VO2 Max of 60, but I can't break 18 in the 5k?????

Trying to predict VO2 max from a beep test doesn't work.

Trying to predict 5K time from a VO2 max also doesn't work.

Trying to do both is a rare double-layer of garbage-in garbage-out stupidity. Congrats!

The only way to know your vo2 max is by taking a maximal oxygen test in a lab, alternatively I would say the Cooper test or 1.5 mile run is the next best option.

The beep test, believe it or not is. A poor predictor of vo2 max for some people although it is accurate for others. It overestimates the vo2 max of soccer athletes and pure speed athletes for a for a start, it also underestimates the vo2 max of distance runners who have no skill or training in starting and turning effiecently as there is also a technique componant to the beep test.

There are people in history wo have tested as high as 78 ml/kg in a lab who cannot break 15 in a 100m, I believe regular poster runningart is one of these rare exceptions. At the other end of the scale, it really wouldn’t surprise me if there are relatively aerobically untrained world class sprinters who test as low as 50 ml/kg.

Hypershadow wrote:

At the other end of the scale, it really wouldn’t surprise me if there are relatively aerobically untrained world class sprinters who test as low as 50 ml/kg.

Yes FloJo I am looking at you with your 21 minute 5k PR

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.

I'm framing this.

I agree that you should only be using VO2 max results from a metabolic cart on a graded test.

Having said that, I've found that the VO2 max of my Garmin watch (61-62) as well as my 5K VDOT (63) is within error from what I typically score on a lab-based VO2 max test (usually between 61 - 64).

I agree! wrote:

I agree that you should only be using VO2 max results from a metabolic cart on a graded test.

Having said that, I've found that the VO2 max of my Garmin watch (61-62) as well as my 5K VDOT (63) is within error from what I typically score on a lab-based VO2 max test (usually between 61 - 64).

The Garmin watch VO2 max has to be useless. My VO2 max actually went down according to that over several months in which I improved my pbs in every event from 200m to 10 miles.

This week I've been running in mild weather for the first time since winter began and I've noticed I'm being upgraded again with every run. What a surprise as my heart is not having to work as hard now I don't have layers of clothing on and numb muscles from the cold. You'd think Garmin would be able to take into account things like temperature, elevation, wind, etc, but apparently not.

VO2max is a predictor of 1500 performance more than 5K.

The beep test was designed to test for V02Max so I'm pretty confident in saying it is a good predictor.....

v02Max = Maximal oxygen consumption.... which in turn = the aerobic physical fitness of the individual

Rather high aerobic fitness = why do I suck at 5k?

The breath holding was just more evidence to add to my confusion of why I suck at the 5k.

All the test is telling you is that with the current body composition and muscle strength you can utilize O2 at a rate of 59.5 ml/kg/min. You have muscle strength to run fast, but those muscles are not trained to run long using less effort. If you progress your weekly training mileage up to 70-75 miles per week, you might find that your VO2 has improved to a higher value to. It is not a genetically locked in value.

Hi, very similar to me.

I was 2:04 800m, 4:28 1500m and about 18 mins 5 k.

I can say some things to you.

1) Weak /low lactate threshold

2)Pretty low mileage

3) For sure you have no Needed repetitions like:

6 x 1 k with 60-90s rest (5000m speed)

4 x 2000m with 90s (10k-15k pace)

Tempo running like 4-5 miles at LT

For 1500m im sure u didn't workouts like 2-3 x (4 x 400) with 60s rest and 3 between

And so on...

You just need to develop step by step your LT with tempo\cruise intervals, about 6-8 k a week and include some repetitions like 8 x 800m with 90s rest (5k pace) or 6-8 x 600m with 90s rest (3000m pace)

and you will break your 18 minutes

P.S. You should follow rest times and needed speed!

I have a higher V02 max than Alberto Salazar. Just saying.

My VO2 is around 63 (according to Garmin, so probably wrong but whatever) and I'm about 6'0" and 185.

My 5k times are consistently in the 17:40 range, so your slightly lower V02 and slightly slower 5k times sound about right to me.

FFF wrote:

I have a higher V02 max than Alberto Salazar. Just saying.

Only losers care what their VO2 max is.

Yes, great rant. Too bad it’s meaningless—unlike Vo2max. There’s a reason almost zero elite endurance athletes have ever been tested below 70ml/kg/min. There’s a reason better elites’ race-result data points are always going to cluster around higher Vo2max results. Vo2max represents the ceiling of your potential and threshold represents how close to that ceiling you can operate for an extended period of time. So you’re limited both by the percentage of Vo2max at which you can perform for an extended duration (threshold/how close you can get to the ceiling), as well as the absolute height of the Vo2max ceiling.

Find out your power—or for you dark-ages runners, speed or pace—at Vo2max, and you’ve got vVo2max, which is basically maximum aerobic power (MAP). Training for race performance boils down to (a) jacking up your MAP as much as you can, and (b) driving your power (pace) @threshold up as a percentage of MAP.

So yeah, Vo2max isn’t going to guarantee you anything in terms of performance, unless it’s already been fully maximized for your physiology through training. At that point it’s a hard upper limit, and your gains are going to come through developing your threshold as a percentage of your Vo2max, probably through improvements in economy.

No, a VO2 max of60-90 ml/kg/min just means you have a normal aerobic capacity for an endurance athlete and a relatively low body fat percentage. That's all. It says nothing about your 'fitness level', just that your muscle fibers are working normally in utilizing oxygen.

I never said it said anything specific about your fitness. I did suggest that better vo2max scores have a general correlation with better results among elites. As for body fat, yes, it is a key component of relative vo2, but absolute vo2 is the first key and body mass is the second, depending on the sport—however, the two are inextricably linked, so the point is moot. I did use the 70ml figure as a minimum requirement for elite status, but that’s only because leanness is generally also a key component of elite performance. Regardless, my post focused on *power/pace* at Vo2max, and the only thing I said about fitness was that *if* you have *already* maxed out your vo2 ceiling, then your subsequent fitness gains will only be able to come from upping the percentage of Vo2 at which your LT is, as well as gains in economy. Knowing your power/pace at Vo2 is necessary to be able to train to raise your ceiling; therefore, vo2 is important to know. Vo2 is more trainable than most think, and power/pace at vo2 is quite trainable. The higher this is, the higher/faster your LT power/pace will be at a given percentage of MAP. Agreed that your initial vo2 reading doesn't say a whole lot about how highly trained you are (where your personal fitness level is as it relates to your own baseline and ceiling), but it *will* correlate with better power/pace-wise results in a MAP/vVo2 test, which in turn *will* place you higher or lower in a data set in a given population. Knowing your economy and LT will then inform you where improvements can be made, as well as explain differences between vo2 numbers and MAP/vVo2 results between athletes. In other words, if everyone had the same economy and LT as a % of MAP/vVo2, then everyone with higher vo2 would have higher power or pace in a test. Each of these three numbers are therefore determinative of performance. Thus, you *can* measure gains in fitness by improvements in absolute vo2, just as you can measure them by gains in LT and economy.

My main point was, and is, vVo2/MAP is a key metric in determining and developing fitness.

100/100 for the definition of ordinal

FFF wrote:

I have a higher V02 max than Alberto Salazar. Just saying.

Yeah, but his will was to die pushing through the pain feedback. Thus the disconnect with Cain.

MacDaddy wrote:

Took the Beep test/Pacer test and my results equaled a 59.8 VO2 Max. I can also hold my breathe for 2+ minutes.

PRS:

400: 51.8

800: 2:01

1500: 4:27

5K: 18ISH

8k: 31:02

6' 175 pounds...

I know these are random testings/info, but it doesn't make any sense to my why I can't run distance at all.

Any info/help?

I think, quite simply, you are much more a 400m/800m type, with potential to run a much faster 800m.

I was - 53.2, 1:57.5; 4:01; 15:20

I think that building up to things like 4x400m in 56/57 with 3-4 min recovery would see you down to 1:55/1:56. You've certainly got the speed, it's just a question of getting used to running a first 400m in around :56 while staying relaxed, and then the strength/lactate tolerance to get through the second in :59 or so.

I'd be really interested to know what you could do for 600m.

my best malmo impression wrote:

One of the other numbers that matters much more than VO2 Max is time. Time is always secondary to place in it's value.

I agree with this mate!!!