The highest recorded V02 max of any runner ever, was Matt Carpenter, still never did sub 2:15

Perkunas wrote:Having a world class VO2 doesn't make you a world class runner any more than being tall makes you an NBA player.

Yeah, but being 7 feet tall, male, and between the ages of 20 and 40 means that you have about a 1 in 6 chance of being in the NBA. Not totally determinative, but really freaking significant.

Hardloper wrote:

SMJO wrote:

Nobody EVER said Lance had the highest number. If you care to dream about being a great runner, give it up if you're not blessed with over 70 on minimal training.

Cam Levins 62

Derek Clayton 67

On way more than "minimal training"

i came here to post that.

vo2max is the worst predictor of performance.

DW wrote:

VO2 max doesn't mean you're powerful or that you're fast.

he could have the strength of a 120 year-old woman but may have a high lung capacity..

This. Climbing a hill in low oxygen conditions would be exactly what would require a large amount of vo2 max. Any coincidence that is what he is better than anyone in history ever. Could he have run well below 2:15, of course if his musculature didn't limit him. Contrary to evidence against vo2max I see this as supporting it.

DW wrote:

he could have the strength of a 120 year-old woman but may have a high lung capacity..

That would not happen.

well let's say the muscle strength of a paula radcliffe instead then.

VO2Max, and what it is really intended to measure, aerobic ability/conditioning, is an imperfectly designed measured that is measured with some substantial error to the underlying concept. As in most cases, the maximum measurement is most likely measured with a 'positive' error. Thus, the real thesis of the comment is in 'doubt', except for understanding the errors in the process are important.

Also, Armstrong's best marathon is 'way south' of 2:15, so you have another piece of the answer. In addition (and not necessarily unrelated), it measures input, not running output. If you are efficient (e.g., Frank Shorter) you get more out of the O2 consumed. If you can keep at close to your max for a long time (e.g., Frank Shorter) you can run at a high speed (for you) for a long time.

Hardloper wrote:

Cam Levins 62

Derek Clayton 67

On way more than "minimal training"

Nonsense. Get every relevant runner tested by a couple of different labs and see how your "outliers" stand up under scrutiny.

Clayton's number also seems to be declining....

Dust wrote:

He squandered his oxygen intake.

In a sense, this is correct. Matt was always focused on trail and mountain races because that's what he enjoyed. He briefly turned his attention to the marathon and easily qualified for the trials. Given a few years of focus, 2:15 would have been a horrible result for him.

800 dude wrote:

Yeah, but being 7 feet tall, male, and between the ages of 20 and 40 means that you have about a 1 in 6 chance of being in the NBA. Not totally determinative, but really freaking significant.

I love this statistic if it's true. Citation?

Thanks.

Raptured wrote:

Matt was always focused on trail and mountain races because that's what he enjoyed. He briefly turned his attention to the marathon and easily qualified for the trials. Given a few years of focus, 2:15 would have been a horrible result for him.

I'm sorry, but that's questionable. I admire everything that Matt has accomplished, but the evidence seems to indicate that while he is exceedingly strong, he isn't quite that fast.

For starters, he didn't "easily qualify" for the Olympic Trials marathon. He ran 2:19:44 (which is still his overall marathon PR) in 1992, and the qualification standard was 2:20. While that is a nice performance, I don't think we can really say that running 16 seconds faster than the standard constitutes "easily qualifying" for the OT marathon.

Additionally, his fastest time on the Boston course is 2:25. So, his overall PR is slower than Deena's, and his Boston course PR is slower than Kara's.

Once again, the man has some great high-altitude runs on his résumé, but I don't think that he had it within him to be a sub-2:15 runner.

VO2 in elite runners varies a lot more than you realize.

webby wrote:

I love this statistic if it's true. Citation?

Thanks.

Google is your friend. Article:

Not certified salad recipie wrote:

not_brad wrote:

Poor running economy I would guess, combined with bogus VO2max results. The anti-Frank Shorter.

You might have something on the running economy. Just a great hill climber and altitude runner, but not "fast" like Shorter. Shorter ran what something like a 4:02 mile and 27:45 10K. Did Carpenter ever break 4:12 or 29:20?

4:12? Lucky to have broken 4:40. Dude was seriously slow. Must have been enormously unable to take pain because sub 4 pace for such an allegedly high VO2 should have felt like lounging on a couch. Most overhyped runner, ever.

More like enormously unable to move his legs quickly.

#YOBRO wrote:

Hardloper wrote:

Cam Levins 62

Derek Clayton 67

On way more than "minimal training"

i came here to post that.

vo2max is the worst predictor of performance.

The worst? What about height?

VO2max CORRELATES very well with endurance performance. LT velocity is better. However, when you get into a narrow band then the correlation weakens.

97.5 Oskar Svendsen, cyclist, Norway

96.0 Espen Harald Bjerke, cross country skier, Norway

96.0 Bjørn Dæhlie, cross country skier, Norway

93.0 Kurt Asle Arvesen, cyclist, Norway

92.5 Greg LeMond, cyclist, US

92.0 Matt Carpenter runner, US

92.0 Tore Ruud Hofstad, cross country skiing, Norway

91.0 Gunde Svan, cross country skier, Sweden

91.0 Harri Kirvesniem, cross country skier, Norway

I figure there must be something wrong with the testing methodology in Norway.

It's because Cycling a Skiing preferentially recruit a larger mass of muscle to actually use the transported oxygen.

The muscles are more passive in running because they are not under such a continuous strain. The fact that runners still display such a high O2 uptake shows how important it still is despite how much more efficient runners can become with loading of the tendon structures and getting a bit of a free ride from that.

Not a Coach wrote:

91.0 Harri Kirvesniem, cross country skier, Norway

I figure there must be something wrong with the testing methodology in Norway.

Harri Kirvesniemi was from Finland. Pretty good runner too;

800 m 1.57,8

1500 m 3.55,3

3000 m 8.10,0

5000 m 13.54,4

My mistake. Harri Kirvesniem is Finnish.