I'm one of the people with a low VO2 max, but runs faster than my peers with higher numbers. I think it has something to do with having a low max heart rate comparatively.
malmo, Alan, please stop with the nonsense. Neither of you have taken the time to educate yourselves on the subject. You just keep repeating the same inane nonsense year after year, with made up numbers attempting to validate your ignorance.
Different sports require different physiology. At least make an effort to learn this.
I don't think anyone is questioning that. Nor is anyone questioning that the more you train the better your VO2max, Threshold, and Economy will be. The question is about performance and the predictive value of lab numbers.
The best lab values do not always equal the best performance.
malmo, Alan, please stop with the nonsense. Neither of you have taken the time to educate yourselves on the subject. You just keep repeating the same inane nonsense year after year, with made up numbers attempting to validate your ignorance.
Different sports require different physiology. At least make an effort to learn this.
Nothing is "made-up" all are facts, with citations. Do something about your misplaced anger.
I have explained this to you before, but you don't learn. The silly monologue with fictitious numbers that you keep reposting is pure pseudoscience.
If your VO2 max had been 80 and not 70, you would not have been an elite runner, but you would have had the necessary oxygen uptake to be an elite cyclist. A very important difference
Nothing is "made-up" all are facts, with citations. Do something about your misplaced anger.
I have explained this to you before, but you don't learn. The silly monologue with fictitious numbers that you keep reposting is pure pseudoscience.
If your VO2 max had been 80 and not 70, you would not have been an elite runner, but you would have had the necessary oxygen uptake to be an elite cyclist. A very important difference
You also have elite runners with wildly variable VO2max numbers and even runners with similar race times with wildly different VO2maxes. No one is questioning the fact you need a relatively high VO2max. The question is how important is that number compared to TIME and PLACE! :)
For the record I did not have the typical runner frame at 5'6" 140lbs and had a couple VO2max tests done with my highest being 79.4. I barely broke 16:00 in the 5k (15:43).
Nothing is "made-up" all are facts, with citations. Do something about your misplaced anger.
I have explained this to you before, but you don't learn. The silly monologue with fictitious numbers that you keep reposting is pure pseudoscience.
If your VO2 max had been 80 and not 70, you would not have been an elite runner, but you would have had the necessary oxygen uptake to be an elite cyclist. A very important difference
You poor soul. Please educate yourself on VO2 Max before you come on this site spouting nonsense. Please educate yourself.
Yep, by itself, VO2 Max isn't a very good predictor of running performance. Back in the day, Steve Prefontaine had a VO2 max of 84 ml/kg, while Frank Shorter's was only 71. Prefontaine, a 5-10K specialist, had a 5K PR only 4 seconds faster than Shorter's, who was better known for his marathon exploits (although he ran well at 5-10K and XC). There are a lot of other examples like this. VO2 Max is overrated as a performance predictor.
Lets not throw the baby with the bathwater. 71 and 84 are both way over the right hand side of the curve-genetic gods. There is more than VO2mx for sure, but you dont see too many olympians in the 40s or 50s.
just because one guy at 75 beats another guy at 85 doesn't mean its overrated. Maybe its more accurate to say once you are over an extremely elite VO2 other factors become more important? I dont know, but elite VO2max is the cost of admission and thus extremely important.
I don't think VO2 is overrated as a predictive measure as it's value and power is well known (I.e. a factor to consider with some others). It's more that we runners still base part of our knowledge in old tales and hearsays (I.e. bc a friend of a friend said so, vo2 is THE factor that 100% will predict my performance)
I have explained this to you before, but you don't learn. The silly monologue with fictitious numbers that you keep reposting is pure pseudoscience.
If your VO2 max had been 80 and not 70, you would not have been an elite runner, but you would have had the necessary oxygen uptake to be an elite cyclist. A very important difference
You poor soul. Please educate yourself on VO2 Max before you come on this site spouting nonsense. Please educate yourself.
I have explained this to you before, but you don't learn. The silly monologue with fictitious numbers that you keep reposting is pure pseudoscience.
If your VO2 max had been 80 and not 70, you would not have been an elite runner, but you would have had the necessary oxygen uptake to be an elite cyclist. A very important difference
You also have elite runners with wildly variable VO2max numbers and even runners with similar race times with wildly different VO2maxes. No one is questioning the fact you need a relatively high VO2max. The question is how important is that number compared to TIME and PLACE! :)
For the record I did not have the typical runner frame at 5'6" 140lbs and had a couple VO2max tests done with my highest being 79.4. I barely broke 16:00 in the 5k (15:43).
malmo, Alan, please stop with the nonsense. Neither of you have taken the time to educate yourselves on the subject. You just keep repeating the same inane nonsense year after year, with made up numbers attempting to validate your ignorance.
Different sports require different physiology. At least make an effort to learn this.
I don't think anyone is questioning that. Nor is anyone questioning that the more you train the better your VO2max, Threshold, and Economy will be. The question is about performance and the predictive value of lab numbers.
The best lab values do not always equal the best performance.
Alan
There are some people involved in the testing who really know what they are doing.
I don't think VO2 is overrated as a predictive measure as it's value and power is well known (I.e. a factor to consider with some others). It's more that we runners still base part of our knowledge in old tales and hearsays (I.e. bc a friend of a friend said so, vo2 is THE factor that 100% will predict my performance)
Yep, by itself, VO2 Max isn't a very good predictor of running performance. Back in the day, Steve Prefontaine had a VO2 max of 84 ml/kg, while Frank Shorter's was only 71. Prefontaine, a 5-10K specialist, had a 5K PR only 4 seconds faster than Shorter's, who was better known for his marathon exploits (although he ran well at 5-10K and XC). There are a lot of other examples like this. VO2 Max is overrated as a performance predictor.
Lets not throw the baby with the bathwater. 71 and 84 are both way over the right hand side of the curve-genetic gods. There is more than VO2mx for sure, but you dont see too many olympians in the 40s or 50s.
just because one guy at 75 beats another guy at 85 doesn't mean its overrated. Maybe its more accurate to say once you are over an extremely elite VO2 other factors become more important? I dont know, but elite VO2max is the cost of admission and thus extremely important.
You can't always believe the numbers though. Sometimes "oxygen demand" numbers are bandied about. This was the case with BigMig1 Miguel Indurain.
If you believe malmo's monologue, Indurain's VO2 max was 88ml/kg/min. The real number was 79, the same as Alan.
I have a friend with 10 point higher vo2 who I crush on the run, he is much closer on the bike but I can still out ride him. In my experience within a range other factors matter more. It is a ticket to the show but doesn’t guarantee success.
Too many people train to improve some internal dynamic instead of ...
Exactly! Racing is fastest from here to there. Do you want to have a higher VO2, or do you want to run faster?
There are no VO2 max competitions that I know of. There is no VO2 max handicap like in golf. It's a biological/physiological measurement that is one of many, many, many factors that influence how fast you can run a particular distance. While VO2 plays a role in your running ability, it's fools errand to chase a number or get hung up on what it predicts about your potential (or lack thereof) of race pace.
OP - focus on the big picture. You're muddying the water with minutiae. If you've only been running for 6 months, you have a lot of growth ahead of you. Save your money. Do the basic macro things - increase your miles, get stronger, train with faster runners, run more races.
Lets not throw the baby with the bathwater. 71 and 84 are both way over the right hand side of the curve-genetic gods. There is more than VO2mx for sure, but you dont see too many olympians in the 40s or 50s.
just because one guy at 75 beats another guy at 85 doesn't mean its overrated. Maybe its more accurate to say once you are over an extremely elite VO2 other factors become more important? I dont know, but elite VO2max is the cost of admission and thus extremely important.
You can't always believe the numbers though. Sometimes "oxygen demand" numbers are bandied about. This was the case with BigMig1 Miguel Indurain.
If you believe malmo's monologue, Indurain's VO2 max was 88ml/kg/min. The real number was 79, the same as Alan.
Well yes believability is an issue too.
(btw, literally the first person in 20 yrs to know the bigmig19 reference. I prob need to update. Maybe ilpirata20! We need new nicknames for cycling and running.)
This is it. In Jack Daniel's testing of elite marathoners back in the day he found a ran of VO2Max in range of 42-82. His VDot is a modifier of Vo2max that takes economy into account.
Is "running economy" in this case just muscular endurance?