1

How is the V02 max calculated on runningahead? (Read 701 times)

    I understand that a calculated VO2 max on the internet is not a reliable source of information, but I am interested in learning how running ahead calculates VO2 max based off of workouts. I am constricted to following my coaches interval plan for now, but I noticed that my VO2 max for my own tempo runs is higher than my track interval workouts indicate. I feel like this is correct since I have a high amount of rest for my interval workouts, and I always seem respond better to tempo runs. Is there any chance that the predicted VO2 max's are fairly accurate on this site?

     

    Edit: I understand that tempo runs are not VO2 max workouts and are not necessarily designed to improve VO2 max. I am just confused as to why my fairly easy tempo runs indicate a better VO2 max than my interval work (which my coach says is supposed to work on). I believe that the structure of my workouts is not optimal but this is out of my control. And I am beginning to see evidence of that if the VO2 max indicators on this site are accurate.

      Recent discussion on it.

       

      FWIW, if your workouts include the WU/CD portions or the recoveries between intervals ... then RA will calculate based off the cumulative data and not just the "hard" part.  That might be artificially downward-adjusting the MaxVO2 numbers RA provides.  To avoid this, identify the recoveries as "Recovery" or "Rest" in the Interval Data area for the workout entry, then Auto Sum" by clicking the "Intervals" box to have the data totaled using those laps you've labeled as "Interval".  Here's an interval workout of mine that has each lap labeled by type, and the total summed using only the Interval laps.

      “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman

        I do that for my workouts as well. The warm up and cool down are separate entries. The only difference that I have with my workouts is that I have "recoveries" instead of "rest", although I do not think that would make a difference in the overall VO2 max. My log has a workout from yesterday, 4x1000m with 200m recovery jog. The calculated VO2 max from that workout is lower than that of my 4 mile tempo run from last week. I already know that the workout is a poor predictor of performance based off of the ridiculously long recovery time (3+ minutes), but is that the factor that is responsible for the low VO2 max value on running ahead?

          The pace you run in a random workout is hardly any indication of your VO2max. If you want to know your VO2max with precision, you need to have it tested in a lab (and even then there is room for quite a bit of error). I suggest ignoring the RA calculated VO2max and just focus on your racing times and workout paces as a measure of improvement. 

           

          Your coach might have as easily said "Your 5k racing time" for VO2max--I believe that the 5k distance most adequately approximates your VO2max... runners with greater efficiency and lower VO2max will do better at distances over 5k. Runners with poorer efficiency but relatively high VO2max, will do better at distances below 5k. 

           

          Cheers!

           

          (MTA: to answer your question directly: RA simply converts the average pace of your run to a VO2max number. I believe that it's a linear function, but I could be wrong about that.)


          HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

            ... (MTA: to answer your question directly: RA simply converts the average pace of your run to a VO2max number. I believe that it's a linear function, but I could be wrong about that.)

             

            Not linear. Might be a simple exponential. I dunno.

            It's a 5k. It hurt like hell...then I tried to pick it up. The end.

              First, I agree with Jeff.  I wouldn't be using RA's MaxVO2 numbers for anything beyond entertainment.

               

              I do that for my workouts as well. The warm up and cool down are separate entries. The only difference that I have with my workouts is that I have "recoveries" instead of "rest", although I do not think that would make a difference in the overall VO2 max. My log has a workout from yesterday, 4x1000m with 200m recovery jog. The calculated VO2 max from that workout is lower than that of my 4 mile tempo run from last week. I already know that the workout is a poor predictor of performance based off of the ridiculously long recovery time (3+ minutes), but is that the factor that is responsible for the low VO2 max value on running ahead?

              Looking at your 13MAR2012 interval entry, you certainly do have the workbouts and recoveries labeled differently.  But instead of having the workout data be the sum of only the "Intervals" (4400m in interval distance), the workout currently sums everything (5200m total).  Those 25min/mi 200m recoveries are in the total, and they're killing the derived MaxVO2 number.

               

              On the other hand, your 21JAN2012 and 09MAR2012 tempo entries apparently are just the tempo miles, no slogging included.  So to the eyes of RA's calculator, the tempo efforts look "better" -- i.e.,get a higher MaxVO2 value -- than the accumulated data of the interval entry.

              “Everything you need is already inside.” -- Bill Bowerman

                I believe this is the formula for it:

                 

                percent_max = 0.8 + 0.1894393 * e^(-0.012778 * time) + 0.2989558 * e^(-0.1932605 * time)
                vo2 = -4.60 + 0.182258 * velocity + 0.000104 * velocity^2
                vo2max = vo2 / percent_max

                 

                I'm trying to remember where I found this.  I think on this Letsrun forum that was pointing to this as a reference.

                 

                But like folks have said before on the other vo2max thread, this is not really vo2max but more VDOT. I don't think this number is completely useless as people are saying. Just don't think of it as a replacement of getting measured in a lab or whatever.  

                 

                I think this number represents a way of finding an equivalent effort between different distances, like the McMillan and other calculators, but this is based on the Daniels/Gilbert formula.

                 

                According to Daniels, if you run a 5k in ~20 minutes, the "equivalent" marathon time would be 3:11 and your VDOT is 50. That may not really be the case, but that's what is in his table. If you use that formula on any distance, you can get an equivalent VDOT.

                2014 Goal: Run faster than 3:37:07 in the NYC Marathon

                  I understand that a calculated VO2 max on the internet is not a reliable source of information, but I am interested in learning how running ahead calculates VO2 max based off of workouts. I am constricted to following my coaches interval plan for now, but I noticed that my VO2 max for my own tempo runs is higher than my track interval workouts indicate. I feel like this is correct since I have a high amount of rest for my interval workouts, and I always seem respond better to tempo runs. Is there any chance that the predicted VO2 max's are fairly accurate on this site?

                   

                  Edit: I understand that tempo runs are not VO2 max workouts and are not necessarily designed to improve VO2 max. I am just confused as to why my fairly easy tempo runs indicate a better VO2 max than my interval work (which my coach says is supposed to work on). I believe that the structure of my workouts is not optimal but this is out of my control. And I am beginning to see evidence of that if the VO2 max indicators on this site are accurate.

                   

                  Basically if you have it factored in to add recoveries/WU/CD etc it will add those in. When it's calculating it just looks at two things: average pace and total distance. If your getting a higher Vo2 rating for tempo than for interval it just means your average pace relative to the distance would be the "better performance" if that time/distance was an actual race. 

                  They say golf is like life, but don't believe them. Golf is more complicated than that. "If I am still standing at the end of the race, hit me with a Board and knock me down, because that means I didn't run hard enough" If a lot of people gripped a knife and fork the way they do a golf club, they'd starve to death. "Don't fear moving slowly forward...fear standing still."

                    Thanks for the replies everyone. I was unaware that the calculation relies heavily on the average pace. That would explain the low value for all of my workouts because of the high recovery time over short distances. Some of my former 5k races indicate higher values which makes sense because there is no rest in that value, much like the tempo runs.