If it was tested in Utah, it is a flawed number. if for whatever reason, he wasn't able to really work himself that day, it was a flawed number. VO2 max indeed varies greatly but there is no way a - even two years ago - Levins had a true VO2 max of 62. No one is THAT efficient. Not Shorter, not Clayton. he was probably also a little heavy during the test which would skew the number. Levins the day of NCAAs is at least a 70.
What would you think to talk about his 62 or his 27:27? The guy is sub 13:20 & 27:30 plus two NCAA crowns. VO2Max whatever...
When I was in college everybody got their v02max done and our best 10k runner had the lowest number at 61. We thought it was crazy because he had run 29:40 and 14:20 already and was a beast on tempos. Sometimes people are just made differently but 62for Levins seems extremely low!
Official Best wrote:
What would you think to talk about his 62 or his 27:27? The guy is sub 13:20 & 27:30 plus two NCAA crowns. VO2Max whatever...
haha I like this... in response to VO2 Max tests in utah.. The altitude is accounted for and a flawed test would mean that cam would have been made aware of it. there are several standards one must meet to complete a true VO2 max test and usually the ex physiologist especially at a university level wouldn't even give results of an erroneous test. Also VO2 is very genetic. Though it can be developed through training, it will not increase very much at all. In my mind you are good for plus or minus 2 or 3. VO2 max is meant to see how efficient the body is, not just to see who has potential to be faster than one another. So much goes into running fast, for instance, lactate threshold goes a long way as well, you may have a low VO2 but an extremely high threshold as is common with Shorter. It is when you have a high VO2 and a high threshold where magical things can happen, if their body can handle training at that level as well...
there are those muscles that actually help you run. they don't play a role?
tbake wrote:
Though it can be developed through training, it will not increase very much at all. In my mind you are good for plus or minus 2 or 3.
That's not true at all. You can jump 10-15 points going from the couch to fit in a month or less.
Hell, you can go lose 10-15 pounds and gain more points than you're thinking of "in your mind".
tbake wrote:
Also VO2 is very genetic.
Where did you hear this? I've never seen clear evidence of a genetic link or limitation
79.4 "Runningart2004," 15:43 5k runner
lol, how'd he get on there?
His VO2 max is well above 62 ml/kg/min. Running at 5:00 min/mile pace requires a VO2 of ~65 ml/kg/min, suggesting his 10k performance was above 100% of his aerobic capacity which obviously is not happening.
Maybe it was the altitude, poor test design, or bad analyzers, but it is highly unlikely that his VO2max is only 62 ml/kg/min.
In over a decade of testing collegiate runners, I think think we've ever seen a max that low even in average college athletes.
this cant be, I would think its somewhere in the 80s
Turbo wrote:
His VO2 max is well above 62 ml/kg/min. Running at 5:00 min/mile pace requires a VO2 of ~65 ml/kg/min, suggesting his 10k performance was above 100% of his aerobic capacity which obviously is not happening.
Maybe it was the altitude, poor test design, or bad analyzers, but it is highly unlikely that his VO2max is only 62 ml/kg/min.
In over a decade of testing collegiate runners, I think think we've ever seen a max that low even in average college athletes.
"Running at 5:00 min/mile pace requires a VO2 of ~65 ml/kg/min"
Really? Who says? Everyone is different. I would expect quite a wide variation among the World's best milers.
malmo wrote:
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'.
One is also the loneliest number. Don't forget that.
scientician6 wrote:
"Running at 5:00 min/mile pace requires a VO2 of ~65 ml/kg/min"
Really? Who says? Everyone is different. I would expect quite a wide variation among the World's best milers.
Says the data troll. You clearly don't understand the measure by your response. Here's a classic piece of literature for you to reference.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/270924the last All-American 1500m runner we tested was actually at 68 ml/kg/min at 12 mph. The ~65 ml/kg/min I referenced & linked is from the studies done on Shorter, Pre, Nick Rose, etc.
I wouldn't put much weight to these tests. I've been tested 3 times and have hit 55, 65, and 67 in that order. That's a fairly large variation over about a 1.5 year period. With my tree-trunk calves, I could never dream of being as efficient as Mr. Levins.
Just another data point that further proves what most people already know: v02 max is not a particularly reliable parameter by which to predict performance. velocity at v02 max, however, would tell us much more about an athlete's potential.
I mean, hell, my vo2 has been tested in a lab at 68 in the lowest point of my offseason, and I'm not even a sub 16 guy after running competitively in middle school, high school, and college. So, yeah, there's a lot more to it.
Kilian Jornet, VO2 Max of 92
vo2 wrote:
I mean, hell, my vo2 has been tested in a lab at 68 in the lowest point of my offseason, and I'm not even a sub 16 guy after running competitively in middle school, high school, and college. So, yeah, there's a lot more to it.
Perhaps you are a sub 16 guy, but you just aren't running correctly. Maybe your form is very horrible and you are wasting all of your energy. It's very easy for your form to be greatly inefficient.
suckkkkk wrote:
vo2 wrote:I mean, hell, my vo2 has been tested in a lab at 68 in the lowest point of my offseason, and I'm not even a sub 16 guy after running competitively in middle school, high school, and college. So, yeah, there's a lot more to it.
Perhaps you are a sub 16 guy, but you just aren't running correctly. Maybe your form is very horrible and you are wasting all of your energy. It's very easy for your form to be greatly inefficient.
That's sort of the point. (Though I'm middle of the road, efficiency wise; not exactly flailing about everywhere.) vo2 max alone doesn't mean much. Mine (68) and Levins's (62) mean the same thing: we're better endurance athletes than sedentary people.
The better stat for the two of us, who are the same age with years of running experience? 5k times: his is nearly 3:00 faster!
What genetic wrote:
tbake wrote:Also VO2 is very genetic.
Where did you hear this? I've never seen clear evidence of a genetic link or limitation
Sure go look at any ex phys textbook or even more simply google vo2 max and genetics and have a good read.
also, though it is true overall your vo2 from a sedentary lifestyle of a few years will increase to a mush more active lifestyle, Im referring to highly trained vo2 where cam was at when he broke 4 in the mile to 16 months later... After you are highly trained, it won't vary too much. I also would love to see cam tested again, and see where his vo2 is at now.
I'm not sure why labs don't report vVO2 max as well as VO2 max. It's just as easy to measure and is a lot more helpful.