Is V02 max age graded or an absolute metric?

The OP is asking if baseline VO2 max changes with age. Not whether it is in the equation that we all know.

My guess is that it is

It sent before I finished.

Meant to say that my guess is that it would be somewhat linear to the percentage of muscle mass loss experienced with age.

I think the science is unconclusive. If you really wanted to measure the age effect on VO2 max one would have to follow enough runners over decades, while they train the same training load.

If we look at the general VO2 max level in the population it seems that VO2 max is reduced by 10% pr decade, and if we look at the part of the population that are active and excersizing above some limit, the decline is half of this, some 5%. It is hypothesized that the reason for the decline is that the max heart rate is declining with age, but separate research shows that if you continue training, the maximum hear rate can be kept quite at the same level so I think these findings contradict.

VO2 max is a bad predictor for race time given it is at a fit level, so I would not worry too much about it. I big finding from older runners is that they tend to use the calves to a much lesser degree than younger runners and this might be a substantial reason for the decline in speed. I would therefore focus much more on keeping the muscles fit, strong and fast as the maximum strength and the fast twitch fibres are the first to be lost when aging. And on focusing on a good running form and gait, activating the right muscles and giving an efficient stride.

So, do hill sprints, do heavy lifting for the legs and calves, keep the flexibility and range of motion of the muscles and tendons and focus on running form

I happen to know my own numbers. When I was 22 in 1982 while at West Point, I took part in a DOD study to determine if ginseng increased endurance. As a lab rat, I don’t know the answer about ginseng but my max VO2 then was 75 using the face mask, treadmill, and blood chemistry. Today, 38 years later it is 46 according to Garmin calculation. I’m probably running 10 miles/week less and 3 minutes/mile slower but otherwise working out with similar volume. My weight increased by 15 lbs and we can safely assume none of it is muscle. Had I not gained weight and slowed down max VO2 would not have declined significantly but I done know many 60 year old runners who average 7 min/miles in daily training. Garmin’s algorithm is probably reasonably accurate. This is an “N of 1”

Is Daniel's VDot number meant to represent VO2max?

Disciple wrote:

Is Daniel's VDot number meant to represent VO2max?

No, not necessarily. The VDOT metric, in effect, reflects what is the combination of one's VO2max with their 'running economy'. Thus, two people with different VO2max could still have the same VDOT; that being the case means the one with the higher VO2max would, in effect, have poorer 'running economy' than the one with the lower VO2max.

Disciple wrote:

Is Daniel's VDot number meant to represent VO2max?

No. The VDot number should really be Velocity at

VO2max in meters per second to avoid confusion.

So for the top guys it would be vVO2max 400m/second.

variables wrote:

Disciple wrote:

Is Daniel's VDot number meant to represent VO2max?

No. The VDot number should really be Velocity at

VO2max in meters per second to avoid confusion.

So for the top guys it would be vVO2max 400m/second.

To be clear, VO2max is not vVO2max. What you may be trying to say is that the latter is a more important metric (than just VO2max) when evaluating running performance.

Edit, should read: "To be clear, VDOT is not VO2max is not vVO2max. They are different, but interrelated, variables."

hr measurement wrote:

Edit, should read: "To be clear, VDOT is not VO2max is not vVO2max. They are different, but interrelated, variables."

My point is that if you replace the VDOT with vVO2max, the number takes away the confusion.

The variables remain the same, just the unit of measurement changes to an unambiguous number.

Well, there is a linear relationship, to a point, between %MaxHR and vVO2Max, which makes training according to %HR a useful tool, as well. I think understanding and personally observing how they both relate to the VDOT improves the use of the VDOT in various scenarios.

Well, there is a linear relationship, to a point, between %MaxHR and vVO2Max, which makes training according to %HR a useful tool, as well. I think understanding and personally observing how they both relate to the VDOT (and VO2Max determined by a Garmin, or some other method) improves the use of the VDOT in various scenarios.

One more try:

Well, there is a linear relationship, to a point, between %MaxHR and %vVO2Max, which makes training according to %HR a useful tool, as well. I think understanding and personally observing how they both relate to the VDOT (and VO2Max determined by a Garmin, or some other method) improves the use of the VDOT in various scenarios.

hr measurement wrote:

One more try:

Well, there is a linear relationship, to a point, between %MaxHR and %vVO2Max, which makes training according to %HR a useful tool, as well. I think understanding and personally observing how they both relate to the VDOT (and VO2Max determined by a Garmin, or some other method) improves the use of the VDOT in various scenarios.

I will add more:

1) VO2Max can be higher than VDOT (your running economy worse than DANIELS's avg. athletes)

2) VO2Max can be lower than VDOT (your running economy better than Daniels's avg athletes)

3) VO2Max can be same as VDOT

Just follow garmin and correct by frequent TT's with VDOT. Once you have sufficient TT's you can find for you very clear relation coefficient between vo2max and vdot.

Canefis wrote:

Just follow garmin and correct by frequent TT's with VDOT. Once you have sufficient TT's you can find for you very clear relation coefficient between vo2max and vdot.

A coefficient that can change as one's economy improves, with the well-known understanding that using VDOT to extrapolate 'equivalent times' assumes one is trained up for the race distances (or TT's) longer than that from which the VDOT was determined. Here is where the Garmin's Race Predictor (in their newer watches) may provide some improved insight, since it assesses (I think) training volume in making those predictions.

You don’t have to follow an athlete over decades to understand that a 75 year old would not have the ability to utilize oxygen to the extent they were able

to when they were 25. It’s the measure of Oxygen used. HR is a variable but not the only variable (or most important being muscle mass changes) which is why you are having trouble measuring this way.

My own experience is that it doesn't change 10% per decade if you can return to high-intensity training, but the if is the difficult part (family, work, time constraints, etc). For me, only a 4mL O2/kg/min difference, measured in labs, from age 25 to age 55, and that was with less than half the milage volume at age 55 as at age 25. I'm sure my % body fat was higher at age 55 and that my leg muscle mass was less even though my body weight was similar.

My experience is that HRmax does decline, no way I can get it near age 25, even at VO2max.

My guess is that mitochondrial oxygen extraction can remain high and/or mitochondrial density and size can return VO2max to near a younger age max. Performance though, musclar power and HRmax limited cardiac output are what cause slower times even though VO2max can be high.

Mad VO2max - interesting, my max VO2 has dropped but max HR only dropped from 192 to 185 after 40 years. You’ve experienced the opposite. I guess my weight gain is a double whammy limiting max VO2 as there are more KG for the same or less amount of O2 and my speed will drop as the same or less muscle mass is moving more weight. I agree that working out at a high level really means X% per decade declines are not inevitable