The Fallacy of VO2max

This is an excellent point. I think all this mental masturbation about 'the fallacy of vo2max' is missing the point. Just because 'VO2max' doesn't really increase with training, doesn't mean that training at that intensity has no value..

That's the point of the article I think. It's not saying that that intensity is incorrect, it's just saying that it doesn't cause the changes that most are aiming for in training at that intensity. So, we should shift from having zones based on VO2max and the like to training based on something else, such as race paces. It doesn't mean you do away with that intensity, it's just a paradigm shift from Daniels type zones to a different style

More of a paradigm shift BACK to what people did before all this lab stuff.

Perhaps the value of VO2max is best viewed by answering, "Has anyone ever shown that you can maximize your performance with an 'under-developed' or 'un-developed' VO2max?I view VO2max (aerobic capacity) development as one prerequisite to best distance performances, in spite of the problems of accurately defining or measuring VO2max, or the wide variability among similarly performing athletes.

weIlnow wrote:

But who is going to pay attention to the facts, when the mythology is so well established?

Aaah, but Daniels doesn't used "zone-based" training based on your VO2max.Daniels' VDOT tables, and different training intensities are, just like you said, "based on something else, like race paces".If you follow Daniels Running Formula, at no point in time do you ever have to measure your oxygen consumption at any speed, or blood-lactate concentration. You determine all of your training intensities based on recent, or estimated, race performances.It may be a paradigm shift from something else, but not from Daniels' Running Formula.

dunnowhy wrote:

That's the point of the article I think. It's not saying that that intensity is incorrect, it's just saying that it doesn't cause the changes that most are aiming for in training at that intensity. So, we should shift from having zones based on VO2max and the like to training based on something else, such as race paces. It doesn't mean you do away with that intensity, it's just a paradigm shift from Daniels type zones to a different style

CoachB wrote:

weIlnow wrote:

Don't be so sure that a relatively low VO2max runner can't beat a relatively high VO2max runner. Running economy varies enourmously.

I have a prius and love the economy, but am well aware that a Corvette would smoke my car in all races save for a very long one where we don't get to refill our gas tanks.

Don't fall in love with running economy as the greatest predictor of success either. Economy and VO2 max are but 2 among many predictors.

**********************************************

I have discussed both economy and VO2max at length on other threads.

The fundamental issue of importance for you and for me is neuromuscular coordination. Stride length x stride rate x endurance.

rekrunner wrote:

Perhaps the value of VO2max is best viewed by answering, "Has anyone ever shown that you can maximize your performance with an 'under-developed' or 'un-developed' VO2max?

I view VO2max (aerobic capacity) development as one prerequisite to best distance performances, in spite of the problems of accurately defining or measuring VO2max, or the wide variability among similarly performing athletes.

weIlnow wrote:

But who is going to pay attention to the facts, when the mythology is so well established?

*********************************************

It's easy to develop aerobic capacity. But doing so will not make you a fast runner. It's only the beginning, the first step on the way.

rekrunner, in 50 years time, the men's marathon could be run in 1.53 and the women's in 2.03.

That's what I'm predicting, and I believe that the best trained runners will be able to do this without drugs. Also, they will have the same aerobic capacity and economy as today's runners, and runners of the 1950's.

So, what training will they be doing? That's the question that most interests me.

How do we improve thes variables?:

R x L x E

Where R = Stride Rate

L = Stride Length

E = Endurance, measured in either time or dstance.

I have my own formula, but it will take me a few years to refine it. When it works, I can run very fast, but I'm only breathing low. I'm using traditional training methods, but the way they are put together and the timing is the key.

With regard to this, there was a thread a few months ago about Ethiopian training methods, and from what I have seen, they have a very comprehensive training plan, which we can all learn from.

rekrunner wrote:

Perhaps the value of VO2max is best viewed by answering, "Has anyone ever shown that you can maximize your performance with an 'under-developed' or 'un-developed' VO2max?

That semi-rhetorical question doesn't distinguish VO2max from dozens of other parameters. It also doesn't suggest an easy answer to this question: "Has anyone ever shown that you can maximize your performance by maximizing VO2max?"

If I were a coach of distance runners, I would love to see my rivals focusing their athletes' training on boosting VO2max values in lab tests. I would also love to see them choose their recruits according to VO2max values.

The rather simple concept of a body's maximum rate of aerobic metabolism is not entirely useless. Nor is its more commonly discussed counterpart, a body's maximum rate of aerobic metabolism per unit of body mass. But a lot of useless and sometimes destructive nonsense has sprouted from discussions about these simple concepts. The assignment of values to a body's maximum rate of aerobic metabolism per unit of body mass has turned VO2max into a fetishism that has very little to do with good science.

Do you not think that the current elites already have a "formula" that they have spent several years refining? 1:53 and 2:03? Come on, man. Everybody has days where they run fast and aren't breathing hard. To be able to summon that feeling regularly isn't going to be the difference that produces men who can average 4:18/mile for 26.2.

So are most of you advocationg more threshold stuff (tempos, cruise intervals etc.) rather than the traditional vo2 sessions like 5 x 1k at 3k-5k pace? Even for shorter races 5k and under?

wellnow, where/who do you coach? I have seen your posts and am curious as to what your formative experiences are.

Texas guy wrote:

So are most of you advocationg more threshold stuff (tempos, cruise intervals etc.) rather than the traditional vo2 sessions like 5 x 1k at 3k-5k pace? Even for shorter races 5k and under?

you can't take 5k pace running out of a 5k training program. This thread is simply stating that training yourself to have a higher vo2 may not be worth all that its said to be worth.

5k pace training in a 10k,5k, or 3k program makes good sense, but to put it in a marathoners program simply to raise your vo2 may not be as good of an idea as thought.

If you take anything from this thread, it should be that maybe instead of calling it a threshold run, or vo2 run, etc, figure out what you are doing and how its going to relate to your goals.

Seriously...Vo2 max is a just a name for a physiological marker. Nothing more, nothin less.

It's just one of the many different intensity "steps" along the way that will lead you to your racing/training goals. When I think of Vo2 work- it's just a link from what you have done to what you are going to do in regard to training.

That being said, if you get a VO2 test and are actually looking at VO2 results and how you can train better from these, you should be more concerned about what you can do to improve your "fractionalization of VO2max" at different race distances.

A perfect example of this is Alberto Salazar. His Vo2max was like 70 or something, I don't remember, but what I do remember is that Salazar was able to run at 86% of his VO2 max (for his 2:08)- heck, most people 86% of VO2 max will be their lactate threshold intensity. So, running economy, the level of aerobic threshold and maybe just flat out balls are just equally as important as a Vo2 max number.

Wellnow, you do realize that a curve-fitting of the world record progression in the men's marathon puts them literally right at 2:00 flat 50 years from now, right? I suspect men will break 2:00 in my lifetime (I am 22), but 1:53 is absurd.

forget the crazy ass predictions of the world record, this thread is a great thread if we keep it on topic.

Fractionalization of vo2max is a leap in the right direction, but we are still focusing on scientific markers and not racing.

How long you can run at 90% vo2max is a small piece of the puzzle. What your vo2max is, what your vVo2max is is another, then at how long you can run at 90% vs 80% is another.

But why worry about all those numbers when you can simply worry about how long you can run at race pace for?

You can run a 5k in 1530? (congratulations, your talented ha!) You can run at 5 min pace for 15:30, so you can probably run at 4:50 pace for 9 mins (3k) your next goal should be to increase the time you can hold that pace for, until you can hold it for 15 mins, so you can officially break 15 in the 5k.

I don't know..I guess it just really doesn't matter what you "name" any type of workout you do, as long as your training leads to the direction of running fast in the event you want- and when it counts most.

Maybe training at popular race distances is the most effective way to go about training? Of course each of these distances has a "pysiological name" or "marker/approximate marker" associated with it as well.

100m- (absolute speed)

400m- (CP- speed-Latol)

800m- (LAtol- speed endurance)

1500m- (Classic Daniels' Repetition intensity)

3000m- (Vo2 max-ish)

5000m- (Vo2 max-ish)

10,000m (critical velocity)

1/2 marathon- (lactate threshold)

marathon- (aerobic threshold)

ultra marathon- (recovery/regeneration!)

hop scotch- (plyometrics)

freeze tag-(neuromuscular training)

this guy ^ provides great examples. especially freeze tag and hopscotch.

i love the way the human body works and am going to grad school to study the human body. i love physiology and how science can back up training methods.

that said: running is so very simple, it's almost mind numbing.

pick a race, set a goal time, train.

i like how "downz" simplified training on the "workouts for a 1:07 half" thread. (i paraphrase) "running 67 involves two things, running at 5:07/mi and running for 67 min. so practice running faster than 5:07 and practice running hard for 67 minutes."

i think VO2max is an overused variable for endurance athletes. to me it's like a dick measuring contest. just because you're packing 10 inches doesn't mean she's going to orgasm. likewise, just because your VO2 is higher than mine doesn't mean you're going to beat me.

Economy is not a predictor of performance at all. Rather performance is one of the inputs required to calculate economy.

CoachB wrote:

...

Don't fall in love with running economy as the greatest predictor of success either. Economy and VO2 max are but 2 among many predictors.