The myth of VO2 max development?

Doesn't Daniel's stress VO2 max development differently from those training for the marathon versus shorter events?

Marathon VO2 max first, then strength work (tempo, MP runs).

5/10K reps first then VO2 max.

Would like to hear others opinions.

I don't think your friend is all that wrong. You have to think from the perspective of your potential to raise your VO2max. Can it change very much? Does it detrain very quickly? It's my opinion (and take it for what it's worth) based on the research literature out there that VO2max can't be trained as easily as some other physiological variables, and as such, you shouldn't be too hung up on training to improve it or distraught that it won't improve significantly.

That being said, that doesn't mean that VO2max training doesn't help improve other physiological variables (ie. mainly lactate threshold, running economy, etc) and isn't worth doing. But again, I don't think your friend is far off when he says 6 weeks is really all that it takes, providing the base and build phases were done appropriately.

VO2 max is something that is constantly trained, like every other "variable" of the exercise physiology spectrum. Just think of it as a band of race lengths (in terms of time). Below VO2 Max, you have Anaerobic capacity (the 3:00-7:00 range) and above it the low end of the aerobic power zone (the 21-30 minute range). So, VO2 Max development focuses on races lasting from 7-21 minutes with the pinpointed race length (according to whom you listen) being anywhere from 7-11 minutes). At any rate, VO2 max can be developing using volume (see Deena Kastor article Vigil put out a few weeks back) just as it can be developing using intervals. The trick is knowing which workouts stimulate which systems and how they interrelate with the rest of the puzzle. Now, about the specific argument you have had, I have heard 2-3 months for maximum VO2 development, though a highly fit runner (like the Stanford guys of Lananna's later years) can do very little workouts in this 7-21 minute spectrum and get fast results. However, you must note that many of them are high responders to this particular type of training. Consider that in your argument: are your theoretical athletes high responders to intervals work or are they low responders.

For reference, speed development typically on takes 3-6 weeks in middle distance guys, while LT (or AT) depending on which prism you look through, takes 6-12 months. Efficiency is a constant focus of any good system. So, I build systems 1) focusing on developing efficiency from day 1, 2) LT/AT work after a solid, injury-preventative base has been formed, 3) race-specific development for intervals (a 1500 guy will have very different intervals from a 12k XC runner) and 4) speed development (if necessary) or, alternately, efficient integration of power (very different end results). Hope some of this adds to the debate.

jtupper,

In your books, I see the main variables you outline as speed, VO2 Max, LT and economy. How do these race time ranges overlay for you in terms of the common system out there (Martin's use of aerobic capacity, aerobic power, anaerobic capacity and anaerobic power)? I've read those terms a lot elsewhere and, assuming a little here, figure you avoid getting into the finer shades of tech talk for the mainstream publications. Do you think in those terms at all?

Thanks,

Will

In my experience your friend is right. Of course many train it year round and are "race fit" most of the time. That is the disadvantage to periodization, if you don't have an element of VO2max training you will not be able to do as well if you decide to jump into shorter races off peak.

I've read that VO2 max plateaus after 8 or 9 workouts, but can be increased further by doing short repeats at intensities greater than VO2 max (400s @ mile pace). It may just have been velocity at VO2 max since these fast intervals improve economy. Anyhow, I think VO2 max intervals should be the middle stage of training. Threshold work early, VO2 middle, anaerobic/sharpening end.

Increasing VO2max relies on two things – (1) increasing the muscle cells’ ability to handle more O2 and (2) delivering more O2 to those muscles. Training and mostly spending time running is how the cells get the most benefit – thus the benefit of building a sound base with lots of running. For delivery you want to maximize your cardiovascular system’s ability to do just that and that means best possible nutrition (for good O2-carrying) and a strong heart. The cell part can take years to maximize, but the other part isn’t so restricted by time. So, increasing VO2max relies on long-term buildup of desirable cell characteristics and some solid interval work to maximize delivery. The solid-interval stuff is not much fun and part of the reason it doesn’t take up much of a year’s program is because it is hard to do and hard to recover from and while doing that type training you aren’t always feeling so great for best racing. So you spend some time on it and then let is go, especially if racing regularly, because possibly the ultimate VO2max workout is a hard 3k to 5k race, and no need to do VO2max intervals while racing regularly over middle distances. Always remember that my feelings about these things (especially how much and how often to do various intensities of training) reflect my coaching philosophy and no-one has all the answers for every runner

Thanks jtupper.

Your views are always welcomed and appreciated. I wonder if there has been any testing protocal that can anticipate responders to non-responders to more or less MVO2 training?

A very good question. No doubt some people have greater increases than do others, and when you might read that you can increase VO2max by 20% that is obviously a mean value, which also suggests that some make far greater and some far less than that. We tested two groups of age-group runners for quite a few years and their body weights doubled over the years we followed them, and so did absolute VO2max, which meant that relative VO2max (ml/kg) did not change, but their economy improved over 20% -- mostly as a result of growth, and 2-mile race times improved dramatically (with no change in that relative VO2max). However, we stopped following them at age 18 so I would imagine for those who continued running they may have seen a greater improvement in max. I hope so or we could say we can measure VO2max at age 12 and say who has it and who doesn't. Those we studied had a max of about 60 at age 12 and also 60 at age 18. When I tested Ryun at his 1967 and 1968 peak years, and also after a year of inactivity and throughout his return to peak form in 72, there were significant changes in max (both absolute and relative to body mass), so it isn't hard to watch these changes over time and throughout training changes, but you need some very dedicated, trusting and cooperative subjects.

Who do the Hanson runners follow? I have been impressed how well their guys that are mediocre at other distances seem to handle the thon.

I'm a believer wrote:

Who do the Hanson runners follow? I have been impressed how well their guys that are mediocre at other distances seem to handle the thon.

I think more important is looking at the failures in the marathon and who has coached them? Todd Williams ran 60 minutes for a half marathon and a 2:11 best. That is horrible. Bob Kennedy pawned off that his failure in the marathon was because he waited so long in his career however, he was still running 27:30's for 10k at that time. I say poor coaching. Meanwhile you have guys like Beardsley running 2:08 and only 29 minutes for 10k.

My take is that at some point more training is not going to improve an element or the benefit is not worth the cost in terms of developing other aspects of one's training.

So, if you spend 6 to 9 weeks on Vo2max development and the improvements plateau then is it worth it spending more time when there might be something else that needs your attention?

I take issue with schema. It may come down to how one measures things.

For one thing, I have never heard anyone place anaerobic capacity (at least no physiologists) as something in the area of 3 to 7 minutes. After 100 seconds of all out exercise, oxidative processes are providing 50% or more of the energy. I have always considered anaerobic capacity to in the range of 45 seconds or maybe even only as long as 30 seconds. (Think of the standard Wingate protocol as being a measure of anaerobic capacity--or more specifically anaerobic work capacity).

I think some of your other values are a little off as well, but it could be I am reading the comments in error. Usually very well trained folks can maintain VO2max for about 8 minutes tops (not sure where you got 21, I could buy 11 minutes depending on how one is establishing VO2max).

I would like to turn the question back to high school racing if I could (I know, this isn't Dyestat, but to be honest, I don't get very good answers there).

If we are racing 10-15 times per season, is it to our benefit or detriment to do MVO2 training in addition to 5k racing? Sometimes we are even doing 2 races per week. What would be a good training schedule based on the above info?

I am currently scheduled to do the following:

Sun. Long run 12 mi.

Mon. Aerobic run 7 mi.

Tues. AnT run 3-4 mi.

Wed. Aerobic run 7 mi.

Thurs. MVO2 6 x 1000 or 3-4 x mile

Fri. Rec. run 5 easy mi.

Sat Race

When I have dual meets the Tues. workout is the race.

I guess the question is, Is 3 hard days a week too much? Or does this schedule look pretty good?

There was an old guy, from NZ. I think he was more on the LT then VO2 side of things ''Iceing on the cake'' was what he called it.

I'm a high school coach, and if I were coaching you, I would replace the Thursday workout with another aerobic run. I would also probably add some short itervals (4 x 200 at 1500m race pace) after the tempo run on Tuesday.

Obviously, though, it would depend somewhat on the time of the season. In geeral, I'd stick to two hard days and one log run per week.

If I were your coach I'd alter that Tuesday workout. One tuesday keep your 4 mile "Tempo Run" The next Tuesday do a 6-7 mile Aerobic Threshold run at a slower pace. You could also do a "light fartlek" workout on the road something like "alternating miles" Something I like to do is a 7 mile run where you run a mile at AT and then run a steady "recovery" mile. HS runners almost always will hammer away at a 3 mile "tempo" run.....they'll run it like a race.....too hard.

treadmill wrote:

HS runners almost always will hammer away at a 3 mile "tempo" run.....they'll run it like a race.....too hard.

HAHA! You must know our team. Or is this a universal truth?

I have another question: I seemed to have leveled off this year in terms of my 2 mile and 5k times. I didn't inmprove from last year. In fact I went backwards by a couple of seconds. The interesting point is that my MVO2 workouts were faster and seemed easier than last year. What's going on here? I expected to run quite a bit faster. My 800 repeats were 3-5 seconds faster and seemed easier. I even reduced my recoveries to 90 s. by the end of the season. Yet, I did not make improvements. Now I will admit that I have gained 4-5 lbs. from last year due to a weightlifting regime and growth. My total body fat has actually decreased by 1%. I know an increase in body mass affects MVO2, but would it affect performance this negatively? Sorry if this is basic stuff, but I just want to learn more about me and this physiology stuff. Thanks again.

Each pound of unnecessary body mass that you carry will slow you down about 2.7 seconds per mile. 4 pounds could be about 10 seconds per mile and a fair bit more for a 5k. That's all theoretical based on extra mass and what, if any of it aids your running muscles. It's pretty much straight math if the added muscle is not running muscle.