What is the most overrated part of training? What is most overlooked that shouldn't be?

Op resin de facto wrote:

Can we stop posting aimlessly on VO2 max?? Completely ruined this solid thread!

Agreed, was just about to say this. Sadly almost every potentially good training topic devolves to some dumb vo2max diversion.

I will say one of the most overlooked aspects of training is customization.

What works for one may not work for another.

That's how we get to telling each other what we should be doing based on what worked for us.

Star wrote:

I will say one of the most overlooked aspects of training is customization.

What works for one may not work for another.

That's how we get to telling each other what we should be doing based on what worked for us.

I don't disagree with you - problem is, that is often a cop-out to not even try proper training... That's how we get people saying it Works for Them but their results show otherwise.

HardLoper wrote:

HRE - how long did it take to go from 50-60 to 100+?

I got to 50-60 consistently in the summer of 1972 after my sophomore year in college and a very unsatisfying marathon debut. By the summer before my senior year I was consistently doing about 100 with an occasional bigger week and also an occasional smaller one. It was during the summer after my senior year that I started consistently doing blocs of 120-150 interspersed with about 100-115 during the rest of the year.

To whomever said durability is a talent, well, basically you can construe anything as a talent if you want. We really don't even know what talent is and cannot measure it. But any ability can be enhanced. I think getting consistent 50-60 mile weeks was probably harder for me to do when I was doing them than the 140-150s were later on.

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 supercede 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

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.

Science of Running: More on VO2 Max

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

As I've said in the satire above, "VO2 max doesn't mean anything."

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

As I've said in the satire above, "VO2 max doesn't mean anything."

I love how a list featuring the best of the best (albeit outdated) proves that it is meaningless.

When I see a list of Gallowalkers sporting high numbers across the board, I'll believe it doesn't matter.

HardLoper wrote:

Op resin de facto wrote:

Can we stop posting aimlessly on VO2 max?? Completely ruined this solid thread!

Agreed, was just about to say this. Sadly almost every potentially good training topic devolves to some dumb vo2max diversion.

This was the best thread I've seen in a long time but took a wrong turn.

Overrated - excessive stress about limiting traits you can only do so much to control - i.e. VO2 max, max HR, height, body type, IQ etc.

see it when I believe it wrote:

I love how a list featuring the best of the best (albeit outdated) proves that it is meaningless.

When I see a list of Gallowalkers sporting high numbers across the board, I'll believe it doesn't matter.

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

79.4 "Runningart2004," 15:43 5k runner

I haven't seen one practical use for measuring VO2 max. As the post a few above me said, if you want to know how fit you are, sign up for a race.

Best of the best? wrote:

see it when I believe it wrote:

I love how a list featuring the best of the best (albeit outdated) proves that it is meaningless.

When I see a list of Gallowalkers sporting high numbers across the board, I'll believe it doesn't matter.

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

79.4 "Runningart2004," 15:43 5k runner

So that means RunningArt is a better runner than Bill Rodgers.

Incredible.

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.

So James Li is an idiot, and if Lagat had followed a high mileage, low intensity training, he would have won the Olympic gold and broken the world records?

Or could it be possible that every runner is different, and what works for one runner may not work for another?

Ed Whitlock wrote on another thread that his training is not the best for every runner, and may not even be the best for himself. Someone as accomplished as Ed can be that humble. Others on this board believe their training is the best for everyone.

HRE wrote:Honestly, 60 miles a week is not even remotely close to high mileage on the overall scale so if you're struggling to handle that sort of volume something might need correcting. I suspect that something is part of your college environment given that you were able to run that much at the very beginning of your career.

Something that might need correcting could be our genetics. We didn't choose our parents as wisely you did. So congratulations to you on your great choices.

So anti-v02 maxers.

Is all training at 3K to 5K race pace a waste of effort? Just mileage and speed?

What's overrated is this message board and this thread.

Improvements in running are mainly neuromuscular just like improvements in dribbling a basketball, throwing a javelin, or playing the violin are mainly neuromuscular. Designing workouts to specifically target vo2 max doesn't make any sense. Doesn't mean they're useless workouts or anything though.

Best of the best? wrote:

see it when I believe it wrote:

I love how a list featuring the best of the best (albeit outdated) proves that it is meaningless.

When I see a list of Gallowalkers sporting high numbers across the board, I'll believe it doesn't matter.

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

79.4 "Runningart2004," 15:43 5k runner

I said Gallowalkers..

so question this wrote:

So anti-v02 maxers.

Is all training at 3K to 5K race pace a waste of effort? Just mileage and speed?

Training at 3k to 5k pace is great for racing at those paces for many reasons other than VO2 max. VO2 max increases as a byproduct, a moderate amount, though there's no evidence you're really reaching your highest potential VO2 max doing only this type of training.

If you really want to increase VO2 max, do crossfit tabata workouts or lots of XC skiing. Those are more effective at increasing VO2 max than repeats at 5k pace. But they won't get you much better at racing a 5k.

so question this wrote:

What's overrated is this message board and this thread.

Nice of you to grace us with your presence. Good bye!

Choosing the parents I had/have was the best thing I ever did but not from a running standpoint or it wouldn't have taken me nearly three full years of high school running to finish ahead of another runner. Sure, when you're not getting the results you want it can only be that you were handed a bad set of genes and not because you might be able to improve it by doing something better.

[/quote]

So how has Frank Shorter, with a V02 max of 71.2, got a faster marathon PR than Matt Carpenter, V02 max of 92?[/quote]

Superior running economy.[/quote]

"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.[/quote]

Running economy is the percentage of a persons max VO2 they are at submax paces. Therefore if Frank's VO2 max increased he would be able to run at faster paces because he could still run at 90% of his now increased VO2 max. He will be able to take in more oxygen throughout the whole marathon and therefore run faster

I don't see a lot of evidence that you actually are reading what I write or at least not all of it. I did suggest that a college aged runner who cannot run even 60 miles a week, a level he managed early in his high school years, without breaking down probably needs to change training plans to avoid injuries. But no one's forcing you to read what I write. I never change my screen name so it's not like you can't tell it's me.