which one of the two following vo2max theories is correct?

3. None of the above.

Some advice wrote:

3. None of the above.

vo2maxresearch wrote:

1. vo2max is proportional to mileage . the first 0 miles to 25 mpw can cost you 50% of total improvement， then from 25 mpw to 50 mpw can have anthor 50%， from 50 mpw to 80 mpw it is very little

2. training adaptations/ improvement in vo2max is fastest in the 1st week of training for untrained individuals. And then slower but still fast in the coming 3 to 4 months . then stabilized even if you have increased the execrise intensities. But you can still increase little more in the next 6 months

Most will plateau their vo2max within one year

The conclusion is most of vo2max improvement occurs at first few months.

Vo2max is proportional to time course of training

2. When you're untrained, the first week of training will see your muscles fail within minimal time spent at VO2max, with a several days long recovery period before you can do any appreciable work at that effort.

Your VO2 max might move a tiny fraction during the first week of training, which is likely to be 2 workouts with 5 days of painful soreness in between.

It will take several weeks until your muscular and neural systems can adapt to running enough for you to make any appreciable improvements to VO2 max in a non-specific sense. Yes with any decent training you'll almost certainly get better at running at VO2 max pace, but that's not indicative of an increased VO2 max.

1. It completely depends on the training and the individual. 10 miles per week all spent at vVo2Max might be a better stimulus for VO2max improvements than running 80 miles a week with varied workouts. Those 10mpw might not even improve your vVo2max as much as 80mpw, or they might improve it more. It really depends on the situation.

Some advice wrote:

3. None of the above.

X10000

Shorter and Salazar had sewer pipe VO2 scores. One has Olympic medals and the other NYC and Beantown wins. One had efficiency and the other had determination. Sometimes you just to outwork your genetics.

crock of numbers wrote:

Some advice wrote:

3. None of the above.

X10000

Shorter and Salazar had sewer pipe VO2 scores. One has Olympic medals and the other NYC and Beantown wins. One had efficiency and the other had determination. Sometimes you just to outwork your genetics.

This is b.s.

Alberto was enormously talented. Determination would have meant little without his incredible talent. Alberto's VO2 was world class.

Salazar's 76 isn't exactly top shelf in the world class VO2 game

Sampling from his era

Dave Bedford 85

Pre 84

Virgin 81

Ryun 81

Joanie 78

Rosa Mota 67 (gives hope to sloths everywhere)

The key is speed at V02Max and economy/efficiency at that pace. Derek Clayton's may have been below 70, Peter Snell's was 72/73 (though I question the time when this was done), Seb Coe's was 75. I think Frank Shorter's wasn't spectacular eiher. Ryun's was only above 80 (actually 80.7) after stints at high altitude.

Neither mileage nor months of training... VO2 max is function of the amount of VO2 max specific work you do (i.e. intense repeats). It also depends on activity - you could probably achieve a higher VO2 max with XC skiing than with just running. Note that training your VO2 max and training to run fast are not the same thing, a key distinction lots of people don't make.

You can raise your VO2 by starving yourself and sitting on the couch. None of the above are rules.

I doubt there is a top endurance athlete today who scores below 75.

Speaker of hard truths wrote:

Neither mileage nor months of training... VO2 max is function of the amount of VO2 max specific work you do (i.e. intense repeats).

Not really. VO2max doesn't respond to training in experienced athletes.

Additionally, it's not even clear what VO2max is really measuring. The theory is that there's an oxygen uptake plateau where you can run faster, but you've maxed out what your aerobic system can contribute. The problem is that for many, many athletes, there is no observable plateau. Their VO2max is simply recorded as the highest level they reach, which is the level where they quit the excruciatingly painful test.

The reason "VO2max training" is good is that it's roughly 3k pace. For the typical high school or collegiate athlete who focuses on the 5k, that means they're doing a lot of running at slightly faster than race pace, which is almost always a good way to train.

Not training at vo2max level， but simple easy run for a newbie

Csacsa wrote:

crock of numbers wrote:

X10000

Shorter and Salazar had sewer pipe VO2 scores. One has Olympic medals and the other NYC and Beantown wins. One had efficiency and the other had determination. Sometimes you just to outwork your genetics.

This is b.s.

Alberto was enormously talented. Determination would have meant little without his incredible talent. Alberto's VO2 was world class.

Vo2max has diddly squat to do with marathon running, except it's an advantage to be light weight, which raises the value. You do not need a big aerobic engine, because you are running SLOW.

The ex-phys secret that pop running will never be hip to is that gas exchange between blood and low-pH muscle is higher than for high-pH muscle. Oxygen use is extreme at middle distance and declines rapidly as you slow to a sustainable pace. You will not stress your "aerobic system" at all by running distance, except maybe compared to a fat couch potato.

Both Salazar and Shorter trained and raced occasionally at lower distances where you use oxygen faster.

The ex-phys secret that pop running has yet to get hip to is that gas exchange between blood and low-pH muscle is much higher than for high-pH muscle. But I guess it's always been me pointing it out, so nobody believes it...

Rudisha rate of O2 consumption >>>>> W Kipsang rate of O2 consumption

And I did not add all that weirdass empty space in my post, that was the decrepit server which is probably under the control of the Яussian Hackers.