1

Running Wizard VO2Max (Read 152 times)

MYMMV


invisible

    I've seen many references to running wizard here on RA, so I went to take a look.

    On the front page there's a race predictor.  I put in my 5k pr and it told me my vo2max is 38.5 and predicted some pretty accurate times for other race distances, almost exactly my 10k pr, about a minute faster than my HM pr.

    Then, just on a whim, I did the interview method.  Answering, I felt, very honestly, it came back with a vo2max of 17.  I sleep well, but could honestly use more sleep.  Eat pretty well, but could do better.  I need to drop 20 pounds, want to lose 30.  Run 5 times per week, all over 30 minutes, at what I consider a moderately hard effort.

    I went back through the interview several times, exaggerating my answers for the better, but could not get my estimated vo2max over 32.

    I guess I don't know the point of this post,  I just thought this was rather curious and wondered why the disparity.  Has anyone else ever gone through the interview method, and was it in the ballpark or way off?

      --I have no direct reply to your post.  --Except that I have 'rough" idea of what VO2Max is, and how to increase it. (IE:  Max effort in a short run, or at the end of a long run to push the limits and force body changes and improvements).   I am still too new to really understand 100% all the calculators and things that predict what VO2max can 'max' at and all that.  I just push it hard, and suppose that is getting me 90% of the best I can achieve.   I'll never be 'elite' level, so why try and do 100% of "mediocre"?!  Something to that effect.  My PR's are still dropping month after month, so maybe I will fine tune things and try to get that extra 10% on top, but only after another year or two of running until I start to max out what will occur naturally with my random running plans.

      But I am rambling... I think it is because I bought a 6-Pack of a new beer I am trying for the first time:  Fat Tire beer.  It is tasty and I have had 3 of them.  This is all post run for the day and I had a superb run, so I am treating myself.  Beer, in no way, helps VO2 Max.  (I don't think?!)

      But I will shut up now. Approve

      The Plan '15 (big parts)→  Feb:  Va Beach Distance Series 50K (Set a PR)     /// April:  Hampton, VA 24 Hour Run for Cancer  (Goal: >80.1+Miles for a PR)  ///    "Run Hard, Live Easy."   ∞

        MYMMV:

         

        Your observation is correct! ;o)  However, I think, somewhere along the way, it says something about that, if you're at the level where you can actually feel comfortable about running more than 30-minutes or do some races, go ahead and do that instead of taking the interview.

         

        To tell you the truth; it is developed by Dr. Dick Brown, a premier exercise physiology and athletic coach, and I modified it to suite the running scene.  What I mean is; if we use the formula straight with the interview alone, the predicted times came out way too fast!!  For example, someone who exercise some but not running much at all, and they would jump in the actual 5k race and I found that there were almost 3-4 minutes difference (the actual test came out too fast).  This is because running involves pounding in your legs.  This is something, unless you are a practical thinker, won't even consider.  People always talk about VO2Max or numbers but it just isn't practical.  Same thing with doing the long runs--doing 20 sounds right for a marathon but it involves a hell of a lot of poundings!  So I tweaked the "factor" to suite the actual practical situation.  In other words, it is correct that, for someone whose VO2Max is more than 30 (I think we actually got it like 25 or so) would get, with the interview, a lot lower number.  In other words, someone who might feel perfectly comfortable doing a mile time test or a 5k race should go ahead and do so.  Only those who are not quite ready (whose VO2Max might be anywhere between 15-25) should do this interview and get the appropriate--and practical--training pace.

         

        I've seen many references to running wizard here on RA, so I went to take a look.

        On the front page there's a race predictor.  I put in my 5k pr and it told me my vo2max is 38.5 and predicted some pretty accurate times for other race distances, almost exactly my 10k pr, about a minute faster than my HM pr.

        Then, just on a whim, I did the interview method.  Answering, I felt, very honestly, it came back with a vo2max of 17.  I sleep well, but could honestly use more sleep.  Eat pretty well, but could do better.  I need to drop 20 pounds, want to lose 30.  Run 5 times per week, all over 30 minutes, at what I consider a moderately hard effort.

        I went back through the interview several times, exaggerating my answers for the better, but could not get my estimated vo2max over 32.

        I guess I don't know the point of this post,  I just thought this was rather curious and wondered why the disparity.  Has anyone else ever gone through the interview method, and was it in the ballpark or way off?

        MYMMV


        invisible

          Interesting explaination, Nobby.  Some points I never considered, but no one ever accused me of being a practical thinker!

          So Running Wizard is your website?

          I'm not even really sure what possessed me to do the interview.  Obviously, anyone who has raced will assume that method is more accurate and go that route.  I just thought the difference was interesting and wondered why that was.  Thanks for replying!

            It's a joint-effort of several people but I was a big part of it (creating RW).  Like I said, VO2Max Interview was developed by Dick Brown, as with Recovery Indicators, but I had modified it to make it more practical.  Dick's original formula, according to him, was as good, if not better, as the one NASA has.  In fact, he had another VO2Max interview with 80+ questions but we figured that's a bit too long--not practical for our needs.

             

            If you go on to the last page of the Interview, you might have noticed that 120-minutes of any other "exercise" equals to 20-minutes of running.  Of course, someone who might calculate the caloric burning would argue I'm sure.  But that really is what I've found out with the "real" people.  I used some 40+ people from the gym.  Like I said, they can do whatever and their actual VO2Max might be a bit higher.  But when it comes to actual running, it's sub-par.  Take Lance Armstrong for example.  I don't know exactly what his VO2Max is/was but I'll bet it's pretty close to 90.  But his marathon time was "only" 2:45 or so.  His endurance is for cycling and not running.  So someone who does, say, rumba dancing for 2-hours 3 times a week; he/she might be in pretty good shape but how fast do you think you can expect that person to run 5k?  Not quite as fast as someone who is a runner with the equal to similar VO2Max.  Again, our goal with RW is to find the most appropriate and practical training pace off that interview; not to find the actual VO2Max.

            Interesting explaination, Nobby.  Some points I never considered, but no one ever accused me of being a practical thinker!

            So Running Wizard is your website?

            I'm not even really sure what possessed me to do the interview.  Obviously, anyone who has raced will assume that method is more accurate and go that route.  I just thought the difference was interesting and wondered why that was.  Thanks for replying!