It's interesting that so much of the discussion here is bent on beating up V02 max, when even for 5K-10K runners, it's not a huge component of the training in percent of time doing it. For most it would be 3-8% of training volume. 10% would be high end, if the athlete is at 8-10 hours a week.
Get real, people.
Specificity wrote:
El Jefe wrote:HRE touches on something interesting. It's not the miles that are stressful and lead to injuries but the speed of those miles.
You run a lot of slow miles to build and aerobic base and to strengthen muscles, ligaments, tendons, etc. so you can handle the most brutal work (fast intervals) necessary to race well. However, most runners are not patient enough and just want dive straight into "quality" sessions. But guess what, most runners are not athletic enough to handle that and end up injured.
So, most underrated - lots of easy running.
That VO2max stuff, way overrated.
Slow running does not strengthen any part of the body for brutal interval work.
Easy is relative.
By easy I mean the fastest easy pace (without undue stress) you can handle for the duration of the run. Fast but easy, like the Kenyans in their progression runs.
Based on the local runners I know...
Most overrated: Stretching.
Most underrated: Plyometrics.
HRE wrote:
I spent years running over 100 mpw, working full time with varying amounts of that being on my feet and sleeping somewhere in the 5-6 hour range most days. I was never really injured. I usually had the sleep broken into a big section at night and short nap. I've never been able to go to sleep early so jobs that forced me to get up early meant short changing my sleep.
My point was that more isn't always better.
Would 150 mpw have given you better results? 200?
If you didn't have jobs that had you on your feet a lot or if you were able to get more sleep do you think you would have had better running results?
Talent doesn't always mean speed.
Some have the talent to endure more miles on a regular basis.
But even for those that can endure more volume there is an optimal limit before you get diminishing returns.
El Jefe wrote:
Specificity wrote:Slow running does not strengthen any part of the body for brutal interval work.
Easy is relative.
By easy I mean the fastest easy pace (without undue stress) you can handle for the duration of the run. Fast but easy, like the Kenyans in their progression runs.
In other words progressively fast, not slow.
The end portion of those runs is the part that prepares you for more speed.
Somewhere around 140-150 mpw I stopped getting PRs and for some reason decided that I'd gone as high with mileage as I could. I really don't know why I didn't take a shot at 170-200 to see if that me going again and kind of regret now not having tried that. I think it was because even in that era of big miles I started listening to people who told me i was already running too much and maybe I did think the end of PRs meant that maybe I'd passed the point of diminishing returns. It's hard to remember exactly what I was thinking after all this time.
I had some jobs where I was on my feet a lot. Others where I sat most of the time. The only difference I noticed in my running was that when I was on my feet a lot my lower back and thighs were terribly tight and it was unpleasant to start running. I needed to sit for a few minutes before starting to run but once I did that it was no different that when I'd sat most of the day.
I slept a lot more in college than I did afterward for the most part and ran faster after graduation which I attribute to more training and more physical maturity. I love to sleep and would have jumped at the chance to do more of it but again, comparing results suggests it wouldn't have made a ton of difference. But I don't know.
Ignorance is bliss for you?
malmo wrote:
cbenson4 wrote:What I'm trying to convey is that, if your VO2 max is not at its ceiling, you're missing out on some valuable improvements (again, depending on your event).
What is the evidence to support your statement?
A RW article from 1993
I honestly don't know what people are capable of. We certainly are not all capable of doing the same things and whatever we're capable of right now is usually not what we were capable of a few years ago or what we will be capable of a few years from now. There is NOTHING magic about 100 miles a week. It's a nice reference point but I needed a lot more than that to get what for me were really good results. Snell got slightly better results than I did and for him that 100 mile figure was a high end struggle.
What I did learn as I worked up from maybe 35-40 a week was that there were several times when I felt like I really was struggling to do the miles I was doing and the prospect of doing more seemed daunting. But given time I adjusted and moved on. But this was a process that played itself out over maybe three years. I read a lot of posts here from people doing 50-60 who want to get to 100 in a matter of months or even weeks and I usually don't think that's a very good idea.
Anyone can run "too much" but "too much" will not always be the same for different people or even for the same person at different times. If you keep breaking down at say 70, it would be foolish to think of moving to 100. If you manage to work out why 70 breaks you down and solve the problem though you might think about 80-85 or something and if that's OK you may want to think beyond that. Or you may want to rejoice that you finally can manage 70 and decide not to risk breaking down again by going higher figuring that doing that much for years on end might get your best results.
Whatever your potential is, you won't reach it if you consistently miss running time or even if you invest so much time in your running that the rest of your life deteriorates and you decide to stop training seriously. You absolutely will run to your best by finding your sweet spot and staying there and that spot is determined by your physique, ambitions, preferences, and way of life. But those things can change with time and so can your sweet spot.
Lydiard used to tell a story about going to the track with his guys one night and finding an old guy rolling around on the ground groaning after running some 220s because his doctor told him to run for his health. Lydiard got the guy to do some long, slow, running and after a few months of doing it the guy was able to run more 220s than he'd done that first time, faster than he'd done that first time, and with nowhere near the agony he'd experienced that first time.
When I started doing a lot of miles at a comfortable pace I began doing interval sessions much faster than I'd been able to do before. Long slow running absolutely improves your ability to do interval work.
surreal physiology wrote:
real physiology wrote:Ignorance is bliss for you?
Working on V02 max is not blissful.
Are you expecting to increase your absolute VO2 max? I guarantee that if you have been training regularly it won't happen.
The most underrated seems to be recovery runs.
HRE - how long did it take to go from 50-60 to 100+?
EP for Dummies wrote:
Just Another Hobby Jogger wrote:Superior running economy.
"Running economy" is not an independent variable. If Frank had a VO2max of 92 his running economy would be way lower. Running economy is simply speed divided by VO2, and correlates negatively with VO2, implying that both values are worthless.
Supple and demand. Franks lower supply of oxygen wasn't a big deal because he was extremely efficient. His demand for oxygen was ridiculously low.
HRE wrote:
I could not disagree more. I know we all try to get first place in the "I had no talent" derby but I think I have a good claim to one of the top spots. It took me nearly three years of high school running until I beat another runner who actually finished a race. I never ran any distance down to the half mile at better than 6:00 mile pace until my freshman year in college but eventually managed to run marathons at that pace.
I knew a couple other guys with similar beginnings to mine and we all got into the mid 2:20s to mid 2:30s and we all did it by running tons of miles. For all three of us 100 miles a week was a cellar, not a ceiling. The idea that because you have less talent you should train less is absurd if you want to get the most out of what talent you do have. You need to train more. Only once in my life did I manage to beat another runner who trained as much as I did. Now if you decide that running 34:00/2:55 "gets" you as much as 32:00/2:30 does and you would rather do 50-70 a week that's fine. But it's another story.
Durability is a natural talent. You had the talent to hand 100 mpw and more. Some people just can't handle that kind of training load without break down. That's where accepting genetic limits come into play. You may have been lacking in the speed talent category but you made up for it in the durable talent category.
real physiology wrote:
cbenson4 wrote:But of course, if your VO2 max is not at its ceiling, the only way to get it there is to *train,* as we all know. So yes, VO2 max is a by-product of training. And yes, it is also a limiting factor on performance *if it is at a poor value, relative to you as a runner.* How do we remove that limiting factor? It can't be changed quickly, but through years of training. So it's not your typical "limiting factor" on performance, such as poor hydration or sleep issues, but one that must be worked on over a long period of time until it hits its ceiling.
Wrong again cbenson4. You are repeating the mythology that almost everyone clings to. Your Absolute VO2 max is a combination of basic health and basic fitness, it doesn't take years of training. A few weeks at most. Your VO2 max relative to weight, requires that for a higher value, you have to get down to low body fat. That might take years for some, and most will never get there. But for serious runners it should only take a few weeks or a few months to lose excess body fat.
You think that someone who just started running for a few weeks/months can get their VO2 max up to the highest it can be?
VO2 max is relative to weight, but that's not all there is to it. It almost sounds as if you're saying someone with extremely low body fat and a few months of training would be at their ceiling for VO2 max, which is incorrect. VO2 max can be increased over years of training.
EP for Dummies wrote:
Cbenson4, Another Hobby Jogger, and others: Sprint speed could be seen as a limiting factor to marathon running. Can't run a marathon at sub 5:00 pace if you can't run 100m in under 19 seconds. Realistically all top marathoners could run 100m in the 11-15 second range, far better than your average couch potato, but worse than other sports. You might even find a weak trend between marathon ability and 100m ability.
However - it would be dumb to then conclude that sprint speed is an important measurement for marathon runners, or that you should focus on it or use it to predict potential.
Everything I've just said above about sprinting is also true of VO2 max.
You're right, sprint speed could be a potential limiting factor for marathon speed for the exact reason you stated. I'm arguing that VO2 max could be a limiting factor. Is it always one? No, but it can be.
Whether or not it is a considerable one is open for debate. I'm simply saying that it has the potential to be something that limits performance, if it's sub-par (relative to the individual).
malmo wrote:
What is the evidence to support your statement?
Since I said "depending on your event," I'll use the half marathon as an example.
Let's say you trained for a while and your VO2 max was measured to be 68, and then you raced a half marathon in 1:12.
And then say you went and trained for much longer, with more mileage, and after a few years your VO2 max was remeasured to be 75. You go back to that same half marathon. Assuming all other variables had *at least* stayed the same, you would run a good deal faster than 1:12 -- probably closer to 1:07-1:09.
Here is an interesting and inspiring article by Joe Vigil that helps to support my point:
http://www.coolrunning.com/engine/2/2_1/the-anatomy-of-a-medal.shtml"Previously, she was only running 40-50 miles a week, which certainly was not enough volume to compete at her desired level. We increased that volume to 70 miles per week (MPW) for the next 15 months. This allowed for gradual adaptation without any resulting injuries or setbacks. At this point, she had a VO2 MAX of 70.2 mls. (VO2 MAX is the maximum amount of oxygen in milliliters your body can use in one minute per kilogram of body weight, i.e. the higher the better). We next increased her volume to 90 miles a week over the next 18 months. Her VO2 MAX jumped to 77.5 mls. During this time period, she was making her mark nationally and had won a national championship in Cross Country. Again, we increased her volume to 100-110 miles per week and, not surprisingly, her VO2 MAX was at 81.3 mls. This level of fitness is attained by very few athletes and is one of the highest ever recorded in an American athlete."
"We both knew VO2 MAX was important, but even more so was the increase of anaerobic threshold..."
cbenson4 wrote:
real physiology wrote:Wrong again cbenson4. You are repeating the mythology that almost everyone clings to. Your Absolute VO2 max is a combination of basic health and basic fitness, it doesn't take years of training. A few weeks at most. Your VO2 max relative to weight, requires that for a higher value, you have to get down to low body fat. That might take years for some, and most will never get there. But for serious runners it should only take a few weeks or a few months to lose excess body fat.
You think that someone who just started running for a few weeks/months can get their VO2 max up to the highest it can be?
VO2 max is relative to weight, but that's not all there is to it. It almost sounds as if you're saying someone with extremely low body fat and a few months of training would be at their ceiling for VO2 max, which is incorrect. VO2 max can be increased over years of training.
You're wrong. It takes a few weeks maximum.
surreal physiology wrote:
real physiology wrote:Are you expecting to increase your absolute VO2 max? I guarantee that if you have been training regularly it won't happen.
So you agree it can be improved with regular training. Next question.
No, read again. A few week is all that's needed to maximise it starting from zero.