Top VO2Max in history?

It varies too much by protocol to make any meaninful comparisons. But I'd start with 91 L/K/M for Harri Kirvisneimi.

VO2 Max doesn't mean anything.

It's an oft-used and little understood term used by grad students to justify to their parents that their efforts and money have not gone to waste. University administrators have been duped by this sciolistic fog-machine, as well. How else could the waste of valuable resources, time and money, be covered-up? Parents and other intelligent, rational thinking adults could not possibly decipher this code. Do not try to yourself. You'll only make yourself look foolish reciting the catechism of the exercise-physio-geeks.

This nascent science of exercise physiology was born out of a failed genetics experiment in the early 60s; the breeding of an economist and a sociologist. The offspring from this pairing would say more and mean less than the combined blather of the two parents put together. Common sense would have told us how this experiment would have ended, but stubborn researchers pushed ahead, nonetheless.

The only numbers that matter are the ones that you receive at the end of the race. The most important of these is called PLACE, and is represented as an ordinal. A '1' is the best indicator of your performance. If you get a '1' then you've done excellent. It's no small coincidence that '1' is a homophone for 'won'. Other excellent numbers to receive are '2' and '3'. Not nearly as good as a '1', but by tradition and convention the numbers '1', '2' and '3' are deemed to be the 'supreme ordinals'; that is to say, worthy of gold, silver and bronze, and are segregated from the other ordinals. The rest of the ordinals are represented by the formula: n + 1...(to infinity). There is a direct, inverse relationship between ordinal value and its worth. The closer to the supreme ordinals, the better you've done, the closer to infinity, the worse you've done.

One of the other numbers that matters much more than VO2 Max is TIME. TIME is always secondary to PLACE in it's value. Neither PLACE nor TIME are given in the gerbil-wheel lab tests conducted by the exercise-physio-geeks. You will only receive them in the experiment that the real experts call COMPETITION. TIME does not supersede PLACE, but it is a way of comparing the PLACE of two or more experiments from different venues and eras. The juxtaposition of TIME and PLACE is the business of track statisticians, who, by the way, are also the progeny from the aforementioned failed genetics experiment.

Physicists have proven, through complex mathematical machinations, that it is physically impossible for VO2Max to supersede either TIME or PLACE. Richard Feynman once said, "VO2Max and five bucks will get you a cup of joe at Starbucks."

So far, in the history of sports, not one award has ever been given, nor has there been remuneration for, VO2Max results.

Long ago, TIME was measured as a fraction of the earth's rotation in base 60: hours, minutes and seconds. It's still expressed as such, however, the predecessors to the exercise-physio-geeks have determined that TIME should now be measured in terms of the vibration frequency of irradiated Cesium atoms. Your watch has quartz crystals in it that will simulate this experiment for you (without the attendant radiation and disposal problems) and convert the results automatically, presenting them to you in the form of easily recognizable numerical glyphs. No complicated formulae to memorize!

There are many other factors that are much more indicative of athletic performance, or the potential for performance, than VO2 max. I couldn't possibly begin to list them all: height, weight, hair color, skin color, shoe size, favorite TV show...the list is endless.

------------------------------------

92.5 Greg LeMond, professional cyclist

92.0 Matt Carpenter, Pikes Peak marathon course record holder

88.0 Miguel Indurain, professional cyclist

87.4 Marius Bakken, Norwegian 5k record holder

85 Dave Bedford, 10k world record

84.4 Steve Prefontaine,US runner

84.3 "Physiologist in training," 15:12/30:55 runner

82.7 Gary Tuttle, US runner

82.0 Kip Keino, Olympic 1500 champion

81.1 Craig Virgin, twice World cross country champ

81.0 Jim Ryun, US miler WR holder

80.1 Steve Scott, US miler 3:47

79.4 "Runningart2004," 15:43 5k runner

78.5 Bill Rodgers, 2:09:27 marathoner

77.4 Don Kardong, 2:11:15 marathoner

76.6 John Landy, WR miler

76.0 Alberto Salazar, 2:08:51 marathoner

74.3 Amby Burfoot, US marathoner

74.4 Johnny Halberstadt, 2:11:44 marathoner

74.2 Kenny Moore, US marathoner 2:11:36

73.5 Grete Waitz, Norwegian Marathon runner

73.0 Jeff Galloway, US snake oil salesman

73.0 Buddy Edelen, marathoner

72.8 Jarmila Krotochvilova,Czech Olympian 400M/800M winner

72.3 Peter Snell, Olympic champion

72.0 Zithulele Sinqe, 2:08:05 marathoner

71.3 Frank Shorter, US Olympic Marathon winner

71.2 Ingrid Kristiansen, ex-Marathon World Record Holder

71.0 Paula Ivan, Russian Olympic 1500M Record Holder

70.3 Willie Mtolo, 2:08:15 marathoner

69.7 Derek Clayton, Australian ex-Marathon World Record holder 2:08:35

67.2 Rosa Mota, Marathon runner

----------------------------------------

RUNNING PREDICTS RUNNING BETTER THAN PHYSIOLOGY

Noakes, T. D., Myburgh, K. H., & Schall, R. (1990). Peak treadmill running velocity during VO2max test predicts running performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 8, 35-45.

Marathon runners (N = 20) and ultra-marathoners (N = 23) were tested for VO2max, peak treadmill running velocity, velocity at lactate turnpoint, and VO2 at 16 km/h using an incremental (1 min) treadmill test.

Results. Race times at 10, 21.1, and 42.2 km of the specialist marathoners were faster than those of the ultra-marathoners, however, only the 10 km time differed significantly. Lactate turnpoint occurred at 77.4% of VO2max and at 74.7% of peak treadmill velocity. The average VO2 at 16 km/h was 51.2 ml/kg/min which represented 78.5% of VO2max.

For all distances, performance time in other races was the best predictor of performance (r = .95 to .98).

The best laboratory predictors were: (a) peak treadmill running velocity (r = -.89 to -.94); (b) running velocity at lactate turnpoint (r = -.91 to -.93); and (c) fractional use of VO2max at 16 km/h (r = .86 to .90). The predictive value of the lactate turnpoint measure increased as the distance increased.

The poorest predictors were: VO2max (r = -.55 to -.81) and VO2 at 16 km/h (r = .40 to .45).

Conclusion. There may be no unique physiological characteristics that distinguish elite long-distance (10 km or longer) runners as is often promoted. Other factors determine success in high level sports among exclusive groups of superior athletes.

Implication. Running performance is the best predictor of running capability in elite long-distance runners. Physiological laboratory testing gives less information than does actual performance. Even the fastest speed of running on the treadmill is a better predictor than any physiological measure. This suggests that for at least endurance-dominated sports, actual performances in a variety of performance-specific situations will give more useful information than that which can be obtained in any physiology laboratory test.

------------------------------------------

As I've said in the satire above, "VO2 max doesn't mean anything."

Malmo, thanks for the....essay. I wasn't/am not trying to say anything about VO2Max, good or bad. Just curious as to some of the numbers. I thank you for that info, and the fun read!

I knew what you were looking for and I had it buried in the satire. The Noakes abstract isn't satire, it's the real deal. Any discussion on VO2MAX should include the Noakes study.

I've added the Finnish XC skier to the list. Thanks, Jungleleroy.

Bravo.... Bravo....

Very nicely done.

But do you really think Runningart2004 is better than Frank Shorter. Wow.

Mr. Marathon wrote:

Bravo.... Bravo....

Very nicely done.

But do you really think Runningart2004 is better than Frank Shorter. Wow.

Well, VO2Max is not a measure of "better" (although I bet the sandwich shop girls think he his) it's just a number, much like shoe size.

"73.0 Jeff Galloway, US snake oil salesman"

Haha. I missed that one on first viewing.

malmo wrote:

I've added the Finnish XC skier to the list. Thanks, Jungleroy.

You're welcome, Malmo. You are smart and well informed and were a very good runner. You seem to have evolved into an n plus 1 as n aproaches infinity message board self-righteous bully. I wonder why. A lot of people look up to you for the value of your advice, even though it is sometimes served up with a cutting wit that seems more spiteful than satirical. Maybe it's just me.

It's just you jungleleroy. There is no spite in the recipe.

FWIW, I do not know what my VO2Max was, not even curious one bit.

wow, keep trying you almost sound pseudo-intellectual

the guy just asked a simple question

FWIW - I believe that the Runner's World for November 2006 listed both Paul Tergat and Lance Armstrong at 85 (this is from memory, it might have been 87)

anEconomist wrote:

wow, keep trying you almost sound pseudo-intellectual

That's the whole point. Bingo.

Calling VO2max "meaningless" is a bit over the top.

To be a top endurance athlete one needs a "sufficiently" high Vo2max. You are not going to get someone with a Vo2max of 45 ml/kg/min to be a world class athlete.

However, there are people with high VO2max that never accomplish what the numbers suggest they could accomplish.

anon wrote:

FWIW - I believe that the Runner's World for November 2006 listed both Paul Tergat and Lance Armstrong at 85 (this is from memory, it might have been 87)

Here's an article confiming LA 85.0. It also states that Indurains 95 was really 78 (I have listed 88).

Here's an article that puts LA at 84 and Tergat at 85.

luv2run wrote:

Calling VO2max "meaningless" is a bit over the top.

Tell that to Noakes.

Of course elite athletes, as a generalization, are going to have higher VO2Max than sedentary individuals -- that's common sense. Within groups of highly trained trained athletes, performance and VO2Max have a low correlation.

I am one of those exercise-physio-geeks, or whatever it is that Sir Malmo has coined the discipline. It's always nice to have someone crush your life's work. Thanks Malmo, what happened, did Dr. Jack piss you off when you were with Athletics West?

For those of us who realize that when you take a combination of talent, toughness, diligence, knowledge, science and experience and mix them all together, you maximize your opportunity to find success. It's quite possible that when you choose to exclude one, then maybe you'll never fine gold, silver or bronze. Isn't that right, Malmo?

And by the way, it is very true that VO2 max alone is a poor indicator of racing success. It's when you choose to add in psychomotor efficiency, strength to weight ratio as well as that toughness thing I've already mentioned that you can predict, which much more accuracy, performance. As with most things in life, there are several variables involved in racing performance.

But Malmo, as always, once I wade through all the bitterness there is some humor to be drawn from you post. As with running, there are so many variables found within your wisdom.

Hi

My shoe size is 9US. Can I break 3 hours for a marathon?

Wasn't there some cross country skiier who recorded 93 or 94?

knut anders fostervold 91 ml/kg/min(cyclist)

bjorn daehli 96 ml/kg/min

haille 89 or 91

harard bjerke 96

d.Nelissen 102.5 (you read it right)(netherlands)

Bjorn daehli and bjerke weigh about 165 - 170 pounds and are 6\'. Knut anders fostervold weighs 185 pounds and is 6\'2\" tall.

Many top triathletes are between 74 - 82 ml/kg/min.

I used to write them down on a word file.Even the training they did.