What is your V02 max?

According your times and using Daniels' tables, a 65 VO2 max should run 15:54 and 33:00 5/10K... You may could use more 5K/10K paced repetitions... For stride efficency training... Or (and this is more likely) the treadmill test was flawed slightly.

VO2 Max: 71 (tested at 5300')

Weight: 147lbs

Height: 6'0"

3K: 8:34

5K: 14:54

10K: 31:03

1/2Marathon: 1:08:32

Marathon: 2:30:xx

Here come the lies...

65.xx ml/kg/min

Male

5'10

125lbs

Road Pr's

15:11(5K)

31:33(10K)

51:07(10 miles)

1:09:15(1/2 marathon)

2:24:18 (marathon)

Ron Hill Fan wrote:

According your times and using Daniels' tables, a 65 VO2 max should run 15:54 and 33:00 5/10K... You may could use more 5K/10K paced repetitions... For stride efficency training... Or (and this is more likely) the treadmill test was flawed slightly.

1. Daniels VDOT is not the same as VO2max. Running economy is estimated in VDOT so if your economy is not "normal" then the results will be off.

2. VO2max gives an idea of how big the engine is, but there are other factors that will affect performance. Ed Coyle has a great flow chart (not sure that is the right name for it) showing the variables involved in endurance performance.

3. While it is necessary to have a sufficiently high VO2max, that is not the only factor. It tells a person that he/she has the cardiorespiratory system to do "X" but other physiological variables also play a role.

The AIS has used VO2max tests as a talent ID tool. If one's VO2max is not above some value, you cannot get into their programs. I am not sure that is the best use of a VO2max test.

There are folks who have higher than anticipated VO2max's (by looking at activity level) because of things like higher than normal red cell mass.

73 (3 years ago)

Male

5'9, 125, 25

8:34

14:48

30:56

67:06 (half)

I think V02 max is overrated. What if somebody has a V02 max equivalent of Steve Prefontaine but doesn't like to feel pain? If that's the case they're not likely to run sub 5 for a mile.

frank shorter had a vo2max of 71 in his prime. vo2 is overrated... although still an interesting measurement.

I want to get mine tested but I worry about the implications of such knowledge. Being ignorant to the number, mentally I feel limitless in my potential. Once I find out I have a VO2Max of 56 and have maxed out my potential I will feel like I can never improve. However what if I really have a VO2Max of 80 and I am just really ineffecient? It is a real Catch22. I do have access to this testing too... so I may just break down and find out and hope I am either a potential Derek Clayton or an ineffecient VO2Max machine.

What are the possibilities of actually increasing VO2Max (not vVO2Max)?

Keep posting your info though... I find these numbers interesting.

Question:

I was measured at 67 MaxVO2 when I ran 16:30's and 34:50's...

A few years later I ended up PRing-out at 15:48/33:25. What do think my MaxVO2 was then? Do you even think it went up? ...or did other "things" make me get faster?

Thanks...........

69 a few years ago

at this time, I ran 4'30" on 1500, 35'30 on 10K.

now 4'18" and 33'10"

people with high a high v02max tend to excel the most at 1500m-5k. 10k and beyond it helps, but economy is more important.

77.94 average. High of 81.1 and low of 75.95. Tested 6 times.

with a 71 and a PR of 3:38 1500...

mine was tested at the same time and I had a 69 and had a PR of 4:10 for 1500... I guess thats how much 2 points on the VO2 max accounts for ~15 seconds each point...

Eric B. wrote:

Once I find out I have a VO2Max of 56 and have maxed out my potential I will feel like I can never improve. However what if I really have a VO2Max of 80 and I am just really ineffecient?.

Actually, if you find out your VO2 Max is 56 you probably have a lot more room for improvement than if it is 80. You're a lot closer to the tip of the bell curve with a max of 80, so you would have less reason to expect much improvement. And also, it is "running economy" which measures the change in distance traveled for a given energy consumption. People tend to think of "efficiency" as running technique/form, which is not what "economy" is at all. It is simply the residual of what is not explained by VO2 Max as it relates to performance capabilities, nothing more, nothing less.

Any women?

No need to give explanations on what V02 max means, telling me what I 'should be able to run', etc.. I've heard it all, and have plenty of books with different charts.

I've tested twice, and scored 63.5 and 65.5. Both tests, done two years apart, were administered in top-flight exercise labs. Interestingly, I ran slightly faster times during the year that I blew a lower test score (last year).

A lab assistant told me that if you want to boost your score, losing body weight makes the numbers go up ... it's a ratio of oxygen burned to body weight. Doesn't necessarily mean you're getting fitter though.

Anyway, my times reflect my fairly unremarkable VO2 values. I'm a better cyclist than runner, but my tests were both done on a treadmill.

5k = 17:55 (don't do these often)

10k = 38:21 (in Boulder, so some altitude effect)

10 miles = 63:30

marathon = 3:07 (tried it twice, running Boston this spring)

In case you haven't guessed, I'm a middle-aged (ouch!) triathlete.

Oooops ...

Male

39 yrs old

157 pound

6' 0"

I measured 71 but was never able to run what the charts predict. I have some physical limitations that may have played a factor though (like scoliosis and one leg slightly shorter than the other). I could run in circles really fast.