Vo2 max (Read 949 times)

I was looking over my workouts since I started running in October '09 until now, and noticed that my recorded Vo2 max figure on the summary page had come from 29 to 37.

I have completed some reading on Vo2 max, but not much, just a few previous threads on RA.

When I first read about it, I assumed from the way it was described that the magical Vo2 max figure was innate.  However, mine has increased significantly over a short time, which has made me wonder how much control I have over this.

What is everybodys take on this?  Does each person have an unknown, maybe genetically max, Vo2 that may be reached by progressive exercise?  How much of a factor is exercise; can the Vo2 figure be pushed higher with continual training over a period of time and is there any way of guessing your particular 'limit'?  Is Vo2 max a good gauge of a persons overall fitness?

I'm not worried about this, but the change of my figure is very positive and, over time, I would like to see it continue increasing.

Cheers

Bernie

I was gonna say; 29 or 37 sounds very low but what Mikey said makes sense.  Like other guys said; VO2Maxi itself doesn't mean much.  There had been a runner whose VO2Max seemingly very low (at the elite level) yet performed really well, beating other runners with much higher VO2Max (Frank Shorter vs. Pre is a classic example).  This of course doesn't mean that it means nothing.  If your VO2Max is, say, 42, I don't think there's much chance for you to beat someone with VO2Max of 72.  It is a reasonably good measure to see your potential but then there are many other factors, such as running economy, come in to play.

I wouldn't however necessarily say race performance is your fitness level.  You can be very fit but may not perform in the actual race as well.  It's like test score.  You may be smart but, for some reason, may not score as high in the actual test.  Running a certain distances fast involves a lot of factors, being fit being one of them; some high school kids who whip themselves (or being whipped by their coach) and do hard repeats day after day after day might run a mile or 2 miles fast but their immune system is so screwed up that they are a burge of getting mononeucliosis--I wouldn't necessarily call that kind of state being fit.  But, that being said, yes, flactuation of your race performances can be a good measure of your fitness level.  I think Greg McMillan's calculator actually as VO2Max measuring formula according to your race performance and we are developing the similar formula, based on Dick Brown's research, as well.  According to that, based on my 5k time, my VO2Max is about 49 which is kind of sad because, when I was in college, I did do the actual test done on treadmill and it came out as something like 64.  I can see that because, back then, I was doing my weekend long run almost at the pace that I race 5k now... *sniff*

What is everybodys take on this?  Does each person have an unknown, maybe genetically max, Vo2 that may be reached by progressive exercise?  How much of a factor is exercise; can the Vo2 figure be pushed higher with continual training over a period of time and is there any way of guessing your particular 'limit'?  Is Vo2 max a good gauge of a persons overall fitness?

Arthur Lydiard liked to say that there's no limit to developing VO2Max.  Of course, over the past several decades, scientists had been working really hard to prove that wrong and tell us that we are as good as what we're born with.  My personal argument to that is that we never seen the limits and what we compare is only the tips of the iceburg.  For scientists to say that there's limits, we have way too many exceptions.  There are people like Ed Whitlock or Cliff Young.  In case you don't know who Cliff Young is; he won the race between Sydney and Melbourne, some 580 miles, when he was 61, having started to run since he was 58.  They used to say that our physical abilities go downhill once we hit 25; but that didn't last long until all those ex-elite started to compete as a master.  In the end, what science had proven is like driving by checking a rearview mirrow; they see what they had been but merely what will be.  30 years ago people retired from competition when they are 25; now they continue to train hard and compete well into their 60s.

Regardkess if what your true VO2Max may be; if you felt comfortable running at VO2Max level of 37 when, previously, it was 29; that IS a significant enough of an improvement.  There's no other activity that you see such dramatic improvement as you do in distance running.  This guy down in San Jose was kind enough to send me the recording of Lydiard when he came to CA in 1963.  In his talk, he was talking about the original joggers that he coached.  They were a group of 20 business people; youngest was 50-years-old and the oldest 74.  They all had had the history of heart attack.  On the first day, none of them could complete a half a lap around the local school track=200m without stopping.  6 months later, they were all running 20 miles without stopping.  He claimed that, if trained properly, there's no reason anybody can run a full marathon in 3:30~4:00.  Of course, they didn't have any fancy formula to measure their VO2Max. 

One of the quickest ways, and it's pretty accurate, to measure improvement actually is to check your resting heart rate.  It should come down quite dramatically as you get fitter.  In December, while I was slacking a bit and getting a bit out of shape, my RHR was something like 55.  Now it's coming down nicely at about 48.  When I was training more seriously in my 20s, it was as los as 37.  I'm 50 years old now and I don't believe in those 220-age kind of formula.  I'm sure there are so many young people who are much worse off than I am.