Does anyone know what the highest vo2 max ever recorded is?
Does anyone know what the highest vo2 max ever recorded is?
I am pretty sure that the highest VO2 max ever recorded was that of a norwegian/icelandic cross country skier. His was 94 (units?) Sorry, this probably doesn't help you too much.
I do believe it was 94, by a Scandinavian Nordic skier.
B/C this is a running message board, I will include that Pre had a recorded VO2 max around 84.
Runners will have lower VO2 max than nordic skiers on average b/c we don't use as many large muscle groups in our activity.
Skyrunner, Mat Carpenter, at 92
Aouita said he had recorded a 96 or something like that in Running with the Champions (Sandrock's book).
Let's get a link or something to that Aouita claim...
I don't believe it.
Which book are you talking about? The Run with the Champions that I'm thinking of is the one that ranks to top 30 American men and 20 women.
Read the book. It's in there. I'll look around.
In one report (in a galaxy far, far away), Morceli was said to have a VO2max of 96.1 ml/kg/min.
X-C skiers will tend to score higher values by virtue of using more muscles. The grade of the treadmill platform (if running is the testing protocol) will also affect the value. The steeper the grade, the higher your VO2max will tend to be. That's why it's not impossible for someone like Morceli or Aouita to have topped out at 96. They might have been using a very steep grade. Matt Carpenter's 91.7 (or thereabouts) was also done at altitude, which usually results in reading about 10% lower than the same athlete would see at sea level. Why was his so high (about 9 ml/kg/min. higher than any other runner ever tested at that site)? Well, being an awesome uphill runner (and an altitude trained one, no less), he was probably able to stay on the treadmill up to extremely high inclines, much longer than other runners could manage, and therefore the steep grade contributed to his high score.
The highest I can find online is the skier. It varies from 93-4 depending on which site you look at. Anyhow, check out this site: it's got some neat writing on running myths.
What's an average score?
Lance Armstrong 83.8 ml/kg-min
Indurain "sub human machine" 88
Eddy Mercky "The Cannibal" 77
Benard Hinault "The Badger" 87
GREG LEMOND "The truely nice guy" 92.5!!!! Holy ****!
NOTE! "The Cannibal" had an EXTREMELY high Lactate threshold. I can remember reading years ago that it was over 90% of his maximum heart rate and not that far from his VO2 max. Armstrong has a LT of 178 beats per minute or 88.5% of max heart rate.
It would be nice to know at what percentage of VO2 max their lactate threshold was/is as this is a better indicator of performance abilities.
Jerron C wrote:
What's an average score?
An average value is around 42 for adult men and 37 for adult women.
Jerron C wrote:
What's an average score?
Check up on my first post...the link I included give average scores for men and women, also college students.
Also, I believe Jack Daniels told an Olympian that VO2 max does not measure what is about the shoulders...as in it doesn't measure how well you will perform in a race.
some good info on VO2 max (but dated 1998)
this guy said highest recored was 93 (Scandinavian XC skier)
Pre was 84.4
ave sedentary American is 35, elite endurance athletes ave 70
No offense directed at Matt, but I have it on pretty good authority that the metabolic cart in use at the USOC High Performance Lab at the time was giving sketchy readings and the consensus of the folks in the lab at the time was that the cart was running very high.
Dahlie scored high (I have that from a person in the lab during a couple of his tests) ~92 ml/kg/min (he is the XC skier I presume a lot of people are thinking about).
Pre's 84.4 seems to be legit as well (the technology at the time while less ooooooh factor also did not have the complications of today's computerized metabolic cart).
Is his name Bjorn Dali (sp)? the skier that is. I was under the impression that Matt C. was the second highest on record. Tim Deboom tested at 89 in college and can only imagine that it is higher now.
Intersting how VO2max is still considered so important. It is important of course, but when you realize that some labs use equipment that isn't properly calibrated, then you get some wayout values. I remember testing a runner who had a 78 max and he said "...that sounds more like it - last week I was given an 88 in another lab." The newer the equipment the more careful you have to be with the calibration. Many tend to believe the metabolic cart printouts becasue it comes form a computer , and we all know computers can't make mistakes. Very similar to the % body fat measurements you hear about. Heck, one time I was under water weighed and givena -4% fat reading, pretty lean I would say. Using extremely sensitive equipment (the same I have used for 40 years now) I have seen an 86 max for a male and 78 for female distance runners. I am sure there are higher numbers, but when you get up there in the high numbers, other things make the difference. I several times tested an American sub-2:10 marathoner who had a max of 70.4. If you are really in search of a high max for yourself, just keep going to different labs and you will eventually find one that gives high values. And when you get it, ask them to explaiin why you aren't running any faster than you are. Some testers seem th think recording high max values in their lab is a sign that their lab is a better one -- like high values lend credibility to the lab. Just win races and until they give medals for high VO2mx, stay with the performance as best mneasure strategy
the cart at the USOC/Colorado Springs also tested armstrong at 80, which at the time was the second highest they had tested. That was according to Jay Kearney who at the time was the head researcher.
jtupper wrote:
Just win races and until they give medals for high VO2mx, stay with the performance as best mneasure strategy
Hey, jtupper, that's my line!:
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 all of their efforts and money have not gone to waste. University administrators have been duped by this 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.
The '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 of 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 separated 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 you get to the supreme ordinals, the better you've done, the closer you approach 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 supercede 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 of the aforementioned failed genetics experiment.
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 numbers. 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.
Steve Prefontaine,US runner, 84.4
Frank Shorter, US Olympic Marathon winner, 71.3
Ingrid Kristiansen, ex-Marathon World Record Holder, 71.2
Derek Clayton, Australian ex-Marathon World Record holder, 69.7
Rosa Mota, Marathon runner, 67.2
Jeff Galloway, US Runner, 73.0
Paula Ivan, Russian Olympic 1500M Record Holder, 71.0
Jarmila Krotochvilova,Czech Olympian 400M/800M winner, 72.8
Greg LeMond, professional cyclist, 92.5
Matt Carpenter, Pikes Peak marathon course record holder, 92
Miguel Indurain, professional cyclist, 88
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."
Well, one thing that VO2 max does illustrate is that, at the most elite levels, runners have inferior aerobic work capacities to cyclists and XC skiers. Take that. And if you think finishing first in a race is the be all end all measure of success in life and the rest is all background noise, I feel sorry for you. If you want to race me to your grave, I'm letting you win.