12

VO2 (Read 1148 times)

Scout7


    Here's the thing: For the average person, VO2Max doesn't make a lick of difference. In fact, even among elites, it's not the end-all, be-all of statistics. Having a high VO2Max doesn't mean squat if you can't perform on race day. There are people with lower VO2Max that beat higher ones. It all comes back to proper training.
      Incremental gains in pace over the long term are due more to improvements in LT, which takes longer to fully develop (3-4 years) than does VO2max, and running economy, which can improve almost indefinitely. See http://home.hia.no/~stephens/timecors.htm for details. Incidentally, in the referenced link, Dr. Seiler actually says that a "previously untrained person" (beginning runner?) can actually plateau VO2max in as little as 3-4 months. Of course, consistent training, including interval training, is needed.
      Plateau, sure. Not the same as reaching genetic limits. A further year of high milage followed by another period of interval training will, amazingly, reach a plateau again, and I'll lay money that it's higher than the first one.
      Scout7


        Plateau, sure. Not the same as reaching genetic limits. A further year of high milage followed by another period of interval training will, amazingly, reach a plateau again, and I'll lay money that it's higher than the first one.
        Your actual VO2Max still won't change. Your running performance will, but not your actual VO2Max. The changes in performance can be equated to increased ability to maintain speed, increased economy and efficiency, longer stride length, faster turnover.
        Scout7


          OK, how much of that is gains in efficiency and increased turnover, and actually an increase in actual VO2Max? All that test is showing is your speed over a given distance. To accurately measure VO2Max, you have to do it in a lab.
          jEfFgObLuE


          I've got a fever...

            OK, how much of that is gains in efficiency and increased turnover, and actually an increase in actual VO2Max? All that test is showing is your speed over a given distance. To accurately measure VO2Max, you have to do it in a lab.
            I've done some of the training advocated in the runnersweb links above. What you are actually determining is vVO2max, your velocity at VO2 max. Scout is correct in saying that only in a lab can your true VO2max be estimated. But that's ok -- Owen Anderson (author of the articles cited) states the following about vVO2max and why it's a more complete variable than VO2max in his book Lactate Liftoff:
            vVO2max is simply the minimal running velocity which elicits VO2max, i. e., causes your muscular system to utilize oxygen at its highest-possible rate. Like RVLT, vVO2max is a very good performance predictor, much better than VO2max itself (VO2max, without the little v in front, is simply an athlete’s maximal rate of oxygen consumption; historically, it was viewed as an important marker of performance ability). A moment of reflection reveals why this is so (and why we should have known this long ago): A runner might have an extremely lofty VO2max but still perform rather poorly if rather mediocre running speeds caused him/her to utilize close to all of that considerable oxygen-processing capability. In other words, if the runner were uneconomical, i. e., had to use a lot of oxygen to maintain a mundane pace, the voluminous VO2max would be of little practical benefit during competition. In contrast, a runner with a very high vVO2max is almost always an outstanding performer. Such a runner can run very fast (after all, vVO2max does incorporate a “v”). Very importantly, such a runner can run very fast at his/her VO2max, which means that he/she is economical when it comes to using oxygen for running. Obviously, such a runner would also be able to run very quickly at fractions of VO2max intensity (say, at the usual 95 percent of VO2max for 5-K races and at the typical 90 percent of VO2max for 10-K competitions). Since vVO2max includes a speed factor, an oxygen-processing factor, and an economy factor, it is a good predictor of performance in events ranging in distance from 800 meters all the way up to 100K.
            Once you've determined your vVO2max (by determining your pace running all-out for 6 minutes), Anderson advocates the following workout, designed to raise your vVO2max: •6x200m @ vVO2max / equal time recoveries, increase # of reps over time for a total of 15 minutes @ vVO2max •5x400m @ vVO2max / equal time recoveries, increase # of reps over time for a total of 15 minutes @ vVO2max and the one he calls the "big kahuna" •5x3 min @vVO2max, 3 minute recoveries.

            On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office.  But you will wish that you'd spent more time running.  Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.

            Scout7


              Bingo. That's why people like Frank Shorter could out-perform people with higher VO2Max levels. And that's why knowing your VO2Max isn't all that important these days. Sure, it's interesting. But at an individual level, it's like BMI.
                Your actual VO2Max still won't change. Your running performance will, but not your actual VO2Max. The changes in performance can be equated to increased ability to maintain speed, increased economy and efficiency, longer stride length, faster turnover.
                That's the point that many people miss. After initially developing one's VO2max to the genetic limit, continued VO2max training is for the dual purposes of sustaining VO2max at the genetic limit and contributing to the advancement of vVO2max. Another factor that people often miss is that weight is a variable in determining VO2max. Losing weight results in an increase in VO2max. But losing weight beyond an individual's optimal level can be costly in other areas, such as stamina. I view VO2max as a baseline metric. It imposes ultimate limits....someone with a VO2max of 45 ml/kg/min will never be an elite runner....but it doesn't limit one's ability to improve other variables that affect race performance, such as LT, endurance, stride mechanics, running strength and running economy.


                Feeling the growl again

                  I still don't buy maxing out VO2 in a matter of months. Think of the underlying biology. VO2max is how much oxygen your body can actually use per kg per unit time. This implies that it will depend upon the biological bottleneck. For example, a well-trained runner can have 3X the capillary density (or more) of their untrained counterpart. This type of development takes more than a few months. Without it, all the mitochondria in the world will not help you approach your genetic VO2max limit because you can't get the oxygen to the cells in the first place. Similarly, blood delivery is dependent upon increases in stroke volume, which take time to develop as well. While I can't control for equipment differences, I was measured for VO2max (estimated) several years apart--- once when I was a 35min 10K runner and once when I was sub-32. I can't recall the exact values but they were nowhere close, and neither was my training, which is reflected in the times. If you have previously trained to X level in the recent past, I will buy that you can get back there in 3-6 months' time from the perspective of VO2max as many adaptions linger. However, for a new runner, it will take substantially longer. It's really academic anyways, VO2max is one of the most over-rated parameters in athletics.

                  "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 am spaniel - Crusher of Treadmills

                   

                    Your actual VO2Max still won't change. Your running performance will, but not your actual VO2Max...
                    VO2Max, as measured in a lab, can and does change depending on training. I know one woman who was tested with a VO2Max in the high 40s. Then she got tested again 1 to 1 1/2 years later after doing a very intensive program of training including interval workouts too complicated for me to understand (maybe if her coach explained it...) That test gave a VO2Max in the low 70s. There were dramatic changes in the extent of her HR vs RER (RQ) profile data too, of course.


                    ...---...

                      There is some evidence tht suggests that your maximal oxygen uptake - along with other physiological factors - declines with age as a result of overall lower maximal heart rate. http://www.furman.edu/first/FIRST_RunningAgingandPerforman.pdf However, as this study points out, highly training aging runners seem to hold their "running economy" and futher suggests aging in and of itself doesn't make you less efficient. What I've not been able to interpolate yet (of course I'd need to actually spend time reading up on it) is the overall impact your lactate threshold has on VO2. If this impact is significant, aging could be beneficial as lactate threshold increases with age.

                      San Francisco - 7/29/12

                      Warrior Dash Ohio II - 8/26/12

                      Chicago - 10/7/12


                      jEfFgObLuE


                      I've got a fever...

                        What I've not been able to interpolate yet (of course I'd need to actually spend time reading up on it) is the overall impact your lactate threshold has on VO2. If this impact is significant, aging could be beneficial as lactate threshold increases with age.
                        LT doesn't have an effect on VO2max, but you are correct in saying that LT can be increased as we age, while VO2max declines. In well-trained athletes, VO2max doesn't change much, but RVLT (running velocity at lactate threshold) can change dramatically with training: From Lactate Liftoff by Owen Anderson, PhD
                        Scientific research strongly supports [the] notion that VO2max can be a rather stubborn, static variable – while RVLT is extremely dynamic. When scientists at Georgia State University and the Emory University School of Medicine followed nine elite distance runners over a two-and-one-half-year period during which the athletes prepared for the 1984 Summer Olympic Games in Los Angeles, they found that VO2max remained unchanged in these nine serious athletes over the entire 30-month period, while RVLT advanced by an average of 6 percent. The RVLT upswing corresponded with either improved PRs or higher competitive rankings for the runners involved in the study. Unfortunately, many endurance athletes do not realize how important RVLT training really is. As mentioned, another exciting aspect of RVLT improvement is that it seems to be much-less limited by the aging process, compared with upswings in VO2max and enhancements of economy . To put it another way, as you get older one of your best opportunities for improving performance is via RVLT upgrading. That should not be a big surprise. Remember that as you get older your maximal heart rate tends to decline by an average of one beat per year, and the strength and flexibility of the left ventricle, your heart’s primary pumping chamber, also tend to diminish. These factors downgrade maximal cardiac output, a key component of VO2max. Meanwhile, both those pesky little muscle mitochondria which play such a large role in aggrandizing RVLT (remember that they are the “stages” upon which pyruvate is broken down for energy via the Krebs cycle), and also the aerobic enzymes which give RVLT a kick-start, are not necessarily reduced by the aging process. In fact, they may increase almost as much in 60-year-old athletes as they would in competitors who are 30 years younger!

                        On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office.  But you will wish that you'd spent more time running.  Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.

                        12