12

On the subject of VO2 max (Read 891 times)

    How accurate are the VO2 max calculations provided on this site? I receive different values

    for the same workout & time, depending on whether I enter heart rate information or not (e.g., 46 and 50).

    I'm trying to use V02 max as a way to gauge whether I classify a run as easy or not in my log.

    If I run a given V02 max as my "easy" workout consistently over time (even if it is not easy initially), will it

    increase my capacity for even harder workouts?

    JimR


      It's just a calculation based on your pace.  Ignore it.


      Feeling the growl again

        If you did not have a mask strapped to your face to quantify oxygen consumption, fuggetaboutit.

        "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

         

          I agree.  I think you're over-thinking it.  Easy runs should be easy, fun.  The goal is to loosen up, get in a few miles and enjoy yourself....no math involved.

           

          If your aim is to run a set vo2 (which is really just a set pace), then an "easy" run may become a "medium" run depending on your level of fatigue, which defeats the purpose of an easy run.  

            At the very least, then. can I use the heart rate data to determine the type of training I am doing (i.e., aerobic vs. anaerobic)?

            For example, in an anaerobic workout, I would aim for, say 70-80% max HR for a longer distance... the latter, for 80-90%

            over a shorter distance. Obviously, long runs would fall into the former category, and tempos the latter.


            HobbyJogger & HobbyRacer

              aerobic workouts should feel a bit different than anaerobic ones, I think.

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


              Feeling the growl again

                If you have an actual measured HR you can use that for whatever you have a plan to use HR for.  The problem is that VO2max MUST be measured directly or whatever number you see doesn't mean much of anything.

                 

                Your last post is a bit confusing as to what you are calling aerobic or anaerobic....but neither a long run nor a tempo run is anaerobic.  Intervals can be more anaerobic, sprints are anaerobic. 

                 

                If you run more consistently over time (given VO2max or no) you will increase your capacity for faster workouts.  As to whether they will be harder or not, yes over time if you run more you will be able to handle harder workouts but the point it to get faster at similar effort, not to run the workouts harder.  Tempo runs should not be race efforts...but if you are gaining fitness over time your time for, say, a 4-mile tempo run will get faster at the same effort.

                "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                 

                  neither a long run nor a tempo run is anaerobic.

                  Thanks for the help - I guess I don't understand the concept of a tempo run, then, because I run them at roughly the pace of the actual race. Yet,

                  the average heart rate I get (e.g., 175 BPM) falls into the 86% percentile of my calculated max HR, the "anaerobic" range. That said,

                  I have not done much interval training (I should, I know), but only because I like to practice running the full distance I would run in a race,

                  at the pace I will run in the race.


                  Fast is better than long

                     

                    ....but neither a long run nor a tempo run is anaerobic.  Intervals can be more anaerobic, sprints are anaerobic. 

                     

                    I assume you are simplifying this a bit. My understanding is that aerobic is with oxygen and anaerobic is without oxygen. Those are really just definitions. I further understand this to mean that so long as you take in more oxygen than you need to create the chemical reaction with glycogen that you are running aerobically. When you run out of oxygen to continue this process you start into anaerobic. Starting into anaerobic is oxygen deprived but you are still able to use some oxygen and you're buring from both the aerobic and anaerobic chemical reactions. Eventually, you cannot get enough oxygen or aerobic reaction and fall fully to anaerobic. One down side of anaerobic is the build-up of lactic acid, which slows you down and tires you out. The upside is that it can be delivered to the muscles quickly and that's when you are in full on huff-and-puff stage, hopefully sprinting or at least giving your last full measure.

                     

                    If all of that is true then don't some of the tempo runs sometime get you to oxygen (MTA: debt deprived)? I think you tempo to try and find that edge, but a small dip past that edge could start you creating the lactic acid and that's the soreness when you're late in a tempo run, correct? I do agree that a long run should never approach anaerobic, but tempo runs should flirt with anaerobic, shouldn't they?

                     

                    ** the soreness could be depletion of glycogen as well as buildup of lactic acid.

                    2014 Goals: 2500 miles / sub 2 800m / 4:30 mile / sub 16:30 5K

                     

                    Give a man a fire and he'll be warm the rest of the night;
                    Set a man afire and he'll be warm the rest of his life.

                    What in the Jehu?


                    Feeling the growl again

                      Thanks for the help - I guess I don't understand the concept of a tempo run, then, because I run them at roughly the pace of the actual race. Yet,

                       

                      A 20-25min tempo run would be at the pace you could race for 1 hour.  It's not a race effort.  Hope this helps.

                      "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                       


                      Fast is better than long

                        While this was not my coach, I did get a similar understanding when in highschool:

                         

                        This is dummied down a bit, but I think it's a pretty fair approximation of the process.

                         

                        http://www.brianmac.co.uk/articles/scni25a3.htm

                        2014 Goals: 2500 miles / sub 2 800m / 4:30 mile / sub 16:30 5K

                         

                        Give a man a fire and he'll be warm the rest of the night;
                        Set a man afire and he'll be warm the rest of his life.

                        What in the Jehu?


                        Fast is better than long

                          A 20-25min tempo run would be at the pace you could race for 1 hour.  It's not a race effort.  Hope this helps.

                           

                          Spaniel, would that scale linearly?

                           

                          is 40-50 mins a 2 hour race pace or is there a factor that should be applied?

                          2014 Goals: 2500 miles / sub 2 800m / 4:30 mile / sub 16:30 5K

                           

                          Give a man a fire and he'll be warm the rest of the night;
                          Set a man afire and he'll be warm the rest of his life.

                          What in the Jehu?

                          Scout7


                          CPT Curmudgeon

                            Spaniel, would that scale linearly?

                             

                            is 40-50 mins a 2 hour race pace or is there a factor that should be applied?

                             

                            No, it's not a linear scaling.

                             

                            It comes down to how you define "tempo run".  What spaniel described is the standard Dr. Daniels' tempo run.

                             

                            Personally, I don't use pace, because I only use pace for shorter intervals.  I generally define a tempo run as "a run at a medium level of effort".  A tempo run is nothing more than a run that is harder than most of your other runs, but generally not as hard as doing a race or intervals.

                              As a workout - Tempo / LT run as per Pfitz is 15-20 mins warm-up, 20-40 mins tempo pace, 20 mins cool down.

                               

                              For "slower" runners, he defines tempo pace as the pace with which you can race a 10k-15k. For faster runners, its the speed at which you run the HM. I think i got this broadly right.

                              I dont sweat. I ooze liquid awesome.


                              Feeling the growl again

                                Spaniel, would that scale linearly?

                                 

                                is 40-50 mins a 2 hour race pace or is there a factor that should be applied?

                                 

                                No, as Scout implied that's your bread-and-butter Daniels tempo run.  For races up to 10K, those will give you the biggest bang for your buck.  I do longer "tempo runs" in training for longer races...up to ~10 miles....but those serve a bit of a different purpose.  I do effort-based for everything, I'm not sure what pace conversion to give you for the longer runs other than to say a pace at which you could keep going about twice the distance if you needed to.

                                "If you want to be a bad a$s, then do what a bad a$s does.  There's your pep talk for today.  Go Run." -- Slo_Hand

                                 

                                12