VO2 Max – Is there a "limit"? Should I really pay attention to it?

fizzyologism wrote:

kenyahigheweeeeefefa wrote:

no, your assumption is incorrect. To be competitive in international stage, you need to have above >75 vo2max and very good running economy , TRUST　ＭＥ！！！

Incorrect.

You are wrong, kenya is correct.

kenyahigheweeeeefefa wrote:

fizzyologism wrote:

Who says? Bear in mind that there are elite men with around 70 VO2max.

no, your assumption is incorrect. To be competitive in international stage, you need to have above >75 vo2max and very good running economy , TRUST　ＭＥ！！！

Partially correct. At least 75 is probably necessary to compete at 1500-5 k. For marathon, running economy is more important. Vo2max of at least 70 is necessary if running economy is very high. I'm not saying GOAT with 70 but for international stage.

lexel wrote:

fizzyologism wrote:

Incorrect.

You are wrong, kenya is correct.

No, that is not true.

Run6556 wrote:

kenyahigheweeeeefefa wrote:

no, your assumption is incorrect. To be competitive in international stage, you need to have above >75 vo2max and very good running economy , TRUST　ＭＥ！！！

Partially correct. At least 75 is probably necessary to compete at 1500-5 k. For marathon, running economy is more important. Vo2max of at least 70 is necessary if running economy is very high. I'm not saying GOAT with 70 but for international stage.

It depends on basic speed plus VO2max and running economy and how VO2max is measured.

Yes a middle distance runner can have a much higher VO2max than 70.

When Professor Andy Jones measured the runners in Kipchoge's sub 2 project, the average VO2max was 71ml/kg/min.

Congratulations on doing as well as you have already, and I suspect you can improve a lot. I think mine was about 66(?, not *so* much higher than yours ) when I ran a 5k in the high 15s as a recreational male runner in my 30s. On a subsequent treadmill test, however, my efficiency was measured to be fairly high.

The question in your heading is interesting to me: I always hear that each person has a genetically determined vO2max and that, with harder and harder work, all they can do is to asymptote (get closer and closer, but smaller and smaller increments), to this maximum.

I never hear anyone claim there is a similarly genetically determined efficiency maximum.

What seems odd about this is that many factors contribute to the vO2max, right? Ability to take in oxygen, ability to distribute oxygen, ability to metabolically make use of oxygen -- so this can entail everything from increasing strength of the heart as a pump to blood characteristics to building peripheral capillarization to mitochondrial density (and many more...). Are the limits of each of these contributors individually genetically determined? Or are one or two of them always the real limiters, and those limiters are genetically determined? Or is there no theoretical basis on which to claim vO2max is genetically determined, but empirical observation of many great athletes training very hard always reveals the same phenomenon of an asymptoting (not really a word, I think!) curve?

To the original poster -- although I too find these questions interesting, I agree with what others have written: there are likely a lot of improvements in your future (whether from getting closer to some genetically determined vO2 potential, or significantly improving efficiency, etc...), and you already have a reasonably high vO2max so, while the question is interesting, I wouldn't overly dwell on this number.

It is just one data point. I was fortunate enough to take part in a DOD study that required the test subjects to complete lab max VO2 testing along with blood chemistry. It has been 40 years ago but the value was 70 then and now as I get close to turning 62 years old it has dropped to about 50 (this value from Garmin - so it is at best a "ballpark" number). As noted by others running efficiency is another very important factor in distance running success. Max VO2 is probably more critical for someone running a 3000M race than someone running a half marathon or longer. Max VO2 would not normally be the rate limiting variable for longer races

My advice would be to pay attention to changes in the number your Garmin spits out but to not place much value on the absolute number unless you've had proper lab testing. I don't feel that training solely to increase Max VO2 would be a good use of your time but repeat intervals of 600M - 1200M normally have an almost immediate impact on what my Garmin spits out

I definitely expected it to increase during the taper, but the number actually fell. Went from 60 to 55-57, which made me a bit confused. I guess my heart rate was "too high" for the pace I was running (I think it was 7:30s)?

What do you mean, exactly?

What I see all the time is "experts" who try to refute arguments with ridicule and bare assertions.

But thanks for playing. It's useful in its own twisted little way, as always

kenyahigheweeeeefefa wrote:

fizzyologism wrote:

Who says? Bear in mind that there are elite men with around 70 VO2max.

no, your assumption is incorrect. To be competitive in international stage, you need to have above >75 vo2max and very good running economy , TRUST　ＭＥ！！！

Derek Clayton had a VO2max of 69. 7 and he held the marathon wr of 2:08+ there are 3 hour marathoners that have VO2maxes over 80. It's a potential number that's genetic and not worth trying to improve (which you can do by losing weight, not recommended!)

fizzyologism wrote:

Run6556 wrote:

Partially correct. At least 75 is probably necessary to compete at 1500-5 k. For marathon, running economy is more important. Vo2max of at least 70 is necessary if running economy is very high. I'm not saying GOAT with 70 but for international stage.

It depends on basic speed plus VO2max and running economy and how VO2max is measured.

Yes a middle distance runner can have a much higher VO2max than 70.

When Professor Andy Jones measured the runners in Kipchoge's sub 2 project, the average VO2max was 71ml/kg/min.

any source? the picks in sub2 project are pretty strong. There is no way that their vo2max are that slow.

Garmin's VO2Max estimation is based on assumption of the average running economy.

Same as Jack Daniels' VDOT tables.

Paradoxycally, this makes those measurement at the same time less precise and more useful.

Correct way to think about it is "running index", the more the better fitness you have, but it will only predict race results correctly if you have average running economy and running economy is the most volatile parameter in running.

Real VO2Max might exist, but that's a big question mark in science right now. What you measure in the lab as maximum oxygen consumption might be limited by your brain or by your muscular system or by your cardiovascular system. It often is found in reverse relation with running economy, especially in elite runners. In other words, high Vo2Max quite possible is compensating for relatively poor running economy. If your running economy improves, then you don't need as much oxygen at the same speed, and if your speed is limited by something else - then Vo2Max drops.

kenyahigheweeeeefefa wrote:

fizzyologism wrote:

It depends on basic speed plus VO2max and running economy and how VO2max is measured.

Yes a middle distance runner can have a much higher VO2max than 70.

When Professor Andy Jones measured the runners in Kipchoge's sub 2 project, the average VO2max was 71ml/kg/min.

any source? the picks in sub2 project are pretty strong. There is no way that their vo2max are that slow.

Slow? They were elite East African distance runners.

fizzyologism wrote:

kenyahigheweeeeefefa wrote:

any source? the picks in sub2 project are pretty strong. There is no way that their vo2max are that slow.

Slow? They were elite East African distance runners.

sorry for typo error. It should be "low" instead of "slow". Again, show me the citations or else you fabricated his claims about vo2max.

kenyahigheweeeeefefa wrote:

fizzyologism wrote:

Slow? They were elite East African distance runners.

sorry for typo error. It should be "low" instead of "slow". Again, show me the citations or else you fabricated his claims about vo2max.

You're the one who is making fabricated claims. What research have you done?

fizzyologism wrote:

kenyahigheweeeeefefa wrote:

sorry for typo error. It should be "low" instead of "slow". Again, show me the citations or else you fabricated his claims about vo2max.

You're the one who is making fabricated claims. What research have you done?

https://www.outsideonline.com/health/training-performance/nike-breaking2-runners-lab-data/

this is just a rumour only

Bad Wigins wrote:

comedyrel:3f wrote:

This should be presented in exercise science programs as an example of the state of the field. People have no idea what is going on inside their body, but read a few pages of physiology and they are able to feel the weakening of the O2 gradient inside their muscles. The actual experiments have very little in the way of definitive results, so people write entire stories about the physiological processes they believe are occurring inside them.

I see it all the time with all these covid experts. Only someone who doesn't understand this stuff at all would be so arrogant to think they know exactly what's goin on.

What I see all the time is "experts" who try to refute arguments with ridicule and bare assertions.

But thanks for playing. It's useful in its own twisted little way, as always

Just have some intellectual humility. That looks like: saying "I feel like I am consuming more oxygen in an all-out 90-240 seconds than I am at the end of a graded exercise test."

No need to introduce physiology fan fiction to explain why you think this is happening.

kenyahigheweeeeefefa wrote:

this is just a rumour only

No, it's from the research:

kenyahigheweeeeefefa wrote:

fizzyologism wrote:

It depends on basic speed plus VO2max and running economy and how VO2max is measured.

Yes a middle distance runner can have a much higher VO2max than 70.

When Professor Andy Jones measured the runners in Kipchoge's sub 2 project, the average VO2max was 71ml/kg/min.

any source? the picks in sub2 project are pretty strong. There is no way that their vo2max are that slow.

I guess it must be objectively untrue because you refuse to believe it.