So would anyone care to explain VO2... (Read 2242 times)

    Dude.

    Runners run.

    xor


      If it's a Bruce protocol on a lab treadmill, I'd buy it.
      Actual question from someone who doesn't feel like searching on a saturday: What's a Bruce protocol? Joke version: Is it an Australian treadmill?

       

      Carps10


        This does not improve your true VO2max. This just improves your speed and fitness. It allows you to achieve closer to your true VO2max. But, for the most part, you VO2max is fixed for life.
        yeah as Daniels says you are "optimizing your ability to work at vo2 max"


        Junior Amphibian

          Yay, !'m average (VO2 40)... Of course, being above average doesn't really guarantee much. My father was 52 and had VO2 of 56 when he died of a cardiac arrest while training. Tongue
          "People ask why I run. I say, 'If you have to ask, you will never understand'. It is something only those select few know. Those who put themselves through pain, but know, deep down, how good it really feels." - Erin Leonard


          A Dance with Monkeys

            Actual question from someone who doesn't feel like searching on a saturday: What's a Bruce protocol?
            It is a hard as hell workout - http://www.topendsports.com/testing/tests/bruce.htm
            xor


              Thanks! And I *did* just google "Bruce protocol" and oh was there a long list of good stuff that would have quickly answered my question. Bruce!

               


              Just Be

                Is that two mile race up a mountain or something? I'm still confused, because I saw you post recently that you ran a mile under 4:40, and a 10k treadmill run in like 35 minutes or something. Throw those in with a 79.8 VO2max and an 11-minute 2-mile should be a bad split in a 5k. Speaking of which, a few 5ks would be great tuneups for an October race.
                No, it's not up a mountain - but it is on a very hilly course - and I'm still not that great at hills - but I'm working on them a lot in the mean time. Also, I haven't tried for a new 2 mile 'recent PR' since my last attempt on Feb 4th where I ran the 11:31 at the track so I really don't know what to expect, but I do think that working in a 2 mile PR attempt this week as a hard day training run is a good idea. I'm gonna try it Monday at the track after lifting at the gym and see what kind of time I can produce - that will give me a better idea of how to better focus my final training workouts leading up to the race. /begin warning/ don't stop reading after this next sentence... continue on /end warning/ I honestly will be happy with a 2 mile time of under 12 minutes, given that the last time I ran the race in April, I produced a 12:47 and when I ran it in October of 2007 I ran a 14:41 at pretty much the *same level of effort* - but in October of 2007 I had only been running again for about 1 month prior to that race. If I can break 12 it'll be a nice stepping stone, but I have progressed *a lot* with my harder summer track workouts and have become significantly more fit and really think that a low 11 is a 'most probable' but I don't want to convince myself that it will happen because I know how my mind works and I know that it will be harder to overcome and move on if I do and fail to set the time. That is primarily my reasoning behind why I sound so skeptical about my ability when it comes down to running an actual race. I think that based on my 2 mile time trial at the track on Monday I might even post here again saying that a sub 11 is pretty much in the bag for the 2 mile this October, but I'll just have to wait until Monday to try that. My honest guess at this point for what kind of 2 mile time I'll produce at the track is somewhere between 10:05 and 10:55. A sub 11 should be 'in the bag' for sure. And I'm not counting out the possibility of a sub 10, either. I can't wait to try and find out. I'll post the results here - even though (yes I am well aware) that they are illegitimate because they can't be backed by anything other than my own word, and I totally respect all the doubters who give me a hard time because I know that if the situation were reversed, I'd be a doubter as well. And as I said before in so many different words, my pace falls off a steep cliff after 1 mile. I'm pretty sure this is because, although I built a strong base relative to my intital level of conditioning just starting out again, I didn't build a strong enough base before entering into the speed workout season at the beginning of this spring. I'll have time to correct that starting in October of this year when I stop most of the harder workouts and slowly ramp to about 400 to 440 miles per month through the winter. The goal there is to get to that range by December and hold it through April, upon which I'll drop back a bit on the distance and start the faster track workouts again. I think that will give me some staying power past the 1 mile, and especially through the 5k and the 10k, which are my secondary focus (because I do enjoy road races). As far as my 33:45 10k on the treadmill, the treadmill to me at speeds faster than 10 mph is *way easier* - I think because at that speed the treadmill belt does most of the work in terms of starting my drive phase for me, and saves me a lot of energy. I haven't tried to run a 10k on the track since I ran the 37:54 back in Feb, but I'd guess my 10k time is around 35 now - possibly lower... but on a track. Add hills and I might be around 36. And again, I'm aware that these are all guesstimates and I need to enter a real race to know for sure, or have some sort of credible source accompany me at the track while I run. I think that in some way, my obsession with numbers gets me even more doubters than I would have otherwise. I've just always loved numbers and loved analyzing things. It's just the way that I am. I get excited about trends that I notice and just like to talk about them. I'm actually a pretty modest person in real life, and hardly ever brag about my running achievements except to my closest friends - mainly because most people just don't care, and when I run with other runners, unless they are somewhere around my fitness level or ask me about how fast I am directly and want an honest answer, I limit talk of my own times to avoid discouraging them and instead try to focus the attention on them and their achievements. This forum gives me an outlet in which to let loose all the bottled up emotion that comes with being a relatively closeted decent runner, and I totally love it for that, but again, it gets me more doubters, which I don't mind at all because one day when the time is right (and after a few years of honest and dedicated and smart training) I truly believe that I'll be able to start linking you guys with real race results that agree with my proclaimed "old PRs" and finally do myself and RA proud, as you have suggested! Smile But it is going to take time. In the mean time, I will have more room to fit racing into my running schedule during my base season since the recovery time required isn't as critically consequential with regard to balancing my training week during that phase. I will be glad to link my race results. I was thinking of doing a Race for the Cure 5k in October (after the 2 miler - which is my primary focus until the 8th) or November. Just haven't decided which race location to pick yet. I hope that this whole wall of text clears up some stuff about me, but again, I realize that it's not going to do anything to stop the doubters from being doubters, and I'm perfectly fine with that. I like it here and enjoy posting advice for the newer members and less experienced runners when I have the time to do so. I also am starting to enjoy the personalities of some of the regulars, even the elitist regulars entertain me... occasionally. Wink Oh, and now that this thread has been massively hijacked, I feel compelled to bring it slightly back on topic and point out that I never received an answer with regard to what V02 submax means! Big grin My own intelligence tells me that it's probably safe to assume that it refers to the volume of oxygen per kg bodyweight per minute that a living being uses at a given benchmark % of submaximal heart rate workload, but I was hoping for an answer grounded on actual knowledge and not just assumptions, and I have tried google, which takes me to a bunch of sites that don't really help all that much. Tongue
                  You people are funny.
                  E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
                  -----------------------------


                  Right on Hereford...

                    This does not improve your true VO2max. This just improves your speed and fitness. It allows you to achieve closer to your true VO2max. But, for the most part, your VO2max is fixed for life.
                    Trent, I'm not sure where you got the idea that VO2max is "fixed for life." This is clearly not true! And anyway, it doesn't matter. VO2max varies greatly among elite athletes.


                    A Dance with Monkeys

                      Trent, I'm not sure where you got the idea that VO2max is "fixed for life." This is clearly not true!
                      Clearly? Based on what? Anyhow, your opinion is noted. Among the many places I have learned this, including Dr. Noakes' writings and medical school, the message has been fairly consistent. If you disagree, please feel free to refute this with data or references. Remember, I am talking about your true VO2max, not whatever VO2max you estimate from race results. Read the entire thread for explanations.
                      Scout7


                      CPT Curmudgeon

                        Trent, I'm not sure where you got the idea that VO2max is "fixed for life." This is clearly not true! And anyway, it doesn't matter. VO2max varies greatly among elite athletes.
                        I think you missed "for the most part".
                          Crazy.
                          "Good-looking people have no spine. Their art never lasts. They get the girls, but we're smarter." - Lester Bangs
                            From Wikipedia: VO2 max is properly defined by the Fick Equation: V02Max = Q ( CaO2 - Cv02), when these values are obtained during an exertion at a maximal effort. where Q is the cardiac output of the heart, CaO2 is the arterial oxygen content, and CvO2 is the venous oxygen content. If Q increases through training, so does V02Max. I think what Trent is talking about with VO2max should be more accurately referred to as genetic potential V02max. Evil grin MTA: Q has a limit. Your heart obviously has a maximum size/stroke volume and max heart rate. Your heart can't get bigger than your chest. Actually, If it gets too big, Q decreases. This happens in congestive heart failure. (and fixed the maximal effort line)
                              I make it a point never to argue with plumbers about toilets.
                              E-mail: JakeKnight2002@aol.com
                              -----------------------------