BTW I think it's a bit questionable to assume that the most effective way to improve "VO2 Max" is to train at precisely the pace at which VO2 max is realized (no faster, no slower). There's an unstated assumption of specificity in there that I believe isn't all that well supported by empirical data (e.g. there are studies that show that very short intervals with short rests at higher than Vo2 max intensities are helpful for improving vo2 max)
SteeeeV wrote:
Read it again wrote:
So... the importance of running economy is greater among homogenous groups of runners (those with similar vo2max). To completely throw vo2max out the window is just plain stupid... especially when looking at a wide range of abilities. If you truly don’t believe in vo2max then you are suggesting that someone with a max of 45 can beat a runner with a max of 80.... Never gonna happen, never
Moran.
The absolute pinnacle of stupid is trying to call someone a moron but spelling it wrong. Go home.
Welcome!
poppyseed wrote:
Smoove wrote:
But therein lies the issue.
We have good science out there that vo2max is trainable. Some argue that it is not, but I think the majority of the studies out there suggest a degree of trainability and the majority of those that suggest it is not trainable refer to trained athletes. That makes sense to me - you can get most of the adaptation available at a given time with about 6 weeks worth of work on the attribute in question, after that, there is little marginal return. But for those who train in periodized training cycles, there will be 2 or 3 times a year when you are not at your vo2max peak. So doing vo2max workouts would indeed in most cases improved vo2max (there are certainly some outlier low responders out there for whom this might be less true).
Where is the science that says that running at goal race pace better prepares your for racing at that pace?
I get that many people don't like the reductionist approach of training LT, running economy and vo2max in an effort to improve racing performance. I don't totally get there, but the argument that there is something to training at some paces other than those paces is an argument that I understand - there are so many things that we haven't figured out when it comes to the human body that it would be silly to think that we have figured it all out and if it doesn't fit into the vo2max. LT or running economy box, it is not worth doing.
But that is a long way away from saying that running at goal pace is somehow better for race preparedness than running at vo2max pace. I just don't think that there is good science out there to support that, which leaves us with intuition, anecdote and perhaps individual personal experience. Those are fine, but if I am going to choose between two approaches, I would prefer to go with the approach that has at least some scientific basis underlying it, especially since there is decades of evidence that these approaches to training do indeed lead to improved performance.
Could people be improving despite some kind of inefficiency in this approach? Might there be a better and more efficient way of training? Is vo2max training simply succeeding because training at that pace is actually training some unknown variable which happens to correlate to vo2max? Sure, maybe so with respect to each instance. But, and this could just be a quirk of my personality, I'd like a stronger basis for abandoning a conventional approach grounded in science with a good track record of practical application than an intuitive appeal.
I'm not the person to ask to link scientific studies. If they exist, I don't know about them. But I'd like to at least discuss the topic anyway.
Imagine two identical runners who train for the 10k for 10 years. I chose the 10k since 10k pace isn't a typical training pace. So these guys train for the 10k by doing long runs, LT work, VO2Max work, a little speed, strength training, whatever. They never "practice for the race" or do any 10k race pace work, goal pace or otherwise. They just train to get fitter. Except one guy runs several 10k races a year, while the other guy never races the 10k once in his life. At the end of the 10 years, who would win in a race, the racer or the trainer?
The trainer should be fitter because every time the racer was racing a 10k, the trainer was doing workouts that yielded more useful physiological adaptations. So you'd bet on the trainer? The racer has been wasting his time and energy practicing the 10k all these years? I really can't believe this is the position someone would take but I'm not sure how else to interpret your dismissal of practicing race pace.
If the "racer" did substantially less "training" than the "trainer", I'd put my money on the trainer.
Upping the ante a bit -- if we were talking about marathons -- the "racer" did a bunch of half-marathons and marathons, then training at half marathon and marathon pace, whereas the trainer did a mix of long runs, short intervals and tempos (nothing slower than 10k race pace), it would be a no-brainer -- the trainer would be fit enough to smoke the racer. Specificity works sometimes but sometimes it doesn't.
Cat Skinner wrote:
Often, too, with Magness, he does a wonderful job questioning current understanding of exercise physiology, but often leaves you hanging without a solution.
This times 1000
based on what I have read, 70 second reps wont cut it, unless the recovery is short. Slower reps offer more 'time under tension' for the heart muscle , more stimulus for less strain. Try more like 3k pace for 3:15 with only 1:45 rest, something like 3x 3 with 5 minutes rest between sets, jogging between reps.
Faster reps are of course useful too, for speed development, but 80 meter flys accomplish that. Once youre already fit and tapering for a race, you might want to do more pace specific stuff for economy, but what good is that if you still arent fit?
Croze wrote:
VO2 MAX FOR MIDDLE DISTANCE:
Doesn't Nick Symmonds used to do those? Longer reps with 90s-2min rest? E.g 5x1mile with 2 min rest.
Hes had great success...
Also, Justin Rinaldi, coach of several 1.44 runners (and now the two aussies that runs 1.44) regularly makes them run a VO2 Max workout.
Doesn't this show that it works?
Anyone have any thoughts about this? Is it just the 800m thats another beast?
another runner wrote:
I know this is an older article and idea but I came across this while reading Steve's book and would like to hear some opinions on it. I think he does make a good point that improving VO2max doesn't change performance so why are we so focused on it. I think there are other benefits from these VO2max workouts but I don't think they are the benefits that coaches are trying to produce.
https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/08/do-we-need-vo2max-workouts.html?v=7516fd43adaa
Yes, yes we do.
hog wrote:
I didn't say VO2max was the most important; I said vVO2max (velocity at VO2max) is the most important.
Velocity? Why does direction matter? A guy running east at 6 min mile pace is running a different velocity than a guy who is running west at a 6 min mile pace, but it seems to me that the scalar rather than the vector is what matters here.
elflord wrote:
One thing I've found a bit troubling about the VO2 Max split is that Vo2 max numbers of elite athletes (which vary from exceptional to meh) are considerably more variable than their vVO2 max numbers (which are invariable at the top of the spectrum). Makes me wonder if something is not quite right with the model .
As for "Running economy" it's often misunderstood as some kind of indication of how good ones "form" is but in practice I think there's a lot more to it (again, it's basically everything that's not accounted for by Vo2 max )
Elflord, lots of good comments. The reason vVO2 max (velocity @ VO2 max) is less variable is because its the speed you could run for an 11 minute time trial. It's just another way of saying what's your 4000m PR. So by definition any elite runner will have nearly the same vVO2max.
Like you point out vVO2max = A x V02max, where A is some unknown factor accounting for all things "running economy".
The post by Sand Dunes with the John Kellog article addresses every question and comment to come up in this thread so far. Below are the vVO2max formulas from that.
vVO2max (per 400m (in seconds)) = 0.1171 x (3,200m time (in seconds)) + 5.22
vVO2max (per 400m (in seconds)) = 0.07 x (5,000m time (in seconds)) + 7.32
These equations, though not perfect, show that a runner with a recent 3,200 time of 9:13 (553 seconds) has a theoretical vVO2max of 70 seconds per 400. A time of 14:55 for 5,000 (895 seconds) also yields a theoretical vVO2max of 70 seconds per 400.
pace, not velocity wrote:
hog wrote:
I didn't say VO2max was the most important; I said vVO2max (velocity at VO2max) is the most important.
Velocity? Why does direction matter? A guy running east at 6 min mile pace is running a different velocity than a guy who is running west at a 6 min mile pace, but it seems to me that the scalar rather than the vector is what matters here.
You should email jack daniels who coined the term or take this to a physics forum where they care about the semantic differences between speed and velocity.
elflord wrote:
hog wrote:
It is fairly absurd to say changing VO2mx doesn't affect performance. The most important value that is associated with distance-running performance is clearly vVO2max, which determines the speed at which you can race based on your economy curve and VO2max. This means by improving either your economy or your VO2max, performance will improve.
Clearly, improving your 5k pace (or your fastest pace for 10 minutes or whatever) will improve your 5k time.
What is a little more questionable is the breakdown into "VO2 Max" and "Running economy". "Running economy" doesn't seem that well understood -- it's really just the part of your performance that's not explained by Vo2 max. You can play this game with any variable:
vVO2Max = x * (vVO2Max / x )
One thing I've found a bit troubling about the VO2 Max split is that Vo2 max numbers of elite athletes (which vary from exceptional to meh) are considerably more variable than their vVO2 max numbers (which are invariable at the top of the spectrum). Makes me wonder if something is not quite right with the model .
As for "Running economy" it's often misunderstood as some kind of indication of how good ones "form" is but in practice I think there's a lot more to it (again, it's basically everything that's not accounted for by Vo2 max )
What's better? Decreasing your demand for oxygen or increasing your supply of oxygen?
elflord wrote:
BTW I think it's a bit questionable to assume that the most effective way to improve "VO2 Max" is to train at precisely the pace at which VO2 max is realized (no faster, no slower). There's an unstated assumption of specificity in there that I believe isn't all that well supported by empirical data (e.g. there are studies that show that very short intervals with short rests at higher than Vo2 max intensities are helpful for improving vo2 max)
Jack Daniels writes the there is no benefit to running faster than vVO2max for improving VO2max. Is there really no data backing this up?
"Shorter work bouts (e.g., 12-16 x 60-90 seconds) at a slightly faster pace (about 5% faster than vVO2max) also have a marginal influence on oxygen uptake, as long as the recovery periods are short enough to keep the heart rate elevated sufficiently. The speed used for these short reps is approximately that which you could hold for six minutes in an all-out effort. Physiologist Veronique Billat suggests jogging between reps for an equal duration and at exactly half the speed used for the work bouts themselves. For example, our hypothetical 14:55 runner (whose vVO2max is 70 seconds per 400) could run 12-16 x 400 at about 5% faster (66-67) with a 200 jog in 66-67 between 400s."
The above is taken from the long John Kellogg material posted earlier. So JK and Veronique B are saying faster than 11 minute all-out pace (namely 5% faster than VO2max pace in JK's case, 6 minute all out pace in Veronique B's case) is a good workout too and can increase VO2max. Billat has the research to back it up.
Positive Contribution wrote:
elflord wrote:
Clearly, improving your 5k pace (or your fastest pace for 10 minutes or whatever) will improve your 5k time.
What is a little more questionable is the breakdown into "VO2 Max" and "Running economy". "Running economy" doesn't seem that well understood -- it's really just the part of your performance that's not explained by Vo2 max. You can play this game with any variable:
vVO2Max = x * (vVO2Max / x )
One thing I've found a bit troubling about the VO2 Max split is that Vo2 max numbers of elite athletes (which vary from exceptional to meh) are considerably more variable than their vVO2 max numbers (which are invariable at the top of the spectrum). Makes me wonder if something is not quite right with the model .
As for "Running economy" it's often misunderstood as some kind of indication of how good ones "form" is but in practice I think there's a lot more to it (again, it's basically everything that's not accounted for by Vo2 max )
What's better? Decreasing your demand for oxygen or increasing your supply of oxygen?
Both are equally important.
I’m a D2 female runner. Our coach explicitly told us not to visit LetsRun forums.
Great interview with Steve Cram - says Jakob has no chance of WRs this year
2024 College Track & Field Open Coaching Positions Discussion
Guys between age of 45 and 55 do you think about death or does it seem far away
adizero Road to Records with Yomif Kejelcha, Agnes Ngetich, Hobbs Kessler & many more is Saturday
RENATO can you talk about the preparation of Emile Cairess 2:06