Ridiculous VO2 Max Test Results but average college runner

OP, max HR of 197 but what about resting HR?

The thing about running is that VO2 max, as has been stated, does not indicate whether or not one will be successful necessarily.

In cycling, if you put the volume in and get enough racing in then VO2 max correlates almost perfectly with MAP (maximal aerobic power) testing measured in watts, which in turn correlates very well with being able to climb mountains. Its a whole different ballgame from running, though.

why are people acting like 197 is a high max HR, a good rule for measurement is 220 beats minus age (20) = 200 lol

It is. The 220 minus age formula isn't accurate for endurance athletes. When I've had my MHR tested periodically it always runs 5 - 8 beats lower than what the 220 formula reveals. And with your example of the 220 - 20 = 200; well...look what happens when the 20 yr old turns 21, and 22, and so on - he loses one beat per year which is ridiculous at that age. Most of data suggests an endurance athlete loses 1 beat every 2 - 3 years after age 35 or so.

There is a lot of variation in MHR, both in trained and untrained subjects. Also: if you're going to rely on a formula, there are better ones than 220 minus age.

J.S wrote:

Sindre Buraas , 13.11 at 5000m , VO2 max 115.0

BULLSHIT! He has never claimed this. He claimed below 100 you moran

J.S wrote:

You can check it up at the web......and when you see that Sindre Buraas had 115 it`s not so unlikely! Many of the cross country skiers have shown higher levels then Said Aouita.

COACH J.S

No, only 1 cross contry skiier has had 96 or higher, and thats Bjærn Dæhli and he measured 96. Lies Jan, lies all over.

Horsepower Wins The Day wrote:

And VO2max is the most important physiological variable determining performances in races of 1500 to 5000 meters.

This is just not true. Read a book.

Nordiccc wrote:

This is just not true. Read a book.

Yes it is...who would have thought:

I know that I have read it in an article about Sindre. Im 100% sure it was over 100.0....and I think it was 115.0.......I will surch for the article again.But one funny thing is that Sindre went over to just.....cykling! nowadays. :)

It didn`t show to be a lie! But I take back he had 115 :) ......it`s confirmed that he had around 100.0 !

COACH J.S

As you acquire more volume in your recovery zone and longer workouts sub threshold, you will see your VO2 strength come out. Keep your strength your strength. Keep gaining the volume.

scatophile wrote:

VO2 Max GOAT wrote:

The girl who did the test was shitting her pants

pics?

Right??

Doesn't sound like the kind of lab I'd want to be tested at 🤐

Addicted to VO2max wrote:

Nordiccc wrote:

This is just not true. Read a book.

Yes it is...who would have thought:

http://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbcdh/v16n4/en_1980-0037-rbcdh-16-04-00465.pdf

"The study included 10 moderately trained endurance runners who"

Try again.

J.S wrote:

I know that I have read it in an article about Sindre. Im 100% sure it was over 100.0....and I think it was 115.0.......I will surch for the article again.But one funny thing is that Sindre went over to just.....cykling! nowadays. :)

Sindre has never officially tested above 100

J.S wrote:

J.S wrote:

You can check it up at the web......and when you see that Sindre Buraas had 115 it`s not so unlikely! Many of the cross country skiers have shown higher levels then Said Aouita.

COACH J.S

Please mention all of the >many< skiiers with higher test score than Aouitas' 96.

I have worked in Exercise Physiology for over 30 years and have tested hundred of individuals from all different sports and I've only had maybe one that got to the low 80 ml/kg/min. I have known plenty of tests that reported stupid-high levels; however, when you look at the data it is quite obvious that there were some flaws in the test. Most frequently it is either a faulty flow volume calibration or a goofy oxygen sensor. We had a D-II baseball player that did a VO2 test in another profs class and he was at 73 and I told the prof that I didn't really believe it. Either that or he was in the wrong sport. Not surprisingly, the analyzers O2 sensor didn't calibrate a few weeks later. Go figure.

If you can send me the complete results of the test, I can give you a pretty good eye as to whether or not there was a flaw in the testing. I'd need resting values as well as the speed and grade of each stage of the test. What was the final speed/grade and what was the reported ventilatory volume.

BTW - these reports of human VO2max values at 100+ are ludicrous! The highest sustantiated value is a XC skier at about 96, if I recall correctly. Everything else is anecdotal. Joan Benoit was at 84 and I tend to blieve this. Prefontaine was about 85 or 86. Frank Shorter was 69. Rob DeCastella was reported at about 86. Pre and Shorter are in the literature from a study done at the Cooper Clinic in the early 70's.

Interesting side note - when I was in grad school my prof gave me an article on the oxygen uptake of the American Pronghorn Antilope and it was 5 mL/kg. I figured there had to be something wrong and I looked at it a little closer and realized it was reported in SECONDS! That is a VO2 of 300 mL/kg/min! That is why the antilope can sustain a pace of 35 mph!

Just going quickly through the paper, my reading is that it comes exactly to the different conclusion than you claim, that as an independent variable Vo2MAX doesn't correlate too well with performance, stating that "although Vo2MAX is considered a physiological determinant of aerobic performance in endurance runners, when homogenous groups of runners are analyzed, this index has shown little discriminatory power of performance in predominantly aerobic events" and that "[t]his was also observed in this study, since there was no correlation of Vo2MAX with the test analyzed".

It is certainly true that the paper does point to the direction that vVo2MAX ("velocity at maximal oxygen uptake") is correlated with various performances, but the velocity is influenced also by running economy.

"Nine times out of 10, a great runner will not become a great cyclist," Vaughters told Business Insider. "That's because of muscle mass. Most elite runners are simply too little to be great cyclists. They lack the heft to produce enough power to ride with the world's best, let alone the ability to stay out of the wind and handle riding in a peloton."

I found the transition from running to cycling humbling and embarrassing. Guys with marathon times 1-2 hrs slower would hammer me on the flats. Uphills I could catch up because they were "fat" compared to an ex runner, but the peak power demands of cycling are vastly different from running because you're called on them over and over again every hill climb and every time someone breaks away. I have to admit my training is no where near as structured as running days, so could probably improve my power.

I have VO2 Max lab tested 3 times - twice at BYU, once at the Utah State University. When I was a 2:40 marathoner (St.George course, so really more like 2:43), 5 K around 16:40, it came out to be 59. As a 2:27:46 on the Top of Utah Course which is about fair (downhill fairly compensates for altitude), I had it tested at 75.9 with RER 1.00 reached at 93% of it. I had it tested another time - it was a day before I raced a marathon (same course, Top of Utah) in 2:28:42 - and I pushed to RER to only 1.02 reaching 71. My best 5 K around the time of the 75.9 test (certified road course, 1% net elevation drop, around 4500 feet of elevation) was 15:37. I have wondered for a while what was up. My form looked bad enough that my friend once told me he could recognize me from half a mile a way. I have worked on the form for a while and tried a number of different things over the course of the years without much improvement in this area.

Finally I discovered what I believe to be the root cause - a physical therapist saw a hairy patch on my back and suggested an X-ray of the spine in the L4-L5 area for spina bifida occulta. His suspicion proved correct - his opinion was that I was "brave to run with that condition". However, aside from being slower than what my aerobic profile would predict, I never had an injury that was serious enough to miss more than 3 consecutive days of running in almost 33 years (ages 11 through 44), and no more than a day in the last 20 years - the condition is mostly asymptomatic if I am careful to avoid skewed surfaces and too much track running.

Even before that I suspected that if you cannot sprint very well, yet at the same time slow down from 100 to 800/1500/mile like a typical middle distance runner rather than being able to sprint forever (e.g 60/2:12 vs 60/2:05) with the best middle-distance training, there is likely a problem somewhere in the spine. So this may be worth checking. If you can run 14:23, I would guess, though, that it is relatively minor - but even a minor problem like that could be the difference between 14:23 and 13:00. And who knows, unlike mine, yours might actually be correctable with modern science.