Ridiculous VO2 Max Test Results but average college runner

Why does it have to be economy? Couldn't his threshold be the weak link? If he's generating more lactate than he should and/or having trouble clearing it that would also explain the gap between his VO2max and 5k time.

Tabloid News wrote:

luv2run wrote:

I have it on pretty good authority that the machine Matt was tested on was never accurate. In fact it was mothballed.

Yeah right. And I heard on pretty good authority that when he set the Pike's Peak marathon record he was using rocket-propelled shoes. Post your source or your "pretty good authority" could be giving you the business...no surprises there with some "authorities" these days.

My old boss at the USOC who conducted the test...

Also when I went to work there I found the met cart in a storage closet and asked why we were not using it. That is when he told me that it was running high numbers and every attempt to calibrate it failed.

This takes nothing away from Matt's accomplishments as a runner. At the end of the day results on the track (or mountain) matter more than lab testing. (This comes from a guy who has conducted thousands of different lab tests on athletes from a wide spectrum of sports).

Horsepower Wins The Day wrote:

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.

It is not accurate for ANY individual. I have seen elite endurance athletes with higher than predicted HRmax and lower.

Why not simply do an all out effort and MEASURE HRmax? (Unless there is an underlying medical reason not to do so).

Besides HR based training is fraught issues.

paging Dr. Tanaka wrote:

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.

I would say they are all equally bad. Look at the SEE and SEM and standard deviations (assuming you can find them). they are all crap.

The point is, this guy isn't a great runner in the sense that Ritzenhein is a great runner. And he's not terribly light like a Ritzenhein either. 6' 140 pounds is a great size for someone to come into cycling at. Yes, his legs will not be accustomed to concentric only contractions, but with a few years of riding the elasticity required fro the eccentric contractions of running will have all but disappeared and his thighs would have another pound or two of muscle on them, which would be enough to get the job done.

That being said, 14:23 off of 53-54 second 400 speed might indicate this guy is in fact best as a runner. I'd rather see 14:23 off of 49-50 second speed for a cyclist.

Aragon wrote:

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.

The key is a "homogeneous" group. That means that they all run about the same times. If you use VO2max across a large population, then you will find a pretty good correlation.

qwaflhq wrote:

How about this?

Go get your v02 tested at another facility, and see if you get something similar to that result. Hate to break it to you, but machines aren't always perfect. SNIPPED

And technicians can screw things up as well.

I was observing some testing done at Texas Tech in the Cardiopulmonary lab at the hospital. Our athletes were getting tested and some crazy number came out. I cannot remember if it was crazy high or low. The tech started checking everything, recalibrated, then put the next athlete up. His numbers were more reasonable.

I was going through all the reports trying to figure out why the result for this on guy was so out of whack. It took me a few minutes to realize that the absolute VO2max made sense, but the tech had entered the athlete's weight wrong. Just punched it in wrong. Doing a little arithmetic fixed it. One lesson: look at the simplest things first! (Like making sure your cable from the computer to printer is connected.)

luv2run wrote:

paging Dr. Tanaka wrote:

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.

I would say they are all equally bad. Look at the SEE and SEM and standard deviations (assuming you can find them). they are all crap.

The problem with the formulas is that they so very rarely take into account body volume or weight, which is a big factor in HR.

Re HR: it scales to the 1/4 power in relation to size. Therefore, if we have a homogenous population of fit long term runners weighing 100 pounds with an average max HR of 210, we could guess that a homogenous population of fit long term runners weighing 200 pounds would have a max HR of about:

210/(200/100)^.25 = 176

What I think many posters on this site don't recognize is that "VO2max testing" has both clinical and sport performance utility. I see some posts complaining that VO2max testing is just a garbage test that guys in lab coats use just to satisfy their gearhead personalities. But,the VO2max number itself has great utility in clinical populations in establishing CV risk, and is well correlated. Obviously, those numbers are very low relative to what most people on this site are used to (very well-trained endurance athletes). When athletes are tested, the number is gonna be much higher than a clinical population, and the "VO2max number" becomes less and less useful for influencing performance, particularly at longer distances. It's already been said in this thread, so to summarize: the longer the distance, the less useful the number is. Derek Clayton held the marathon WR for 12 years with a "pedestrian" VO2 of 69.7. Craig Virgin couldn't come within a few minutes of Clayton's WR with his VO2 around 83. All world-class runners will have a relatively high number (70 or greater), but that's when using the number itself to predict performance falls off. That's why other variables you can measure DURING a max test are much more useful (vVO2max, LT) for performance prediction.

So, everyone, don't just immediately dismiss the VO2max test. Its benefit depends on what you're using it for, and what variables you're measuring during the test.

14:23 is really good, only a sophomore. nice work!your test result could be real, even it's off by 5 points, you might just not be mentally tough or efficient or who knows. don't link your performances to this number, it'll mess you up.i had a teammate in college who was 84.0. He ran a 4:12 mile and could only muster a 14:50 5kFrank shorter was a 72 I believe......My VO2 max was 72 and they said i had efficiency. I got injured a lot though. I also burn a lot of calories per day, interesting. I'm more fast-twitch obviously :400m - 49.6800m - 1:53mile - 4:185k - 15:12

luv2run wrote:

The key is a "homogeneous" group...

The key is that nobody should quote a paper without having knowledge on its content or thesis especially when it doesn't support their claims.

I do fully agree with you that it would be ludicrous to claim that oxygen delivery/utilization isn't of importance and that a high relative Vo2MAX isn't a prerequisite to be an elite level athlete.

As far as I know, practically every successful athlete since 1970s has had his/her maximal oxygen uptake tested and even when there is some debate about the relative importance of many other variables on performance and not all is not fully known, there hasn't emerged yet a "black swan" with "normal" Vo2MAX figure around 40s or 50s capable to outperform his/her competitors in endurance type of events even at national level.

Slightly OFF-topic, but still I think the overemphasis on Vo2MAX lends to the oversimplistic notion that everything can be calculated from this figure and someone like (usually bright) Greg LeMond thinks that we can simply deduce everything from the maximal oxygen uptake figure:

"When I raced, I had a VO2 max of 93, and I never developed more than 400 watts. Armstrong’s VO2 max, which Ed Coyle mistakenly revealed, was no more than 78. So, considering his weight - 73 kg, he could never produce 500 watts to ride up the Madonna as he said, or 475 watts on the climb of L'Alpe-d'Huez. With his VO2 max, he couldn't exceed 375 watts."

Aragon wrote:

Slightly OFF-topic, but still I think the overemphasis on Vo2MAX lends to the oversimplistic notion that everything can be calculated from this figure and someone like (usually bright) Greg LeMond thinks that we can simply deduce everything from the maximal oxygen uptake figure:

"When I raced, I had a VO2 max of 93, and I never developed more than 400 watts. Armstrong’s VO2 max, which Ed Coyle mistakenly revealed, was no more than 78. So, considering his weight - 73 kg, he could never produce 500 watts to ride up the Madonna as he said, or 475 watts on the climb of L'Alpe-d'Huez. With his VO2 max, he couldn't exceed 375 watts."

LeMond was right about this, though. The point was Armstrong's VO2max when doped to the gills was NOT 78.

LeMond most likely was on the right track about this one, but just assuming that there is almost 1 to 1 interpersonal correlation between Vo2MAX and Watts produced at threshold simply isn't true as there are other factors such as lactate threshold and gross efficiency having an effect on the latter figure.

Forget your VO2 max.

You are a 14:23 5k guy off relatively modest training. That's not bad. Instead of puzzling why you are not fast, train like a person determined to make himself faster.

Start adding doubles. 2-3 miles to start. Let yourself get used to it. Bump up your Sunday run to 1:45-2:00 hours.

Add some sprinting.

Work on your form (unless you are told it's perfect).

Increase your morning run to 4-5 miles.

Ensure your tempos and solid runs are fast enough.

Give it a few years. Keep improving the pace you can run.

Increase your morning run to 6-7.

Run some 10k's. Maybe even a 1/2 marathon.

Success in running is as much about hard, intelligent work as it is about innate ability.

That being said, 14:23 off of 53-54 second 400 speed might indicate this guy is in fact best as a runner. I'd rather see 14:23 off of 49-50 second speed for a cyclist.

Maybe the OP's running problems can be helped with some power training in the weight room? Or hill repeats or running in sand.

I agree with your point though, I don't think many 5k-10k runners like the OP have the power for cycling. A miler would stand a better chance. Mike Wood was a sub 4 miler at an early age and became a pro cyclist. He's described as being "muscular" (compared to a true distance runner, or stick figure hill climber). He's 141 pounds but only 5'9". Maybe years of hockey in his youth helped with power. His transition to cycling was very fast and successful, especially for an "older" guy.

The mile being roughly 50:50 anaerobic:aerobic is probably better training for cycling then longer distances.

luv2run wrote:

It is not accurate for ANY individual. I have seen elite endurance athletes with higher than predicted HRmax and lower.

I agree. It's a dumb formula that makes the couch potatoes feel good about themselves.

luv2run wrote:

Why not simply do an all out effort and MEASURE HRmax? (Unless there is an underlying medical reason not to do so).

That's the best way. Several years ago on my 50th B-day I celebrated by having a treadmill test. My MHR was down about 10 beats from another test done when I was 35. MHR is a component of VO2max, so down goes your horsepower when you get older...who could have imagined.

luv2run wrote:

Besides HR based training is fraught issues.

For who? Maybe the young bucks? I'm in my late 50's and running on borrowed time with a plethora of chronic injuries (not genetically gifted or using PEDs like some of these ageless wonders). I use HR based training more than ever now and try to stay in the game as a GM competitior. Besides, I need a gadget to tell me my HR can beat faster when I'm doing some speed 😄. And horsepower still wins the day with us old timers.

was the test on treadmill with increased elevation or increased pace? ive heard of vo2 tests that are on increased elevation give off higher results because you can keep grinding it out but dont have to maintain a faster pace.

Why

Why would faster 400m speed foreshadow greater cycling success?