The Fallacy of VO2max

Training Advice/Discussion General

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3

Next Last

14 years ago 12/22/2009 5:02am EST

re: weIlnow

These are bold predictions. But a lot of things can happen in 50 years.But aren't your variables are too complex. What interests me, is what training we do to improve these variables, to maximize P:P = D / TwhereP = PerformanceD = DistanceT = TimeWhat interests me is not how VO2max training improves VO2max, but how it improves P.

weIlnow wrote:
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.

14 years ago 12/22/2009 5:38am EST

re: girls r good

This guy has it all wrong, I know of no major coach who bases anything off of VO2 Max. I agree it means very little. But I and many other coaches base training paces off of Velocity at VO2 Max (vVO2 Max). That is the pace you are running when you reach your VO2 Max. That is important, and does change significantly with training and the other paces (LT, AT etc) do stay within a narrow range of a certain percetage of vVO2 max.

His rant means very little as his premise is irrelevant. We do VO2 Max intervals not to improve our VO2 max as so much as to improve our vVO2 max.

14 years ago 12/22/2009 6:30am EST

re: Red October

I would just like to say that this is the best thread I have read on here in a long, long time. I thought the OP was not all that great, because I hate people who just post that something doesn't work, without saying what does work.

Nice work everyone, especially enjoyable have been Downz posts.

14 years ago 12/22/2009 11:04am EST

re: SLCrunner

SLCrunner wrote:
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.

In the 1950's a time of 2.15.25 for a Woman was absurd. Faster than the Men's World Record? Impossible!

14 years ago 12/22/2009 11:09am EST

re: rekrunner

rekrunner wrote:
These are bold predictions. But a lot of things can happen in 50 years.
But aren't your variables are too complex. What interests me, is what training we do to improve these variables, to maximize P:
P = D / T
where
P = Performance
D = Distance
T = Time
What interests me is not how VO2max training improves VO2max, but how it improves P.

See recent Renato Canova thread. He explains how to improve performance by improving endurance. He isn't interested in VO2max.

14 years ago 12/22/2009 2:16pm EST

re: hill city

hill city wrote:
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)

Great concept, just drop all the () and your on to something.

It was interesting how everything kinda intermingled. Meaning if you wanted to train for the 5k, you would do 3k pace and 10k pace stuff as well as 5k pace stuff. To athletes this just made sense, running harder and longer to create developement, but then the scientists came in and said "to run a good 5k you need good lactate clearance and a high vo2max" So what did they prescibe? 3k work for vo2max and 10k work for lactate clearance....weird huh?

Take your marathoners. They figured they needed to work at around half/10k speed to develop more speed, and they knew they had to run at MP to get use to it, and to run slower a lot to get "stronger" Scientists came in again and said "you need a large aerobic base and good lactate threshold to run a marathon" what did they prescribe? Lots of aerobic running and some 10k/half pace stuff to work on lactate threshold....crazy......

With that, one thing you don't see anymore is the hard long run. Meaning if your training for a 2:20 you see a lot of pace work, but not a lot of hard work for 2 hours straight. It's like people think that there is no more benefit to running any slower than marathon pace without shutting it down and jogging.

14 years ago 12/23/2009 10:56am EST

re: Downz

what no love for vo2 today?

14 years ago 12/24/2009 9:01am EST

re: berkie or bust

VO2 -- I don't think I could live without it!

14 years ago 12/24/2009 11:59am EST

re: Red October

Red October wrote:
This guy has it all wrong, I know of no major coach who bases anything off of VO2 Max. I agree it means very little. But I and many other coaches base training paces off of Velocity at VO2 Max (vVO2 Max). That is the pace you are running when you reach your VO2 Max. That is important, and does change significantly with training and the other paces (LT, AT etc) do stay within a narrow range of a certain percetage of vVO2 max.
His rant means very little as his premise is irrelevant. We do VO2 Max intervals not to improve our VO2 max as so much as to improve our vVO2 max.

Magness says:

http://stevemagness.blogspot.com/2009/12/practical-implications-of-fallacy-of.html

7 years ago 07/23/2016 6:47am EDT

re: Downz

Downz wrote:
[quote]bingo! wrote:
Agree:
Older 70s and 80s runners regularly did high mileage while incorporating 5k and faster type intervals. I only agree with this is becuase they were focused on the 5k/10k.
Disagree:
Current middle of the pack marathoners doing Vo2max style workouts while running 80-100 MPW becuase that's what a book told them to do. They would see greater improvement focusing on paces that are around race pace.

Nope. Shorter won the Olympics and he was doing 150 with 2 speed and a long run.

70s and 80s guys were not just focused on 5k/10k. A lot of guys raced at all distances.

7 years ago 07/23/2016 8:17am EDT

re: fred

fred wrote:
Downz wrote:
[quote]bingo! wrote:
Agree:
Older 70s and 80s runners regularly did high mileage while incorporating 5k and faster type intervals. I only agree with this is becuase they were focused on the 5k/10k.
Disagree:
Current middle of the pack marathoners doing Vo2max style workouts while running 80-100 MPW becuase that's what a book told them to do. They would see greater improvement focusing on paces that are around race pace.
Nope. Shorter won the Olympics and he was doing 150 with 2 speed and a long run.
70s and 80s guys were not just focused on 5k/10k. A lot of guys raced at all distances.

Thread is about 6 years old. :)

You realize high mileage with 5k+ faster intervals is identical to 150mpw and 2 speed workouts and a long run:). I have never a seen a complete frank shorter log. But I am willing to bet it looks a lot like a Bill Rodgers one:

http://www.bunnhill.com/BobHodge/Rodgers/TrainingLogs/br75traininglog.htm

You have some crazy weeks (180) but those were peak weeks. The normal weeks were more like 110-130mpw and they didn't lose sleep over running 60-80mpw when stuff came up.

As to how effective the training is, it is hard to say. I know it sounds stupid given that Frank had a gold medal, but he was also a 27:45 guy running 2:10:30. A 27:45 guy who is a marathoner should be running sub 2:08. Some is luck (i.e. good day with good weather and good fields), some is philosphy (some guys ran just fast enough to win), some is poor training (i.e. lack of specific endurance) and some could be better drugs:).

5 years ago 04/03/2019 1:17am EDT

re: whattheheck

Cool to see Tinman posting thoughts back in 2009 ... A great Thread to revisit

https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html?v=7516fd43adaa

5 years ago 04/03/2019 1:57am EDT

re: Tinman

Tinman wrote:
Many ways of measuring VO(2) max exist. Protocol affects the result. A ramped test with steeper and steeper grades, using steady velocity, will often create a higher value (number) than a test using a steady grade but increasing velocity (speed). The length of each ramp-stage influences the VO(2) max result, too. The type of exercise used in the test matters; transfer from one mode of exercise to another is limited.
I agree that using a set distance as a pragmatic descriptor of VO(2) max is inaccurate and unreliable. A 3km run in 7:30 is quite different than one run in 15:00, for example. A better way is to use a time, in the distance/average velocity, of an all-out run in 6-8 minutes.
Some people might argue, just to be argumentative, that VO(2) max is irrelevant or that it doesn't exist. However, a large body of evidence indicates that one's capacity to consume high volumes of oxygen is part of the formula of running success for events lasting more than about 3 minutes. Note that a large VO(2) max is more relevant for events in the range of events lasting 3 minutes to about 60 minutes. It less important to an 400-800m runner than a 3,000-5,000m runner, for example.
More or less, VO(2) max is related to one's capacity to circulate blood forcefully; and one's ability to command muscle fibers to contract vigorously for a a sustained time-frame. Any training that forces the limits of those capacities is going to elevate VO(2 max); if potential exists. Therefore, since performance tests lasting 6-8 minutes have been shown to correlate well with graded exercie tests in human performance labs, it's probably a good idea to run reps/work intervals in training at speeds approximating the average velocity one can hold for 6-8 minutes; if one intends to increase VO(2) max (again, if there is still potential for growth for the subject-runner).
Note that long distance events simply don't demand huge, forceful circulation of blood to the extent that shorter events, like the 3,000m race, does. Therfore, VO(2) max long distance specialist is less important than other parameters, such as efficiency and ability to withstand eccentric shock (pounding).
Anyway, VO(2) max should be qualified by stating a power or velocity (pace or speed); if one intends to make use of it as a runner or coach of runners. It's almost useless, in the pragmatic world of training and racing, to talk about VO(2) max without stating the speed related to it. Who cares if one has a VO(2) max of 78 but the speed they achieve such a value is only 5:00 per mile; while elite runners might run 4:16 per mile at the same VO(2)? It comes down to speed or velocity or pace, in the real world of athletics!
Tinman

5 years ago 04/03/2019 6:10am EDT

re: Make it easier for you

I guess Jon Orange has a different definition of "a few" years before he comes up with his formula.

Page 3 of 3

1 2 3

Next Last

Reply Replying to

Username

Password

Leave the password field blank to post anonymously.

Post Preview

By posting you acknowledge that you have read and abide by our Terms and Conditions.

Remember me on this device.

The Fallacy of VO2max

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

You have been subscribed.

The Fallacy of VO2max

Follow fred

Block fred

Of General Interest

This thread has already been deleted.

Reply Replying to

You have been subscribed.