How vo2 max relates to fitness

GJ1600 wrote:

I’ve always had this question about vo2 max, and my question is, if someone had a vo2 max of 75 and they had never trained for a 5k in their entire life. Then would they be able to run a fast time? Does vo2 max measure relative fitness, or just potential? Thanks in advance for the answers:)

Think of VO2max as a measure of cardiorespiratory fitness. But "muscle fitness" also matters.

Your example is pretty extreme I would say---I doubt if there is anyone with a VO2max that high who has not trained (or been extremely active. Take a more reasonable value and the potential to run fast would be there, but muscle and other metabolic issues would come into play.

A saying I like (Andy Coggan, PhD is the first person I can recall saying it but it might come from Ed Coyle, PhD) is that you need a sufficiently high VO2max to be a successful endurance athlete, but it is not the only determinant.

Also, you could have a person with a high Vo2max in one mode of exercise (running) but who has a lower Vo2max in another mode like cycling. Saw this in triathletes. Some of the difference was in muscle activation during exercise--the more muscle active the higher the O2 demand. This is why cross country skiers have some of the highest values recorded.

If someone has a natural vo2 max of 75 they are goimg to be pretty fit, with a genetic potential that high it is pretty obvious that their bodies are hardwired for great fitness.

So they could probably run better than most people just at baseline. Somebody with a 40ml/kg max may run a 10 minute mile completely untrained, someone with a 75ml/kg max may run a 7 minute mile completely untrained.

The people with a 75 vo2 max will find breaking 6 in the mile very easy, they may do it after 6 to 8 weeks but the people with a 40 vo2 max may not even reach 6 flat even if they were trained to a significant amount of their genetic potential with 4 years of structured training.

Just because one has a higher vo2 max doesn’t mean they’re fitter automatically, although it usually does if you are comparing two people of a similar potential. Say you take two average kids on the soccer team, usually the one with the higher vo2 max will be the fittest but if you compared a morbidly obese person who has/had a natural max of 75 vs a less talanted yet much healthier subject with a natural max of 40 who does HIIT 3x a week then the 40 max guy is going to be way fitter.

Thanks for clearing it up. I’ve always been confused about vo2 max and it’s details, not anymore Tho

VO2max is a measurement of oxygen uptake ability during intense aerobic effort.

It is, in part, dependent on latent characteristics, but is largely an expression of adaptation from training, moderated by nutrition; e.g. enlarged heart/stroke volume, RBC, increased capilirisation, improved mitochondrial function, lactic buffering, etc.

Vo2 max is measured as oxygen volume transported per body mass over time, commonly in mL/kg/min.

When you refer to "75" you are referring to a VDOT level, a short hand system popularised by Jack Daniels correlating V02Max to running performance, and indirectly, to aerobic fitness. This refers to actual fitness, not potential fitness.

A VDOT of 75 correlates to a 14:03 5K, so you wouldn't get that without a lot of training.

GJ1600 wrote:

I’ve always had this question about vo2 max, and my question is, if someone had a vo2 max of 75 and they had never trained for a 5k in their entire life. Then would they be able to run a fast time? Does vo2 max measure relative fitness, or just potential? Thanks in advance for the answers:)

You're getting the usual stupid answers here. VO2 max is genetic. It has nothing to do with 'aerobic fitness' just good health and having a fair proportion of slow twitch muslce fibers.

So the anwer is no, they will not automatically run a fast 5k without any training. They will run a slow time and be very sore for a week.

No sedentary person has a VO2MAX of 75. They have around 35-40 average, with the most talented ones probably around 50 (male).

Now, some of these sedentary males will have a VO2MAX peak of 75, some of 60, some of 50, etc. But they would need to train first to get the adaptions in the heart and heart muscle to be able to utilize so much oxygen and to lose some of the weight which also increases the VO2MAX.

Steve Way has a marathon PR of 2:15 (vDOT 75). He started with 33 years old and sedentary, his first marathon with just a little bit of training was 3:07 (vDOT 51).

He lost weight and built more mitochondria, blood volume, increased his hearts capacity to pump blood, enlarged his heart/vessels, etc.

Now, 2 years of solid training are probably enough to reach the highest individual VO2MAX for most people, assuming weight is low. Way ran around 2:25 after 2 years. The improvement afterwards came through economy, just like Paula Radcliffe had 70 VO2MAX since 17 and never measured a higher one, but kept getting faster and faster in marathons.

LateRunnerPhil. You need to do a lot more research.

Cardiac output is genetic, it doesn't increase with training despite what you may read on wikipedia.

In a young person the stroke volume is lower, but the heart rate higher at all intensities and the reverse is true for an older person. This maintians cardiac output and a healthy heart.

The higher heart rate/lower stroke volume of a young person naturally gives them a higher oxygen uptake. Your research will reveal much conflicting information on the subject.

But please be aware that there are researchers whose job it is to save peoples' lives who may be much better informed on cardiology and hematology than the average exercise physiologist and so there is good and bad information available on the subject of oxygen uptake and delivery.

The OP did not mention a sedentary person. He mentioned a person who have never trained for a 5k (where I assume that he meant a 5k run).

Also he didn't mention that the VO2Max should specifically be running VO2Max. It could be a VO2Max measured in another sport.

So it could for example be an elite cyclist or cross country skier, who have never trained for running, but has a VO2Max of 75 ml/kg/minute in their own sport.

it's genetic wrote:

GJ1600 wrote:

I’ve always had this question about vo2 max, and my question is, if someone had a vo2 max of 75 and they had never trained for a 5k in their entire life. Then would they be able to run a fast time? Does vo2 max measure relative fitness, or just potential? Thanks in advance for the answers:)

You're getting the usual stupid answers here. VO2 max is genetic. It has nothing to do with 'aerobic fitness' just good health and having a fair proportion of slow twitch muslce fibers.

So the anwer is no, they will not automatically run a fast 5k without any training. They will run a slow time and be very sore for a week.

This would be one of the "usual stupid answers here".

Genetics may largely define an individual's highest achievable V02max, "max V02max" if you will, but V02max for an individual varies over time and is highly dependent on training.

I remember watching a HS runner dominate in the 800/1600, he came into the sport completely clueless just a year earlier, and the following year(s) was a state champ.

I was in awe of his running form, and just how strong he looked, a fellow coach said, "well a few things, his running mechanics are relatively flawless for a HS aged runner, and he naturally inherited a high vo2max..I've coached many kids and while some might not want to hear it, I've been around this sport long enough, there are some aspects of this sport you just can't coach.."

Those words stuck with me. Sure, you can train athletes, you can train yourself, but there is a ceiling. No matter how hard some people train, breaking 2 in the 800, is a pipe dream, when you dip into the 1:40s for the 800, genetics IMO are the outlier's main variable.

Having an adequately-high VO2max is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for elite endurance athletic performance.

(My words, although of course I trained with, and hence learned much from, Ed.)

Science stuff...

Vo2max = maximal (max) oxygen (o2) consumption (expressed here as volume)

Vo2 = oxygen (o2) consumption (expressed here as volume)

Testing for a maximum value will differ depending on the modality used (run, bike, etc) due to differences in amount of muscle used, and the protocol used (most used a stepped protocol, ie: increases in speed and incline over time).

Vo2max is computed using the Fick Equation: Q + A-V o2 diff. Q is Cardiac Output, which is Stroke Volume x Heart Rate. Stroke Voume is mostly determined by the size of the left ventricular wall, which improves somewhat when a sustained endurance program is started. A-V o2 Diff is the oxygen difference between arterial and venous blood, which is a direct much of o2 uptake by the working muscles, which is improved through increased in mitochondria density in the muscle fiber and increased capillarization (more capillaries in the muscle).

Vo2max is typically expressed as it relates to body weight, ie: ml/min/kg. If you take out the weight you get a number which you can compare other tests to so you can see if your Vo2max has actually increased not in relation to body weight.

Most changes in Vo2max are maxed out pretty quickly, ie: 6mo to 2yrs.

But, this still doesn't tell me how fast I am running. The muscles propel you forward. This is why we have Running Economy. Not everyone has the same efficiency. This is due to both genetics and training. Running Economy is simply the speed you can attain while at a specific Vo2 or...the reduced oxygen cost of running. More running volume over years, sprints, weight training, specific training at the speed you plan on racing....all improve running economy. Specific training at the speed you plan on racing improves running economy at that specific speed.

Alan

+1

This affirms and expands on the post I made earlier in this thread.

The above defines running economy as "speed you can attain while at a specific Vo2".

However, as was touched on, there are factors aside from physiological composition or cardiovascular fitness contributing to running economy.

It is easier to simply characterize running economy as "efficiency of effort" for a given running pace. In absolute terms, but also in comparative terms, to others, and to one's self over time.

Running Economy (relative to pace) isn't particularly linear for a given individual at a given time - subtle form flaws incur increasing energy cost as maximal pace is approached, and conversely, a runner efficient at six-minute miles may find themselves struggling and comparatively inefficient trying to run nine-minute miles.

Form adaptations, form and pace adjustments, flexibility, strength, injury, fatigue, and even mental toughness/intelligence are examples of non-environmental factors affecting running economy. These vary over time, but also during an exercise bout, and can be consciously or subconscious.

Consciously, for example, one might intentionally adjust stride rate to compensate for hilly terrain or to recover from a tactical surge. Consciously, while running, you need to remember to lift your head, drop and relax your arms, or apply controlled breathing techniques.

Subconsciously, late in an effort, form may uncontrollably deteriorate.

As an example of training adaptation improving running economy, protracted periods of higher mileage lead to subconscious form adjustments; shortened stride, more rapid turnover, and reduced bounce - wasted motion is meted out through repetition and strengthening.

Yeah, but what you describe are all physiological adaptations or physiological alterations.

Alan

Ernest wrote:

it's genetic wrote:

You're getting the usual stupid answers here. VO2 max is genetic. It has nothing to do with 'aerobic fitness' just good health and having a fair proportion of slow twitch muslce fibers.

So the anwer is no, they will not automatically run a fast 5k without any training. They will run a slow time and be very sore for a week.

This would be one of the "usual stupid answers here".

Genetics may largely define an individual's highest achievable V02max, "max V02max" if you will, but V02max for an individual varies over time and is highly dependent on training.

No.

Absolutely no.

Having a high VO2max is completely dependabt on genetics and is the least trainable variable.

Concentrate on lactate threshold, running efficiency , and speed endurance. Your VO2max comes from mommy and daddy, but mostly mommy.

Not all.

The point made is running economy isn't just about pace and v02 consumption, as seemed suggested.

Nor is it solely about physiology... it's about running efficiency, not oxygen consumption efficiency or other physical adaptations, which are only part of what comprises "running economy".

Examples were provided of how running economy can be consciously altered; though judicious and variable pace application, conscious stride adjustment, and by intentional form adjustment.

An early coach told me to "Dropping your head in a 10K can cost you 30 seconds!"

A second track coach would scream "Relax the arms!"

A third coach would always shout "Big Exhales!" None were wrong...

Decades and countless miles later, I still have to make conscious effort to control these aspects of my form.

Learneth Ernest wrote:

Ernest wrote:

This would be one of the "usual stupid answers here".

Genetics may largely define an individual's highest achievable V02max, "max V02max" if you will, but V02max for an individual varies over time and is highly dependent on training.

No.

Absolutely no.

Having a high VO2max is completely dependabt on genetics and is the least trainable variable.

Concentrate on lactate threshold, running efficiency , and speed endurance. Your VO2max comes from mommy and daddy, but mostly mommy.

Please use the Internets Web thingy for self-education and not just mis-informed rants.

Think of it like this... no matter how blessed you are genetically, you aren't going to run a 13-minute 5k without a lot of training. Similarly, without the right genetics, many can't achieve that mark no matter how hard and smart they train.

Genetics determines your trainable limits.

If you want to say V02max is an individual's theoretical, maximal limit for oxygen consumption, you'd be right.

BUT V02max isn't that, it's a measurement of one's oxygen transport ability at point in time, and that is variable and trainable (up to some genetically-determined limit).

Example:

Ernest wrote:

Runningart2004 wrote:

Yeah, but what you describe are all physiological adaptations or physiological alterations.

Alan

Not all.

The point made is running economy isn't just about pace and v02 consumption, as seemed suggested.

Nor is it solely about physiology... it's about running efficiency, not oxygen consumption efficiency or other physical adaptations, which are only part of what comprises "running economy".

Examples were provided of how running economy can be consciously altered; though judicious and variable pace application, conscious stride adjustment, and by intentional form adjustment.

An early coach told me to "Dropping your head in a 10K can cost you 30 seconds!"

A second track coach would scream "Relax the arms!"

A third coach would always shout "Big Exhales!" None were wrong...

Decades and countless miles later, I still have to make conscious effort to control these aspects of my form.

Thus a running race isn’t just a Vo2max competition. If it was we could just measure that, skip the racing and all go home.

Consider: Runners with the same Vo2max line up for a 5k. They don’t tie. Perhaps one wins convincingly. Why?

Running efficiency, higher lactate threshold, pacing...

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

No sedentary person has a VO2MAX of 75. They have around 35-40 average, with the most talented ones probably around 50 (male)...

Now, some of these sedentary males will have a VO2MAX peak of 75, some of 60, some of 50, etc.

Even when this is mostly true, there actually appear to be some individuals with a very high Vo2Max with no prior training.

The famous case is when exercise physiologists Norman Gledhill and Veronica Jamnik tested some 1,900 men for their firefighter screening research in the 1990s, they were surprised that they found six men with very high Vo2Max-values with no training history with Vo2Max values between 62.9 and 69.0 ml/kg/min, "comparable to that of endurance-trained athletes of the same age".

When they conducted some further research, they observed that while their hematocrits were in the normal range, they had very high static and dynamic cardiovascular volumes with very high total hemoglobin (1028 g), relative red cell volume (39.2 ml/kg), cardiac output (29 l/min) etc which caused the high Vo2Max values. They do not reach any definite conclusion just why this was the case, but still an interesting phenomenom (presuming they indeed were really untrained).