VO2 Max

how were you breathing at the end? do you know what heart rate you reached and if it was your maximum?

I extremely doubt it. Firstly it is extremely rare for a runner to reach VO2max on a bike. That means you are probably 6-7% higher than 79. That tells me the machine is WAY off calibration of O2 because you are not at 86. Secondly, If you are 79 that means you are probably the most innefficient runner of all time, and you need to learn how to run properly, but I doubt that is the case. Therefore, this also makes me believe the machine is WAY off calibration.

I don't know what system you were using, but I would not take this result seriously.

For instance, last week I took my Vo2max and got an 89-90, and I was jumping for joy until we realized the expired 02 was off by 0.2ml/min. This small error put my measurement down to 82-83 which is much more reasonable for me.

There you go. Recalibrate the machine.

82/83- Who the hell do you think you are - Lance Armstrong?

My HR maxed out at 181. At the end of the test I was tired but definatly no more tired than a tough anarobic workout

A high VO2 max doesn't mean that you HAVE to run fast for a mile.

The mile and 2 mile are both over 50% aerobic, which means that you have to train your legs to properly absorb all the O2 your huge heart and lungs are sending their way. By properly, I mean that you are doing aerobic running, so that you're not creating so much lactate that you have to stop.

Everyone says that fractional utilization of VO2 max is the key. Develop your LT speed, and that mile time will correspond to your VO2 max better. If the machines you were tested on are calibrated correctly, than you could potentially take your times down quite a bit, with a steady diet of "strong aerobic running".

no, it isn't accurate. i recently had my VO2 tested many different ways. i had a treadmill max test (70.3), three different bike tests (all in the 60's), and a step test (70 or so, can't remember). i had the 70.3 max test reading within a week of running an 8:38 3k and a week and a half before running a 4:20 mile.

When you get a max test next time (go on a treadmill) ask to have a couple submax VO2 measurements (say 5 minutes at 270m/min -- about 6:00 pace, which is 10MPH and 5 min at 290 m/min -- 5:33 pace, which is 10.8MPH). Then convert the VO2 at these submax speeds to VO2 per kg per kilometer : 1000/270 = 3.7 min to run 1000m; and multiply the 3.7 X your VO2 per kg at 6:00 pace (if it is 52, for example, then the aerobic demand for you to run a km is 3.7X52 = 192ml per kg per km, a reasonable number). Do that calculation for any speed you run for a submax test and if you have good economy (and the equipment is properly calibrated) you will be in the 170-190 range. If you are way up there , like 230, then you have poor economy and may need a high max to just run OK (or the equipment is just gining falsely high VO2 numbers) -- a good way to check onthe equipment is to do the submax runs, not just max. The more high tech the equipment gets the better the chance of error, without it being detected

Are you looking at the 30 second breath avg.?? or just peak V02??....30 sec is more closely to what your vo2 really is if the system is calabrated correctly

hey orangeman, why does your basketball team suck ass this year?

79.9 is too low. Mine is 245.67. And I only run a 4:59 mile. I have no legs.

Lance Armstrong hit 82 on the same machine I hit 82. I'm also a pretty solid runner so it would make sense.

I really don't know the specs of what happened. I am a poltical science major and a runner. When I heard of the oppertunity to test VO2 max I thought I would give it a try.

I have a print out that they gave me which has a lot of data which I have no idea how to understand.

Probably machine error! Tinman

It's possible that the numbers are correct. My best friend, a female skier and runner, got tested two times six months apart on a treadmill and recorded 80-81 and 79, which is higher than any numbers that I have ever seen listed for a woman. Her coach at the time (who set up the testing for all his athletes) had four US athletes at the salt lake olympics. I'm guessing that the machine was calibrated correctly because his other athletes were also tested on the machine. Though a good athlete, she's not anywhere as good as the numbers might indicate... just missed NCAA's in skiing and around 10th-20th in a div2 conference in XC running (around 19:00+/- for 5k XC). Her coach told her that she "had potential".

jtupper, the man should want to test for ultimate running economy in a VO2 max test in my opinion is Kenenisa Bekele.

he has to be the alltime King of running economy at 3000/5000/10000m pace. When he beat the World indoor 5000 m record on Friday, with 12.49 he was just gliding round the track with incredible smoothness.

he does the same in Cross country. I bet there are loads of American Kids with similar VO2 Max potential as Bekele, but his training with Gebreselassie has really brought out his efficiency.

Exphys wrote:

Lance Armstrong hit 82 on the same machine I hit 82. I'm also a pretty solid runner so it would make sense.

If by "solid runner" you mean Olympic distance event medalist, maybe. If you mean average college runner, why would you think it is reasonable to use Lance Armstrong as an equal comparator - that would not make sense at all.

I agree. I think the big difference is economy and that many are of equal (or at least in the range) VO2max. Some research has shown this. You can figure a 1% better economy (with equal maxes) could mean about 12-15 seconds in a 10k. I also believe economy is wehere it's at in other sports,as current humans get closer and closer to reaching their work-capacity potential. For example, swimming times keep coming down, tenths or 100s of seconds at a time, but how much of that is due to greater work capacity, when you figure time at the turns keeps getting better and suits change. If all the swimmers who are now winning would have to swim under the rules of 10 or 20 years ago, how would the comparisons look. They get to dolphin underwater off the turns, for example, and stroke technique keeps improving. Maybe running is headed the same way -- little technique changes that add up to better economy.

[quote]Exphys wrote:I extremely doubt it. Firstly it is extremely rare for a runner to reach VO2max on a bike. quote]

Well the person giving the test can tell you if you maxed out or not by whether or not you plateau'd during the test.

with a super efficient running style, I think the ability to run in super lightweight shoes in something to consider.

Look at Michael Johnson running 19.32 for 200m at Atlanta in the Olympic 200m final. Those 80 gram spikes must have really helped a lot.

All a super efficient runner needs is something to prevent the feet getting cut up, cushioning is unnecessary, because super efficient runners don't pound the ground, they just glide over it.

The faster I run the less cushioning I need. Why not an 80g pair of road racing flats, with just a very thin rubber sole and only a very thin amount of cushioning?

I just don't agree with the argument that the human foot is not designed to run a long way on hard surfaces. Our ancestors of only a few thousand years ago (only a very short time in evolutionary history) must have run barefoot down rocky mountainsides to escape foes or predators or to hunt animals.

Mountain mileages are much more time consuming and tricky to negotiate than the mileages we normally run on raods.

I think racing shoes should be half the weight they are now

I regularly run barefoot on the training track and on a grassy hill. When I come down the hill with the wind behind me, like I did yesterday, my legs are whizzing round like pedalling a bike downhill. you just cant get the same speed or running efficiency with a pair of shoes,and it is a tremendously exhillerating experience to be liberated from those heavy weights we attach to our feet.