.

The reason for this, I suspect, is because since they TRAIN using the most muscle groups among endurance sports the load on their cardiac output (heart rate, stroke volume) is greater so when they step onto a running treadmill, their hearts are that much more stronger and are able to deliver more oxygen to the muscles.

But anyways, you are correct that runners should only be compared with runners. Better yet, those comparisons should only be made with runners of similar heights and weights.

Marius, didn't Espen Harold Bjerke test higher than Daehlie last summer?

bad connection wrote:

Let me ask this question for those science geeks:

what if you take a guy who is a strong hill runner, and do a ramp protocal. Then you take a flatlander who never trains on hills, and use a ramp protocal. My guess is that the flatlander does comparitively worse on a ramp vs. a flat protocall...

You may be right, although it is tough to say. Remember that the VO2max is, in effect, the inverse of efficiency. So while the good hill runner may be more comfortable, and certainly will be running faster than the flatlander at their respective maxVO2's, the flatlander may have to be using a lot more oxygen.

Yes, the Dæhlie test was matched - but I have problems believing the tests done at the top athletics center in Norway after the switched equipment from the old "goldstandard" Douglas bag system (1 1/2 yrs ago). Almost all athletes have had an increase of about 10 % after that change, including this skier. Even athletes that had leveled off their Vo2 over many, many years (I have all the tests done up there from 1987 up to a couple of yrs ago incl those top readings) showed this. Just my personal view on it.

Marius

http://www.mariusbakken.com

I used to work with a coach who was mad on developing the aerobic system - especially increasing VO2max.

I tested at 75 ml/kg - i was struggling to run 16min for a 5km.

This result was useful to me in that it told that VO2max was not a big weakness of mine, and that devoting the vast majority of training time toward increasing it probably wasn't the most efficeint approach to improving my overall running.

I don't blame the scientists, but sports science has been misused a little here in GB. Because there is a nice clear 'story' from sports science regarding VO2max (applies to threshold too) and the type of training you should do to increase it, this gets passed onto our distance coaches through coaching courses etc. Because the 'story' is far less clear regarding other stuff like economy (its obviously important, but how to go about improving it is more contentious) it gets far less attention. Consequently, we have produced a generation of distance coaches who pay attention to little other than developing the aerobic system.

I think there are bucket loads of runners in GB with high VO2max and shitty economy running between 14:00 and 16:00 for 5km, and they aren't gonna get much quicker by continuing to flog themselves for a few more points on their VO2max.

Interesting posts everybody. When I started this post, all I wanted was raw, continuous VO2max test data of all variables recorded by a metabolic system, rather than just a single number. The main reason being because VO2max is not the best predictor of running performance, as discussed here. I wanted to look at many of the other variables and how they inter-relate. I have this data for 14:30 guys on up, but wanted to see how world class guys differed.

Nonetheless, this post has launched a pretty good discussion. I agree, not all results are comparable. Different equipment, protocols, and types of athletes really do affect the results, and therefore it is difficult to make "apples to apples" comparisons when just looking at a single number.

And yes, I agree with some previous statements... when it comes down to it, time and place are ultimately what matter. That said, VO2max and all the other variables related to running performance have their place within running research, and a better understanding of all variables may ultimately help scientists develop better ways for athletes to improve their performance.

I've always been a good test taker Malmo..:)

To the guy asking about elites with a sub 50 Vo2max. You're missing the point. The median Vo2max for the average population is something like 30-50ml/kg. Vo2max, is a lot like BMI...you can use it to make broad generalizations, but nothing very specific. I can show you two guys, 6'2', 250lbs, same BMI, yet one is very fat and one is very lean. But in general terms if you take 100 guys who are 6'2', 250 pounds, a high majority will be fat and not lean and cut like your average NFL linebacker. Use the same logic with Vo2max. If you take 100 guys with a Vo2max of 75-80 most of them will be 14 minute or better 5k runners. A few of them will be MUCH slower, like me.

Alan

Runningart2004 wrote:

If you take 100 guys with a Vo2max of 75-80 most of them will be 14 minute or better 5k runners. A few of them will be MUCH slower, like me.

Alan

I'd be willing it's much more than a few, Runningart. You just don't hear about all of the slow 78-80 VO2Max runners because no one tests them. When they do, no one publishes their names; who cares that Al Czervik from Winnetonka Minnesota had a VO2Max of 81?

Think of VO2Max dispersions much like body weight. Most of the top distance runners in the world are tiny little men, yet there are plenty of tiny little men who are slow runners.

The only rational conclusion that can be drawn is that highly trained athletes have higher a VO2Max than the sedentary masses. Secondly, VO2Max scores and running times are not fungible.

I think its been clearly demonstrated that V02 Max doesn't mean much for runners because there are too many other factors involved in running performance. What about with cyclists? Would you see a similar broad spectrum of V02 Maxes for the world's best cyclists?

You just don't hear about all of the slow 78-80 VO2Max runners because no one tests them. quote

On two occasions when I worked for NIKE with Jack Daniels in the early 80s he tested my V02Max. On one occasion I was in bad shape and could only manage an all out 5:20 mile and on the other I was in much better shape like 4:25 mile. On the second occasion I maxed out at a much faster pace but both times my max was the same, about 75. (about 5 years earlier I had run 2:19 marathon.)

So the max number didn't tell me much. The sub max at 5 min mile pace was 63 when I was fit and 46 at six min mile pace when I was fit. When I wasn't fit I couldn't test at 5 min pace. The sub max pace is useful. I would bet that I could beat anyone in a distance race whose sub max at 5 min pace was greater than mine showing they were less efficient.

The sub max, "race pace" oxygen consumption figure is the useful one and would be a good number to have in comparing atletes.

I'd bet that the sub-max figures for all the runners in an olympic final 10 km at 4:35 mile pace would be about the same. But I don't know if anyone could ever have collected such data.

Tom

Good point on all ends - I think most remotely competitive runners achieve at least that 65-75 range, in addition to all those Olympians and WR holders, and you never hear about them. The 75+ range is a little less common, but it seems like it is still not unusual for trained runners to get there.

People say VO2max has a large genetic component, and maybe it does. But it seems like anybody who takes up running, winds up having a "high" max. I guess most people can get to a 60's max without much genetic blessing, but to get into the high 70's and 80's maybe requires some special genetics? But, that is just good genetics for having a high VO2max - not necessarily for being a great runner.

"When they do, no one publishes their names; who cares that Al Czervik from Winnetonka Minnesota had a VO2Max of 81?"

Gambling is illegal at Bushwood sir, and I never slice.

Runningart2004 wrote:

Vo2max, is a lot like BMI...you can use it to make broad generalizations, but nothing very specific.

Funny, but this is exactly what I was thinking while reading this thread. Given random pickings from a broad population you'd be smart to bet on the guys with high VO2max in a contrived race (assuming you knew nothing else about them), but within a specific sub-population (such as elite runners), it tells you nothing.

Malmo:

Thanks for your great posts. I read somewhere that the VO2 max of 800 world record holder Wilson Kipketer was so low that the testing scientists could not believe it. Also, I read somewhere that Rodal (1996 Atlanta 800 champ)had a very low lactate threshold. Would you have any links, data, or comments? (Folks other than Malmo, feel free to contribute.)