Cam Levins VO2 Max 62. Discuss.

that = about 36 10k too fast to post on lets run

Guy5555 wrote:

After answering a question about VO2 MAX testing, Cam Levins responded by saying that he was tested at 62 after running his first sub 4 minute mile

http://runningmagazine.ca/2012/07/sections/news/live-chat-tuesday-cam-levins-and-mo-ahmed/

It's all about the running economy. His must be very good. I was tested a long time ago back in college and recorded a 72. While I was a decent wrestler I was a very mediocre runner.

Coincidence that this came up, as I was just reading through this old thread with some interesting insights on vo2max and elite runners by Malmo, Tom Derderian, Jack Daniels, and jaguar1.

http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?thread=1477013&page=0

And, by the way, 62 ml O2/kg/min may be above average for a collegiate runner, but appears almost ridiculously low for an international elite.

He must be an extreme outlier in terms of running economy / efficiency to run 27:27 for 10k. Guys like Frank Shorter (71.3; 27:45 10k; 2:10:30 marathon) and Derek Clayton (69.7; 2:08:34 marathon) are considered 2 of the most economical elite runners studied in the past. Cam Levins' 10k pr may equate to sub 2:07 in the marathon, which would eclipse these two in ecnomy, based on using vo2max as an indicator.

It would be interesting to hear from Malmo and Jack Daniels on this issue. As Malmo has said, running is the best predictor of running.

Given that the town where he lives is at ~6000 foot altitude, the location of the VO2 max test and correlation factors are important.

V02Max means NOTHING.

V02 max is the most overrated concept ever generated.

doesn't a "low" vo2max combined with a fast endurance race time indicate that the person is using more anaerobic/speed to run the race than they are their aerobic system? this would match up pretty well with the fact that he has a very fast finishing kick.

his best distance might be.... the mile?

More evidence that VO2 max means nothing. Shorter's was 71 and Pre's was 84. It has little to do with how fast you run.

I am 77.96 avg (81.1 high/75.45 low) and have run 14:20.

discuss what?

Unbelievable. Get this...I tested at 67 in 2010 in my first year of running...I ran a 5K at 19:07 literally three weeks after the test. I was a part of group study...and the top performer amongst the group had V02 Max of 73 with a 5K PR of low-15's.

Since then, I've worked my way down to mid-17's...

I found that the test is really how much you are willing to suffer before you almost explode. People usually quit the test once the incline on the treadmill and physical pain get too unbearable.

Thank you for this absolutely incredible data point.

A high VO2 Max does equal fast times by any means. I measured a 78.6 at my universities lab for a study, and I didn't run any faster than 4:16 1500m that year.

Ironically I had taken one two years before and measured at 64, yet ran 2:03 800m, 2:41 1k.

running economy wrote:

It would be interesting to hear from Malmo and Jack Daniels on this issue. As Malmo has said, running is the best predictor of running.

The author of the abstract Noakes/Myburgh/Schall (cited at the bottom of the page) said that running is the best predictor of running. I merely agreed.

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 their efforts and money have not gone to waste. University administrators have been duped by this sciolistic fog-machine, as well. How else could the waste of valuable resources, time and money, be covered-up with impunity? 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.

This nascent 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 from 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 segregated 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 to the supreme ordinals, the better you've done, the closer to 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 supersede 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 from 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 numerical glyphs. No complicated formulae to memorize!

Through complex mathematical machinations, physicists have proven that it is physically impossible for VO2Max to supersede either time or place in value. Physicist Richard Feynman once said, "VO2Max and five bucks will get you a cup of joe at Starbucks."

So far, in the history of sports, not one award has been given, nor has there ever been remuneration for VO2Max results.

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.

------

What is VO2 max?

Simply put, the oxygen consumption capacity of the body during exercise. It's value is expressed as: Volume of oxygen (O2) consumed, per Unit Body mass, per time interval or: milliliters O2/Kg body/minute. Check that out, two variables and one constant in the formula. Look at the denominator of the formula: Kg body mass. Want to improve VO2 max without training? Lose weight.

At rest, the human body has a VO2 of 3-4 ml/kg/min. According to the exercise physiologists: sedentary individuals have a VO2 max of 40-50. Trained recreational runners 55-65. Competitive runners 65-80, and elite runners 84-92. The truth of the matter is that there are no distinct boundaries separating these groups. Many recreational runners have higher VO2 max (80s) than competitive and elite runners. Many elite runners have lower VO2 max (70s) values than some of the recreational runners.

Take a sampling of runners with PR differences of just 2% in their specialties. For example, that would be three sets of athletes collected together like so:

1) 1500m (3:29.7-3:34.0)

2) 5000m (13:00-13:16)

3) 10,000m (26:57-27:30)

Now fly in exercise physiologists from around the world and geek-out: treadmills, oxygen ventilators, calipers, rectal probes! Collect the data, crunch the numbers and what do you get? Sets of highly-trained runners with similar PRs (2% differentials) with VO2 max values that vary wildly: 10 to 15 percent (sometimes more)! Runners with slower PRs having higher VO2 max. How is that predictive of performance?

As a broad generalization, I'll agree that trained runners will have higher VO2 max than the sedentary. That is called the common sense doctrine. Within sampling sets of like-performing athletes, there is no direct correlation.

92.5 Greg LeMond, professional cyclist

92.0 Matt Carpenter, Pikes Peak marathon course record holder

91.0 Harri Kirvesniem, Finnish cross country skier

90.0 Bjørn Dæhlie, Norwegian cross country skier

88.0 Miguel Indurain, professional cyclist

87.4 Marius Bakken, Norwegian 5k record holder

85.0 Dave Bedford, 10k world record

85.0 John Ngugi World XC Champion

84.4 Steve Prefontaine,US runner

84.3 "Physiologist in training," 15:12/30:55 runner

84.0 Lance Armstrong, professional cyclist

82.7 Gary Tuttle, US runner

82.0 Kip Keino, Olympic 1500 champion

81.1 Craig Virgin, twice World cross country champ

81.0 Jim Ryun, US miler WR holder

80.1 Steve Scott, US miler 3:47

79.4 "Runningart2004," 15:43 5k runner

78.6 Joan Benoit, 1984 Olympic Marathon Champion

78.5 Bill Rodgers, 2:09:27 marathoner

77.4 Don Kardong, 2:11:15 marathoner

77.0 Sebastian Coe. WR mile, 1500

76.6 John Landy, WR miler

76.0 Alberto Salazar, 2:08:51 marathoner

74.3 Amby Burfoot, US marathoner

74.4 Johnny Halberstadt, 2:11:44 marathoner

74.2 Kenny Moore, US marathoner 2:11:36

73.5 Grete Waitz, Norwegian Marathon runner

73.3 Bruce Fordyce ultramarathoner

73.0 Jeff Galloway, US snake oil salesman

73.0 Buddy Edelen, 2:14:28 world record marathoner (1963)

72.8 Jarmila Krotochvilova,Czech Olympian 400M/800M winner

72.3 Peter Snell, Olympic champion

72.0 Zithulele Sinqe, 2:08:05 marathoner

71.3 Frank Shorter, US Olympic Marathon winner

71.2 Ingrid Kristiansen, ex-Marathon World Record Holder

71.0 Paula Ivan, Russian Olympic 1500M Record Holder

70.3 Willie Mtolo, 2:08:15 marathoner

69.7 Derek Clayton, Australian ex-Marathon World Record holder 2:08:35

67.2 Rosa Mota, Marathon runner

----------------------------------------

RUNNING PREDICTS RUNNING BETTER THAN PHYSIOLOGY (a duh? moment here)

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.

Oops, meant does NOT equal fast times.

Old schooler wrote:

A high VO2 Max does equal fast times by any means. I measured a 78.6 at my universities lab for a study, and I didn't run any faster than 4:16 1500m that year.

Ironically I had taken one two years before and measured at 64, yet ran 2:03 800m, 2:41 1k.

Let me amend the VO2max list:

...

73.3 Bruce Fordyce ultramarathoner

73.0 Jeff Galloway, US snake oil salesman

73.0 Buddy Edelen, 2:14:28 world record marathoner (1963)

72.8 Jarmila Krotochvilova,Czech Olympian 400M/800M winner

72.3 Peter Snell, Olympic champion

72.0 Zithulele Sinqe, 2:08:05 marathoner

71.3 Frank Shorter, US Olympic Marathon winner

71.2 Ingrid Kristiansen, ex-Marathon World Record Holder

71.0 Paula Ivan, Russian Olympic 1500M Record Holder

70.3 Willie Mtolo, 2:08:15 marathoner

69.7 Derek Clayton, Australian ex-Marathon World Record holder 2:08:35

67.2 Rosa Mota, Marathon runner

62.0 Cam Levins, Canadian badass

yes. he also added that this was "a couple years ago." certainly it is higher now.

malmo wrote:

RUNNING PREDICTS RUNNING BETTER THAN PHYSIOLOGY (a duh? moment here)

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.

The poorest predictors were: VO2max (r = -.55 to -.81) and VO2 at 16 km/h (r = .40 to .45).