Forums >Health and Nutrition>VO2 max and running
I have to assume that my VO2 max estimate of 57 is incorrect.
I have a Polar M430 watch, and one of the features is their "running index" which is supposed to equate to VO2 max, and my running index is 57 most of the time.
According to charts, a score of 57 would mean that I should be running a 18:20 5k, but I'm at around 21:00.
I entered all the data correctly; age, weight, height. Could the 18:20 time for a VO2 max of 57 be for younger people, not taking into account my age (54) and weight (an obese 175)? If the watch is throwing in these negatives in it's calculations, maybe it's correct?
Jack Daniel's calculator doesn't ask about age, height or weight, just distance and time.
60-64 age group - University of Oregon alumni - Irreverent and Annoying
So many questions, so little time.
I would think JDs would be more accurate to a real test, but don't really know how they figure it in the watches.
an amazing likeness
Using 21:00 for 5KM, the calculator here on RA returns 47, and a link to wiki page on formulas which shows some don't bother with age, weight, etc.
Acceptable at a dance, invaluable in a shipwreck.
runktrun
VO2max is mostly genetics and does not necessarily equate to fast race times. You need to put in the work to maximize your natural VO2max, and then maybe inch it up a bit when you get really fit. Running economy and aerobic fitness are going to get your more bang for your VO2max buck. I'm not suggesting that you revamp your running for to be more efficient, but generally speaking, running more will improve your running economy, assuming you can maintain consistent training without getting injured. So yes, controlling for your age and weight and less-than-elite conditioning would explain why you're not running to your VO2max potential.
Also, true VO2max value from HR monitors and calculators is not going to be as accurate as from a lab with a treadmill test, but you can use the estimate and any trends to guide your training. I wouldn't worry so much about the actual number, but rather does it indicate you should be racing faster (in your case) or is it changing significantly over time as you train? I can't see your log to see the sort of mileage you're running, but if you're only hitting 20-30mpw, then yeah, you're not going to hit the suggested race times and more miles is the way to go. If you're running, say, 50mpw with workouts and still only hitting 21:00 for 5k, then you need to take a closer look at other factors like weight, strength, over training/lack of recovery for races, etc.
Not running for my health, but in spite of it.
VO2max is mostly genetics and does not necessarily equate to fast race times. You need to put in the work to maximize your natural VO2max, and then maybe inch it up a bit when you get really fit. Running economy and aerobic fitness are going to get your more bang for your VO2max buck. I'm not suggesting that you revamp your running for to be more efficient, but generally speaking, running more will improve your running economy, assuming you can maintain consistent training without getting injured. So yes, controlling for your age and weight and less-than-elite conditioning would explain why you're not running to your VO2max potential. Also, true VO2max value from HR monitors and calculators is not going to be as accurate as from a lab with a treadmill test, but you can use the estimate and any trends to guide your training. I wouldn't worry so much about the actual number, but rather does it indicate you should be racing faster (in your case) or is it changing significantly over time as you train? I can't see your log to see the sort of mileage you're running, but if you're only hitting 20-30mpw, then yeah, you're not going to hit the suggested race times and more miles is the way to go. If you're running, say, 50mpw with workouts and still only hitting 21:00 for 5k, then you need to take a closer look at other factors like weight, strength, over training/lack of recovery for races, etc.
Aha! Thanks!
Yeah, I don't race. I was borderline elite with a sub 8:45 steeple when I was younger and my Dad was a 4:07 miler in the late 40's, so I have the genetics. I was wondering about using VO2 max as a measurement of fitness, but it doesn't translate too well to performance nor travel well from different forms of measurement. I believe if I use the same measurement/estimate device (watch) and only compare it to itself I would see any changes. I'd love to find the time to get in double the miles, but that's been difficult since the sun started setting earlier (I loath running in the morning). But, today is the first day of sunlight lengthening! I totally agree with upping the miles to up performance; there is no magic workout formula that takes the place of mileage.
Aha indeed! Your fast times when you were younger certainly correlate with the remnants of your impressive VO2max...talent doesn't totally die!
But an elite runner will always have a higher V02 Max. And most people can improve it by at least 15% with training. A high V02 max means you can work at a higher level, that is why, IMO, it should be worked on every week. It's the easiest to influence, and easiest to lose, whereas the Lactate and aerobic system takes longer to improve. The aerobic system is a work in progress that takes years to build, and we as distance runners work on it the most anyway. So work hard on the V02 & Lactate while waiting, is what I believe. You get the most bang for the buck working here with lower type mileage. Of course if you can manage more, that is ideal, but ideal is usually not in the cards for 55+ competitive runners.
http://runhilaryrun.ca/Images/LA_TH_VO2.pdf
I agree 50 MPW is probably the minimum for the better competitive runner to carry. This will provide enough aerobic base to support the faster running required to run close to potential. Many better masters runners run mileage in the 50s I found personally, that I could not handle more than 50s without breakdown(working full time), and managed locally good times back in the day. I'm trying to run more now that I have more time, and I am finding doubles do allow you to attain higher mileage levels without being so hard on you.
http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/10/is-9mi-once-better-than-45mi-twice.html
I'm sure Surly could run close to WC times from the mile on down with proper training, because he has the Genetics. And 50s spread out over 7 days with a 14-16 LR would not be that hard to achieve... Surly. You got this!
I think the Polar "Running Index" is NOT equivalent to VO2 max. My 9M run at a comfortable pace today yielded a running index of 59. A VO2 max of 59 for someone my age is pretty high. They must take the other metrics into consideration (HR, pace, age, weight, etc) when calculating their "running index".
OFR; thanks for the vote of confidence, but I don't think I'd be close to any AG records. That would require a lot of training and a lot of luck to remain uninjured through that training. I'd be ecstatic with a 4:30 1500, but I'll be working for a 4:40 mile. AG record for 1500 is 4:12. I'm going to make an effort to pump up the mileage to average 50mpw through April, and then start doing some more quality work. I don't think I'll get the weight down to your level; I raced at 162 in college; middle distance guys can be a little more beefy. It's not a priority, but I'd like to be at about 165.
Cool Surly! As long as you can get within about 5 lbs. of your old weight, you are doing good IMO. It's really hard to get it off and keep it off if you are not doing mileage in the 50s. Once you start competing again it will be extra motivation to get faster, and don't sell yourself short! You might do better than you think, and there are fewer competitors than back in the day.
I found I pretty have to do injury prevention stuff/weights, three times a week for the lower chain. Heel drops/raises with dumb bells for the feet, calves, AT. Step ups for the muscles that support the knees(quads), and hamstring exercises, to keep the butt and hammies working together so you can push out the back and run up to par. ( Google is your friend here) These are the areas all older competitors have to watch out for, and prevention is easier than rehab-I know from experience. Got to find a routine that you can do like brushing your teeth so it is automatic, is what I've found. Of course, I do core and a few other upper body too. All helps with the weight too.
Just get back your mindset of a champion, and all will fall into place!
update, I did the polar "fitness test" and it gave a result of VO2 max estimate of 51.
Why is it sideways?
Daniels's formula gives you a "vdot" which is really just an equivalency calculator between recent races and workout paces. It's not a physiological measure and doesn't really pretend to be. That's why weight is not figured into the calculator.
Your VO2max is a function of the rate of oxygen used per kg of mass. So, to raise your VO2max, you can either a) build a stronger cardiovascular system to deliver more oxygen (difficult to change once in adulthood, and bound to decrease with aging) or b) lose weight (easier, to a point, of course.)
Anything that is taking only a pace -- especially the vagaries of "easy" pace -- and estimating a Vo2max would be expected to be highly imprecise. It would be much stranger, actually, if it gave you anything like your actual value.
The good news is that your actual VO2max is much less predictive of race times than actual race times run close to the race. All you can say now is that because your 5k is 21:00, you've got a helluva long way to go to get to a 4:40 mile -- Though you didn't ask my opinion, I think you are way out over your skis to be setting that sort of goal now. But if it gets you out on the roads, then more power to you.
And the Mercola put me at 54 VO2 max.
I know the only accurate measurement is on a treadmill with a mask. It's just out of curiosity.
I'll continue to use the functions/calculations on my Polar watch as an apples to apples comparison of how I'm coming along.
I haven't been able to do any quality work for almost a year out of fear of re-injuring my achilles, but after a few months of 50+ mile weeks I'll dip my toe in the water. The last time I did a track workout I did a series of 6 200's under :30 with a 1:30/200m interval, and it wasn't very difficult. And I limped for about a week afterwards. If I can stay injury-free and do quality, I've got a shot.
And the Mercola put me at 54 VO2 max. I know the only accurate measurement is on a treadmill with a mask. It's just out of curiosity. I'll continue to use the functions/calculations on my Polar watch as an apples to apples comparison of how I'm coming along. I haven't been able to do any quality work for almost a year out of fear of re-injuring my achilles, but after a few months of 50+ mile weeks I'll dip my toe in the water. The last time I did a track workout I did a series of 6 200's under :30 with a 1:30/200m interval, and it wasn't very difficult. And I limped for about a week afterwards. If I can stay injury-free and do quality, I've got a shot.
Yeah, don't even look at those spikes in the closet Surly! Road racing flats only. And mile race pace only! You don't need to run faster than 35, so don't! You can easily use your kick on the last lap in the race and do a 30. But those 30s got to be only when needed.
Plug in a 4;40 mile into JDs Calculator and stick to those paces like glue. Rep pace is 35 for those 200s, and I wouldn't even go there at the start cause you have the speed. I'd stick to 400s @ interval to 5K which is 77-78, as your shortest work. Do longer work 800s, 1200s, 1 miles @ 10K-1/2ish 80-85. You don't need to work faster than this Surly. You just need to build the ability to put in 3-4 miles worth of the longer work to build your strength and injury proof yourself for the shorter faster stuff, IMO.
Of course, build that mileage to 40s-50 first of easy running before you even start this type of training, then add light Fartlek but no faster than 5K pace. This will get you ready for each step of running faster.
Thanks OFR, that's pretty much my plan. And I'm going to do some weight training and hill workouts to substitute for some aspects of speedwork. And if I start to get hurt, fine, I'll run ultras this summer instead. Only the speed fells me at this point, not the duration.
As for this thread, I was wondering what other people's thoughts and experiences were with VO2 max and performance. It sounds like it's only a vague indicator. It's fun to peruse a bunch of stats and data, like HR and stuff. I'd still like to get a pair of runscribe or other foot-based sensors to see things like contact time, impact, etc.
It's Tuesday every day
Hi OFR,
I found I pretty have to do injury prevention stuff/weights, three times a week for the lower chain. Heel drops/raises with dumb bells for the feet, calves, AT. Step ups for the muscles that support the knees(quads), and hamstring exercises, to keep the butt and hammies working together so you can push out the back and run up to par.
If you have time, would you mind filling in the details? Specifically:
*Heel drops/raises w/dumbbells: how many reps/sets?
*Step ups: same questions + step height? Holding weights?
*Which hamstring exercises?
Already do heel drops + core, but need more work between knees and waist.
Thanks, Christine