Yeah my VO2 max is up the charts but my heart rest rate at the lowest is 72. I have reached beyond 200 though in heart beats per minute.
What im trying to say is that there are gonna be some people who have weird rest rates, vo2 maxes, and maximum heart rates but dont let it bother you.
my resting heart rate always used to bother me cause when i hit my peak it dipped into the high 60's and never lower.
But that didnt stop me from running 4:20 minute miles, 9:20 two miles and sub 15:30 5ks
oh by the way im a rising senior in high school
Jager bombs wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but when you go past your lactic threshold and begin to not be able to break down the acid aren't you going anaerobic?
You're correct in the sense that every coach/fitness guru that says that is incorrect. "Going anaerobic" is a misnomer. You'll only be truly anaerobic if you're chocking on a bagel and are told to run as far as you can.
Lactic acid fermentation is always anaerobic, it doesn't use O2 as it's electron receptor; the same goes for glycolysis.
What you're referring to is the fact that lactic acid fermentation only produces 4 ATP molecules/glucose. While the ETC produces ~7x that. More ATP - more energy. You couldn't supply enough oxygen to your muscles so they relied on fermentation more heavily, which means less ATP, and less powerful muscle contractions.
You are quite normal. My 26 elite-runner subjects averaged a max HR of 178 when 24 years old (15 of this group actually competed in the Olympics). When tested again 25 years later the average was 176. One guy was 186 at 25 yrs and 192 at 50 yrs. Another had a max HR of 148 and 25 yrs later it had dropped to 146. There are individuals who fall well outside the norm.
Its good to here from you, I have read a lot about you. I understand that V02 max tests are just an indicator of what your potential could be. How do you feel about the test themselves? I know running efficiency and lactic threshold are also big indicators of fitness and potential. I have just always wondered about this subject and whether I will see improvements. I'm considered pretty underdeveloped and for my age physically and running wise. My Pr's are not slow but not at the level of what my V02 max is.
Jager bombs wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong but when you go past your lactic threshold and begin to not be able to break down the acid aren't you going anaerobic?
We don't produce lactic acid ever. Lactate is always produced from carbohydrate metabolism.
There are two fuels produced, lactate fuels aerobic respiration and what is often called (somewhat incorectly) glycolysis, which fuels anaerobic respiration. But at any pace both are produced.
Don't worry be happy.
I had your VO2 max once upon a time.
wellnow is being pedantic.
during your VO2 max test, much of the energy was supplied by oxidative metabolism (i.e. aerobic) and some was supplied via glycolysis (aka anaerobic).
technically, anaerobic means without oxygen. since overall at the whole body level, you were not without oxygen, and the data show that you were in fact consuming oxygen, you were not anaerobic.
but within your body some energy was being released by chemical reactions that do not involve oxygen, i.e. anaerobic metabolism.
a person can only "be anaerobic" when they are dead. in which case, I suppose they are no longer a person.
Rodger Kram
I might have missed this, but, without a max, 177 is just a number to which you have nothing to compare. Also, without a baseline, a similar test earlier in the year, it's hard to make comparisons. If I am not mistaken, your total blood volume increases as you get fitter (due to increased total blood volume), which can decrease your heart rate at the same effort level; think of inverse functions here. If that's the case, it would simply indicate improved fitness compared to earlier in the year had you done (and surpassed the results) a baseline test.
That makes a lot of sense, thanks for the more clear explanation. I'm assuming you do the tests for Whetmore's athletes at Colorado?
And to the following poster, we are comparing a V02 max of 77.4 to a max heart rate of 177 bpm.
No doubt VO2max is important, but of minimal importance among groups of individuals, all of whom have similar max values. I've seen sub-2:10 marathon from a runner with a 70.4 VO2max, and no better than 33 minutes for 10k from a runner with a 78 max. In these cases, economy is very important, which it also is when getting tested. You should always get a sub-max test (at 3 or 4 test speeds, that last about 5 minutes each, so yo are in a good steady state), whenever getting a max test. The submax data solve a couple problems -- (1) If the equipment being used is not well calibrated and giving out erroneous data, then it is likely that a high max (desirable thing) will be associated with high submax data (a not desirable thing) so they sort of cancel each other out. (2) If the equipment is reliable and accurate, then you get a true measure of your economy. One example would be what is your VO2 while running at 6:00 mile pace (10MPH). Typical aerobic demand at this speed is about 50-53 ml/kg per minute. In the mid to upper 40s is quite good (43 is the most economical runner I have ever tested, but I imagine there are better ones), and mid 50s and higher is not so great in economy (I have seen values even in the 60s, which is either indication that the equipment is not well calibrated or this person is very poor in economy). If you convert economy to ml per kg per kilometer then you can compare vales at a variety of speeds, and hope to get numbers under 200.
Sparkles the Cat wrote:
Yeah, you're weird. Doesn't mean you're going to run slow or anything.
I've max out at about 200 as do most runners. This usually doesn't decline much in well trained runners.
Really? Most runners? Show me the data.
To the OP: means nothing. While unusual, it certainly is not unheard of. Just means stroke volume is very high and you may be extracting more O2 and maybe have a lot more red blood cells than "average".
wellnow wrote:
Jager bombs wrote:I felt maxed out during the test and was definitely anaerobic.
No, you were definitely aerobic, that's why it's called VO2max.
You wanna test your anaerobic capacity? then sprint for 60 meters.
So are you saying that at the end of a VO2max test there is no contribution from "anaerobic" energy systems?
no, I haven't tested the Colorado athletes in my lab. I did help them out with our Alter-G treadmill until they bought their own.
I surely wouldn't tell Mark Wetmore how to train his athletes differently based on VO2max or running economy tests. His system seems to work just fine.
The CU athletes test themselves using the most accurate system known to science.... the 400m track.
Rodger
jtupper wrote:
No doubt VO2max is important, but of minimal importance among groups of individuals, all of whom have similar max values. I've seen sub-2:10 marathon from a runner with a 70.4 VO2max, and no better than 33 minutes for 10k from a runner with a 78 max. In these cases, economy is very important, which it also is when getting tested. You should always get a sub-max test (at 3 or 4 test speeds, that last about 5 minutes each, so yo are in a good steady state), whenever getting a max test. The submax data solve a couple problems -- (1) If the equipment being used is not well calibrated and giving out erroneous data, then it is likely that a high max (desirable thing) will be associated with high submax data (a not desirable thing) so they sort of cancel each other out. (2) If the equipment is reliable and accurate, then you get a true measure of your economy. One example would be what is your VO2 while running at 6:00 mile pace (10MPH). Typical aerobic demand at this speed is about 50-53 ml/kg per minute. In the mid to upper 40s is quite good (43 is the most economical runner I have ever tested, but I imagine there are better ones), and mid 50s and higher is not so great in economy (I have seen values even in the 60s, which is either indication that the equipment is not well calibrated or this person is very poor in economy). If you convert economy to ml per kg per kilometer then you can compare vales at a variety of speeds, and hope to get numbers under 200.
When aiming to improve economy, what areas should one focus on? Is there a direct correlation between individual athlete's weaknesses and improvements gained from focusing on that area? Putting that in plain English. If a runner handles R-paced workouts well and T-paced workouts well, but, struggles with I-paced efforts, would it help to do "extra" work at I-pace? (Trying to understand the best way to improve economy within your framework.)
Dot sans wrote:
Lactic acid fermentation is always anaerobic, it doesn't use O2 as it's electron receptor; the same goes for glycolysis.
What you're referring to is the fact that lactic acid fermentation only produces 4 ATP molecules/glucose. While the ETC produces ~7x that. More ATP - more energy. You couldn't supply enough oxygen to your muscles so they relied on fermentation more heavily, which means less ATP, and less powerful muscle contractions.
Correct.
Most likely you did not reach a running specific Vo2max or HRmax. My guess is you were tested with a steep incline protocol such as the Balke and walked during the early stages of the test. You would have reached a higher HR value at end exercise by working longer at one submaximal effort, but for a longer duration.
The test was started at 9 miles per hour then increased to eleven, then the incline was raised in increments. I believe this is the standard protocol.
"struggling" while running is not a practical way to improve economy; better to be running with good mechanics and fast, but relaxed. Always try to be able to identify the purpose of every workout, and if the purose is to improve economy then best be running economically
Good stuff here from Jtupper.
I came across my old thread and was hoping to bring it up to get answers to some questions. If one is not racing near to their potential for a v02 max test and have decent running efficiency, what can be done to increase performance?