Apparently the Norwegian triathletes actually let their VO2 max come DOWN because keeping it super high was metabolically costly and not helping their long endurance events (they said it themselves on a Rich Roll podcast)
In physiology, I understand that some people think that at the limits of human performance, you will likely be trading off additional VO2max for gross efficiency - the % of the energy your body produces that goes into running or cycling. There was this case study of a cyclist who had a baseline VO2max in the 70s, and he increased it into the 90s. However, his gross efficiency declined. So, I buy that the Norwegian triathletes may be doing what you say. However, for us ordinary humans who want to get fitter and who are not at the limits of their performance, I don't think people should adopt this rationale for not doing VO2max. I will say, I'm a cyclist, and 3-8 minute max efforts are not uncommon.
So glad to see your commentary. All the longevity community like Attia & Rhonda Patrick pushing the Norwegian protocol but not voicing the ‘correlation not causation’ dimension, while experts in performance, like Pavel Tsatsouline or guys at Uphill Athlete are correctly advocating training that improves metabolic systems & heart aerobic capacity & warning against over focus on VO2 Max. Some even saying VO2 Max hits a wall based on genetics, assuming optimal body composition & training.
Good video putting all the elements into perspective. The VO2max, considering its relative importance, as measured by one's watch is sufficiently accurate for the non-elite athlete. Watch reading of VO2max has been tested to be a little lower ( about 3 - 5 points, depending on watch brand) compared to lab tested VO2max. There are some reliable authorities that have checked this in the lab. So, I wouldn't totally trash the watch reading. It is a good enough indicator for your every day runner. However, as you say, VO2max should not be the focus of one's training. Having said that, it is a big boost to my ego to know that my VO2max per watch reading is in the top 10% of my age group 🤪
There are a bunch of TH-cam videos comparing lab tests to watch estimates of VO2max. They're all over the map. I have a garmin so I was glad when the first one I watched showed the garmin estimate to be spot on. Then the next one showed the garmin estimate to be 10 units too high. Then the next one showed the garmin estimate at ten points low. I would say maybe they do a better job measuring the change in VO2max but then I had garmin go up at the same time the HRV estimate went down. (HRV is the heart rate variability app which also gets my data from Training Peaks so it has all the data that Garmin does.)
Funny, when I heard Armstrong had run under 3 hours in his first marathon, I thought, that's great! But I've already internalized from your teaching that running is a muscular event, and he was highly trained for biking, not running! Enjoyed the comprehensive nature of this video, acknowledging the place VO2 Max pace training may have in an intelligently structured season , and the associated benefits but with the understanding that they aren't really benefits (results) of the VO2 Max level. And I actually understand what it is now. Thanks!
Thanks for these videos - good explanation on VO2 as a symptom of good fitness and not a cause. As an aging (52 yo) runner, looking to put this wisdom to practice to try and reach my target 1:30 half. Adding strides - before it was almost all ez / tempo / threshold.
This is very timely because I have a “VO2Max” titled workout scheduled for tomorrow morning and what confused me is that the pace that is asked for is much slower than I expected. I thought it would be an all out effort but it’s not and this explains why.
Glad you learned something useful! :) Even when doing a VO2max workout, it would only be all-out if you were running for about 12 minutes continuously. So yeah it is slower than "all out" for sure.
It’s a 10x800 workout but it’s only like 10 seconds per mile faster than my threshold pace. And so I thought there was some sort of mistake in the title of the workout but now it makes sense. Thanks!
@@jonathansandberg526710sec/mile slower than threshold is more a C.V wrkout :) critical velocity is approx 30min race pace. The notch between lt2 and vo2max. Generally 8min race pace is considered 100% vVo2. Think 1.5mile race pace. Cheers 🎉
🎉 ❤Love this. I used to do these workouts in high school and college. And never was able to translate it to the times I wanted. Only when I left school and stopped running so “fast” all the time and started doing easy running, more of it, and developing short speed, was I able to improve my running a lot.
Outstanding video! I am so glad I found your channel right before the new year as I created my calendar and it aligns with a lot of what you’ve said. Thank you for building my confidence and providing easy to understand knowledge on running! I need to read your book! Next year will be MY year!
5:33 Agreed. Vo2max is approximately the 3km/2mi effort. And this event you certainly race way faster than a marathon. In that relation for the Marathon effort you don't need to deliver so much oxygen at a time as in a 3000m race. But during a way longer period of time.
It's a this and that correlation paradox. Just because successful marathoners have a high Vo2max training your Vo2max doesn't necessarily improve your marathon time. The winner of the Berlin marathon has had black hair in all of the last 10 years. Dying your hair black will not make you a faster marathoner. This and that.
Exactly the point of the video. But this statement may devaluing VO2 max (this coming from a guy who just made a video debunking VO2 max). Correlation doesn’t mean there is “definitely no causation”. Overall having high VO2 max is more beneficial to running than having black hair.
V02max is limiting you because 85% of 80 is much higher number than 85% of 50 or 60. It gives you higher base from the start. Of course that does not mean anything if you dont train, but if you put the same effor as the guy with 55 v02max, you will be better. In the end both athletes must train hard, but lower v02max must have better economy and everything to beat higher v02max
It would be interesting to see how closely VO2max is associated with performance in, say, a race in the 5-8 minute range (or, failing that, close to it). This still leaves room for variation in running economy, but removes the incongruity that VO2max is associated with relatively short efforts and the focus here is very much on much longer events, where endurance - the ability to sustain submaximal effort - is crucial.
In my book, I talk about this for shorter distances as well. But if you are exceeding VO2 max in a shorter race, then, once again, it is also not what limits your performance. If you add 120% of VO two max then it is not what is limiting your performance something is being limited at 100%.
Excellent description of why my Garmin watch keeps pestering me to train across the spectrum. I never really understood why I would benefit by exercising at a lower intensity level.
VO2max training also stimulates increased capillarization around the FG and FOG muscle fibres otherwise not simulated to adapt by slower paces of running and allows them better oxygen supply to contribute to running at higher speeds for longer before becoming fatigued. But since muscle fibre types are distributed throughout the entire muscle and not all bundled together in one place this contributes to an increase in the overall capacity of the capillary network of the entire muscle meaning more blood supply and waste clearance for the entire muscle including the ST and FOG fibres. It also increases enzymes of aerobic metabolism in FT and FOG fibres increasing aerobic and anaerobic thresholds alike.
Awesome! That’s all the more reason to do V2 max workouts at a higher volume. But in order to do them at a higher volume, you need to build a base of foundation to support it. That’s why base training is so important, it all allows you to do other workouts at a higher volume without burning out or getting injured or plateauing.
I’m so glad this is becoming more and more the mainstream understanding. I argued with my professors through my entire bachelor’s degree who were stuck in the old 20th century idea that interval training was anaerobic work and had no effect on aerobic performance. I over-referenced my positions ensuring I had multiple peer-reviewed studies any time I wrote anything that disagreed with their position and I’d still get the red pen treatment for suggesting that intervals would improve endurance performance even with dozens of recent studies on my side. Now all of those positions are part of the curriculum. Drives me nuts but at least in the long term I know I was right. I had my best winter biathlon season after doing 30/30 intervals in my base training season and placed 24th at the North American championships that year it was my last year before starting university. The coaches had us doing 9 to 12 hours a week of Zone 1 training to build our base and all that happened was I ended up slow and lost all of my strength gains from years in the gym. When I added the 30/30 intervals suddenly I was a contender. Too little too late but the proof was there. I’m so glad we’re finding now that fewer hours at Zone 2 is better because so many promising athletes ended up with repetitive use injuries doing all those hours and hours of useless Zone 1 training.
Functional lungs. I have sports induced asthma, on days like today I simply cannot yawn, I cannot fill my lungs in the same way I can on a good day. I'll be doing a Vo2max test next week so I'm expecting poor results unless I get lucky and have a good breathing day.
I’m 6’2” and 205 pounds. Im still able to get a mid 17 min 5K and a sub 3 hr 20 min marathon. I do have a considerable amount of muscle compared to an average long distance runner, but I know losing muscle would take me to that next level. What’s the easiest way to lose muscle?
Greg McMillan run calculator has vVo2max as 8min 😊. So an elite runner will be using 3km race pace as 100% vo2max. For less elite runners itd be 2.5-2km race pace. Cheers 🎉
Yes bro, I think so. But I reckon the problem with MAF method is that If I want my muscle to be fatigued, I have to run over 3 hours continuously, it’ll waste too much time. Instead, I only need to run 30 minutes at high intensity 😂😂😂
@@Syntropicfarming true. currently i want a fast run time and a 100kg back squat. Strategy is MAF running and exhaust my self with the squats till get to that number then add fast runs maybe or else keep exhausting my self with the squats and trust the MAF method.
Same here, test said 51, Garmin said 50. Hence I trust the watch now. But yes, it is never reached in longer runs for most people, and therefore it is pretty irrelevant for my running. Compare your running ability with a chain having multiple links: muscle strength and endurance, metabolic factors including VO2 max but also many others, body structures like joints and ligaments etc. The weakest link of them all is what holds you back, and general training does not necessarily or normally strengthen all links at the same rate. Everything could be just perfect, only you get GI problems after 30 minutes of running. Well then THAT is your limiting factor. So it comes down to finding out what everyone's choker is and working on it very specifically, as opposed to chasing VO2 max just because it is hip.
It was when I learned the story of Oskar Svendsen that I decided to focus mostly on the three efficiency components of running economy and lactate threshold. His story is even normalized within a single sport unlike Armstrong running instead of cycling. He was a cyclist with the highest VO2Max ever recorded. He eventually gave up the sport because the high VO2Max compromised the cycling equivalent of running economy and he wasn't all that competitive. The more he trained, the higher his VO2Max would climb; and the higher his VO2Max would climb, the lower his gross efficiency would drop. It was a wicked genetic curse.
That’s a super interesting, I haven’t heard of this guy before, but I definitely want to go. Look him up now. Thanks for this share. And the story illustrates the point that economy of motion is most important. Your heart and lungs and metabolic fuel just provide fuel to the working muscles so that they can contract in an efficient way. It’s not that they don’t matter, but economy matters so much more.
I think body composition is not the limiting factor unless you have a very bad body composition. For example, if you are an obese person then the limiting factor is clearly your body composition, that’s the main thing that’s limiting your performance regardless of anything else.
I can appreciate that point of view. But the evidence is that most everyone has excess body fat. Even marathon runners. Because of a high fat diet that’s only possible through unnatural refined foods such as oil. Shedding excess weight that’s just body fat, will certainly improve endurance performance where you’re moving your body weight a long distance. It’s also a symptom of a non optimal diet. And of course an optimal diet would yield improved recovery and performance. The weight is just a side effect of a clean diet. Thanks for your feedback matriapunk
@@runelitecoach thank for your reply too. I get your point of VO2 Max not being the limiting factor, but then again I think there isn't an universal rule that works for everyone. In the example of Amstrong, his VO2 Max wasn't the limiting factor because we know he already had a great VO2 Max but he didn't have the muscles part of the equation. That's why I think your limiting factor is always what you don't have or the part of the pyramid that is less developed. Talking about muscles in general is a little bit confusing, because muscles don't work in isolation. When you Talk about muscles you are not talking about muscle strength or muscle endurance, wich is what many people understand when you say the word "muscles". You are talking about how the whole system is able to produce the muscle contractions that you would need to run at a certain pace for a certain period of time. And that's a very complex process that entails many different parts. So saying that the muscles are the true limiting factor is like saying that everything is the limiting factor. The interesting part becomes knowing why the muscles are not able to contract the way they should, and I think that varies in every case.
According to the figures you provided at the beginning of the video, Armstrong was considerably heavier than Tergat. In a marathon this is very important. Also, the amount of cycling Armstrong did in the decades before he ran the marathon conditioned his legs for cycling - which is actually detrimental to running. not talking about a runner cross training by doing the occasional bike ride but a cyclist with thousands of miles of cycling in their legs. Ratio of hamstring to quadricep strength.
VO2 max is dependent on weight. So being heavier doesn’t matter in the context of VO2max. If he’s heavier and has the same VO2max it means that he has a SUPERIOR aerobic engine that can deliver more oxygen. The point of the video is that vo2max isn’t the determinant of performance. And you’re agreeing, saying that weight is a significant factor. I agree
Hi Andrew went through your audiobook and love it. My problem with your VO2 max is that Armstrong's VO2 max was probably done on a bike and probably had an average running VO2 max. I don't think this is an apples-to-apples comparison that can shed any useful information out of.
Thanks for reading the book. This exact question is in the comments, a couple of times, and the answer is that what you’re saying is exactly the point. How efficient you are at one sport does not translate to the other sport. Therefore, it’s about economy of motion, otherwise known as running economy. Not VO2max. He had a very high VO2max, he had a very high lactate threshold, but we can all agree that he wasn’t as fit as a runner. Therefore, it’s running economy, not VO2 max.
The only way to measure VO2max is being hooked up to a calibrated machine which measures inspired and expired air. And there’s a standard increase in incline every few mins until VO2max is reached. Everything else is an estimation. But then again it really doesn’t matter. What matters is “what pace can you maintain over a given distance/terrain”. But generally if running AT VO2max, a runner can likely sustain it for about 12 mins before failure.
Devoured your excellent book, really worth a 5 of 5. Regarding the US army thing, NMN supplementation, I remain a skeptical lay person, relying on expert advise. Triggered by your book, after some digging, this thing seems to not have been settled, are you still all-in on that? Would be glad to see you following-up on that maybe-sensation. At least I learned, my beloved avocados aren‘t the baddest idea.
Thanks for picking up the book. Please leave a review on Amazon. I’ve added you to our credit roll thank you list for next weeks TH-cam video. I’m glad you feel better about your avocados now. Yum Yum. And with NMN, the research is scattered in it. But mostly that’s because of the degrading of NMN while in the bottle. If it actually makes it to your gut, it will boost NAD production. Check out the citations in the book on that, but especially the military studies. All that said, I think it has a best use case for runners over 50, and for people without optimal diets (virtually everyone). But is it necessary?… I guess we’ll see. But the evidence in the lab with mice is very VERY indicative of massive improvements performance. For most people though, taking NMN but failing to eat a proper diet or sleep enough doesn’t make any sense at all. Only after covering these basics to a very high level doesn’t make sense to use NMN. Thanks for reviewing the book runelitebook.com/review
@@runelitecoach Thank you, so nice 😀 I'll be tracking the subject, it would fit me as an over 50 runner. And of course, 5er review just submitted. Keep it up!
You’re just proving the point. If someone has the same oxygen utilization capacity yet weighs 30 pounds more they be less good. It goes the same to say that if two runners were similar but one lost weight their performance and VO2max improve
brother i am from india , my apple watch notified me that my vo2 max level is low ... 28 , i am doing cardio activity on regular basis , my heart rate ,sleep ,everthing is very good , i am worried after this notification by apple watch .. please reply
Because VO2 max is trained when you run. It doesn’t mean it’s the limiting factor. I’m not saying that it’s not important, I’m saying it’s not the limiting factor. This is a top down approach. The proof is in the pudding, I have a video where we compare VO2 max and lactate threshold of various athletes, and a very widely, yet some athletes are able to outperform others who have lower vo2max or lactate threshold, why would that be? Because they have increased specificity. If VO2 max were the prime driver of running performance, then cross-country skiers and cyclists would also be fantastic Runners. But they’re not. Because they haven’t specifically trained for the demands of Running. Running is a muscular Event first. Those elite runners very well, may have a higher v O2 max, but they also have higher volume of training, higher volume of fast paced work, lower body fat percentages, better sleep, better nutrition, these things are all much more impactful
@@runelitecoach Because isn't lactate threshold a much more accurate measure of efficiency and endurance over long duration (life is about endurance) where VO2 max is more a measure of peak power? I think Alex Hutchinson and Olav Alexander Bu talk about this with Attia and others if I am not mistaken.
Are we not confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient one? Armstrong was not a runner so the fact that he had a high VO2 max is not sufficient for him to be breaking running or swimming records.
I think your reasoning is really flawed. We don't need to be running at 100% VO2Max in order for it to determine our marathon performance. For a marathon distance regular people can sustain 70-80% of their VO2Max. if you increase your VO2Max you also increase 70-80% of your VO2Max and you improve your performance. It's not the only thing of course, but if you could push a button and increase your VO2Max 20 points your marathon time will improve immediately.
So if something is getting maxed out in your race, and it’s not VO2 max, then VO2 max is not what limited your race. Also, an average person can’t keep up 80% of their VO2max. But an average runner might. The difference being that an average person hasn’t trained their legs for running. And therefore the muscular conditioning from running is more important than the VO2max I don’t know what to tell you. I mean, the fact that a runner can have a superior VO2 max and an inferior race time, is pretty telling. Of course it matters. Buts not as important as the community treats it.
Well, Huberman, Attia, are not conducting the research, they’re reporting on the research. they’re talking about is doing vo2max training to maximize Vo2max. But that’s not the limiter of performance. And also, it does have its place, during Support training, but doing it as part of your entire training, cycle doesn’t make sense. The opportunity cost is too high, and as stated above VO2 max is not the limit of your performance.
It's a good video and enlightening to some degree but the moment you compare athletes with highly differentiating disciplines is utterly unrealistic. I'm pretty confident that if the tables are turned, a runner with a high VO2 max wouldn't be performing as well in cycling, especially in a Tour De France. Similar to the boxer's VO2 max to a dragon boat rower. Basic reality or common sense will tell you that our bodies will adapt to the pressure that's given to them. So if you train as a runner it will adapt and will evolve at a certain level considering other factors to a runner's physique. Take away all the terminologies and technicalities, it's plain and simple as you are great at what you do all the time. Sure there are great points but telling someone to stop to stop doing it now is nonsense. Eluid for example has a relatively very high VO2 but if you ask him, it's as simple as consistency and having a structured run, proper nutrition and rest are the most important aspects. Especially the rest part. There's no absolute thing to stop doing something. Running is running. Each individual should adjust their training depending on their purpose and what works for them. For 90% of runners, factors such as jobs, nutrition, and rest are the most impeding factors.
That’s exactly the point of the video. That specificity in the sport matters more than the straight vo2max. What do you mean by it’s “unrealistic” to compare these two athletes? That doesn’t make much sense, as the point of comparing tennis to isolate that vo2max isn’t the predictor of performance. Specificity in training is.
Absolutely! Improving Running) economy comes down to base training. Base training includes lots of strides for a neuromuscular, efficiency and motor economy, as well as aerobic conditioning, cellular economy.
Is your watch going to give you a perfectly accurate VO2 max? No. However, time and time again people have shown their watch is accurate within a point or two of their actual VO2 max, which for most runners is sufficient
Yup. And VO2max is weight dependent. So if he’d have lost weight he’d be more efficient and better vo2max. Weight is more important. That’s largely the point
1. Sports watches like Garmin are very accurate. See other TH-cam videos where this is demonstrated, 2. When I get a reading of 85 I'll cut down 🙄 3. Armstrong reportedly only trained 45 minutes a day which is crazy for a marathon. One of his pacers, a record breaking marathoner, said Armstrong was less out of breath. It was his shin splints ... his lack of running miles which held him back, not his vo2
Exactly the point of this video. It was his muscular efficiency for Running that held him back, not his VO two max. Therefore why are runners so often trying to improve their VO2max? It’s an opportunity cost to where they could be working on something more important.
And a watch can’t possibly be accurate with measuring VO two levels. All I can do is use a standardized distribution and approximately what it might be based off of a training pace. He can also use a race performance and use that with a standardized model to approximate what it might be. But all it’s doing is comparing, your running effort with a standardized distribution. An individual could be, and likely is, outside of that approximation. Even by definition, at one standard deviation away, 32% of the population is going to be more than one standard deviation away.
But it depends on the standard deviation, and how accurate you need it to be, one standard deviation may be only a couple percent so 2/3 people will be within 2.5% percent of their true VO2 max and 95% of people may be within 2.5-5% of their true VO2 max and 5% of people will be further away. Most studies show that the vast majority of people will get a watch reading within 5% of their true value which is likely good enough for everyone except professional athletes. @@runelitecoach
I heard about a runner who ran 10k a day for a few months, 70k a week, He then ran a 42k with ease, Im tempted to do it but id like more information. Is it possible?
I heard about a runner who ran 10k a day for a few months, 70k a week, He then ran a 42k with ease, Im tempted to do it but id like more information. Is it possible?
On average, statically speaking, your watch gives you a decent approximation of your VO2max. Clearly, it's just using data that it can collect as in the test. But you can't deny that e.g. Garmin did a decent job finding an algorithm based on the data they can collect to give you an estimate of your VO2max plus trends over time. They should get kudos for this. NB Garmin did show in a statically representative sample that their watch VO2max is close to what the sample has as actual VO2max when performing a proper test. Fun fact: yes there is a correlation between VO2max and "longevity". But that's merely a proxy. Above average VO2max is usually a result of a (painful) healthy lifestyle.... No wonder that these people live longer if they are not run over by a bus 😂
Agree, the O2 max is largely a product of your body weight. It’s measured in milliliters of oxygen per kilogram of body, weight, per minute, and so your body weight is one of the biggest determinants of your VO2 max. People with healthier lifestyles, of course, have a lower body weights, and therefore better VO2 maxes.
@@runelitecoach Your right. Based on the mathematical format it's mainly the weight. I'd assume that a healthier lifestyle and "active lifestyle" is impacting the other variables of VO2max as well. Another thing "I have been told" is that you are impacting VO2 "early on in your life" with the usual endurance sports. I heard it's more difficult to impact positively once one has a "certain age"....?! Anyways, it's a bit overrated and the correlation to longevity is real but a "hyped correlation". One more remark: The pyramids you are showing are a good visualization. But most of the segments are "impacting each other" with "any endurance exercise one does". It's just that more specific training has greater impact on a specific segment.
Dude that example story is silly. Lance is a cyclist, not a runner. They are completely different sports with different techniques and different body type needs.
Dude, that’s exactly the point. The entire point with Lance Armstrong is that he wasn’t specifically trained for running economy for the specific demands of the marathon. So yeah dude, I’ve heard it before, you’re missing the point
@@runelitecoach I'm sure Armstrong was tested for VO2 max on a bike instead of a treadmill, so you're right that it's different muscular groups or applications and not really comparable.
@@runelitecoach threshold running is the back bone of getting to where you wanna be .max work outs shouldnt be attempted unless your lt1 and lt2 works decent, running fast is all well and good but you need a proper trained engine to sustain it
Guys from 80s doin sub 2.10 marathons didnt over complicate there running . When asked what was key answer was usually lots of 150mile weeks . With couple of easy out and then steady or hard back days which is( lt1 n lt2) more or less .elite Marathon runners for example run well into 90% of races in aerobic state not anaerobic state
By your logic, Target would beat Armstrong in a cycling race which we all know wouldn’t happen. What you’re missing is that running and cycling are two entirely different skill sets independent of VO2 Max.
You missed the whole thing. No, by my logic Tergat would get his butt kicked in a cycling race because he hasn’t trained “specifically of economy of motion” for cycling
And his 6 hours a day of training had nothing to do with it? This claim is insane. You can blood dope all you want and still not win the Tour de France. Like him or not he trained very well
@@runelitecoach Recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) induces 10% increments in VO2 max and LT surrogates (ventilatory thresholds) and tends to increase LT power output (5%, p=0·067). Armstrong was nowhere before doping. He was 97th in the general classification when he retired after stage 12 in 1993 and withdrew from three of the four Tours he attempted from 1993 to 1996, not even an average pro, and he did no more training than the average pro. Do not forget, EPO was just one of the many substances he used.
Once again, a stellar video! High quality info explained simply. Your channel is going to blow up one day my brother!
Thanks Lyric. I appreciate the support
Apparently the Norwegian triathletes actually let their VO2 max come DOWN because keeping it super high was metabolically costly and not helping their long endurance events (they said it themselves on a Rich Roll podcast)
Amazing! Do you know the names of these athletes?
@@runelitecoach Gustav Iden & Kristian Blummenfelt (the podcast looks to be from Oct 2022)
I downloaded it. Thanks. I have listened to the one with Olaf Aleksander. But hadn’t seen this one. Much thanks
Kristian has crazy high VO2 + 90.
In physiology, I understand that some people think that at the limits of human performance, you will likely be trading off additional VO2max for gross efficiency - the % of the energy your body produces that goes into running or cycling. There was this case study of a cyclist who had a baseline VO2max in the 70s, and he increased it into the 90s. However, his gross efficiency declined.
So, I buy that the Norwegian triathletes may be doing what you say. However, for us ordinary humans who want to get fitter and who are not at the limits of their performance, I don't think people should adopt this rationale for not doing VO2max. I will say, I'm a cyclist, and 3-8 minute max efforts are not uncommon.
So glad to see your commentary. All the longevity community like Attia & Rhonda Patrick pushing the Norwegian protocol but not voicing the ‘correlation not causation’ dimension, while experts in performance, like Pavel Tsatsouline or guys at Uphill Athlete are correctly advocating training that improves metabolic systems & heart aerobic capacity & warning against over focus on VO2 Max. Some even saying VO2 Max hits a wall based on genetics, assuming optimal body composition & training.
Well said brother. Thanks for watching
They do the same thing with grip strength.
@@DingDong-fq2mo agreed.
Good video putting all the elements into perspective. The VO2max, considering its relative importance, as measured by one's watch is sufficiently accurate for the non-elite athlete. Watch reading of VO2max has been tested to be a little lower ( about 3 - 5 points, depending on watch brand) compared to lab tested VO2max. There are some reliable authorities that have checked this in the lab. So, I wouldn't totally trash the watch reading. It is a good enough indicator for your every day runner. However, as you say, VO2max should not be the focus of one's training. Having said that, it is a big boost to my ego to know that my VO2max per watch reading is in the top 10% of my age group 🤪
Nice job. Sounds like you’re doing well. Thanks for the feedback
There are a bunch of TH-cam videos comparing lab tests to watch estimates of VO2max. They're all over the map. I have a garmin so I was glad when the first one I watched showed the garmin estimate to be spot on. Then the next one showed the garmin estimate to be 10 units too high. Then the next one showed the garmin estimate at ten points low. I would say maybe they do a better job measuring the change in VO2max but then I had garmin go up at the same time the HRV estimate went down. (HRV is the heart rate variability app which also gets my data from Training Peaks so it has all the data that Garmin does.)
Funny, when I heard Armstrong had run under 3 hours in his first marathon, I thought, that's great! But I've already internalized from your teaching that running is a muscular event, and he was highly trained for biking, not running! Enjoyed the comprehensive nature of this video, acknowledging the place VO2 Max pace training may have in an intelligently structured season , and the associated benefits but with the understanding that they aren't really benefits (results) of the VO2 Max level. And I actually understand what it is now. Thanks!
You’re very welcome, thank you for the mindful, and thoughtful response
Thanks for these videos - good explanation on VO2 as a symptom of good fitness and not a cause. As an aging (52 yo) runner, looking to put this wisdom to practice to try and reach my target 1:30 half. Adding strides - before it was almost all ez / tempo / threshold.
Great video about sharing things that matter in running. That triangle (mind set, muscle, system, body ) helps me alot. Thanks bro
This is very timely because I have a “VO2Max” titled workout scheduled for tomorrow morning and what confused me is that the pace that is asked for is much slower than I expected. I thought it would be an all out effort but it’s not and this explains why.
Glad you learned something useful! :) Even when doing a VO2max workout, it would only be all-out if you were running for about 12 minutes continuously. So yeah it is slower than "all out" for sure.
It’s a 10x800 workout but it’s only like 10 seconds per mile faster than my threshold pace. And so I thought there was some sort of mistake in the title of the workout but now it makes sense. Thanks!
Welcome 🙏
@@jonathansandberg526710sec/mile slower than threshold is more a C.V wrkout :) critical velocity is approx 30min race pace. The notch between lt2 and vo2max. Generally 8min race pace is considered 100% vVo2. Think 1.5mile race pace. Cheers 🎉
🎉 ❤Love this. I used to do these workouts in high school and college. And never was able to translate it to the times I wanted. Only when I left school and stopped running so “fast” all the time and started doing easy running, more of it, and developing short speed, was I able to improve my running a lot.
Outstanding video! I am so glad I found your channel right before the new year as I created my calendar and it aligns with a lot of what you’ve said.
Thank you for building my confidence and providing easy to understand knowledge on running!
I need to read your book!
Next year will be MY year!
5:33 Agreed. Vo2max is approximately the 3km/2mi effort. And this event you certainly race way faster than a marathon. In that relation for the Marathon effort you don't need to deliver so much oxygen at a time as in a 3000m race. But during a way longer period of time.
Yep, well said
It's a this and that correlation paradox. Just because successful marathoners have a high Vo2max training your Vo2max doesn't necessarily improve your marathon time. The winner of the Berlin marathon has had black hair in all of the last 10 years. Dying your hair black will not make you a faster marathoner. This and that.
Exactly the point of the video. But this statement may devaluing VO2 max (this coming from a guy who just made a video debunking VO2 max). Correlation doesn’t mean there is “definitely no causation”. Overall having high VO2 max is more beneficial to running than having black hair.
Marathon is simply run at a speed far below vo2max. Thats why it doesn't matter. Run a 1000-3000m and vo2max is a critical limit.
What a great breakdown! I really appreciate you for putting In the work for this and sharing it with us. Thanks!
Glad it was helpful!
V02max is limiting you because 85% of 80 is much higher number than 85% of 50 or 60.
It gives you higher base from the start. Of course that does not mean anything if you dont train, but if you put the same effor as the guy with 55 v02max, you will be better.
In the end both athletes must train hard, but lower v02max must have better economy and everything to beat higher v02max
So it’s not the limiter of performance if you’re only functioning at 80%…when SOMETHING is maxed out at 100%. It’s the 100% which limits you
I agree - you are also not running a marathon at 100% of your lactate threshold and yet it still makes sense to increase it to run a faster marathon.
It would be interesting to see how closely VO2max is associated with performance in, say, a race in the 5-8 minute range (or, failing that, close to it). This still leaves room for variation in running economy, but removes the incongruity that VO2max is associated with relatively short efforts and the focus here is very much on much longer events, where endurance - the ability to sustain submaximal effort - is crucial.
In my book, I talk about this for shorter distances as well. But if you are exceeding VO2 max in a shorter race, then, once again, it is also not what limits your performance. If you add 120% of VO two max then it is not what is limiting your performance something is being limited at 100%.
I love al your videos, Andrew! Very insightful as always
Glad you like them! Thanks for the support
Excellent description of why my Garmin watch keeps pestering me to train across the spectrum. I never really understood why I would benefit by exercising at a lower intensity level.
Glad it was helpful!
VO2max training also stimulates increased capillarization around the FG and FOG muscle fibres otherwise not simulated to adapt by slower paces of running and allows them better oxygen supply to contribute to running at higher speeds for longer before becoming fatigued.
But since muscle fibre types are distributed throughout the entire muscle and not all bundled together in one place this contributes to an increase in the overall capacity of the capillary network of the entire muscle meaning more blood supply and waste clearance for the entire muscle including the ST and FOG fibres.
It also increases enzymes of aerobic metabolism in FT and FOG fibres increasing aerobic and anaerobic thresholds alike.
Awesome! That’s all the more reason to do V2 max workouts at a higher volume. But in order to do them at a higher volume, you need to build a base of foundation to support it. That’s why base training is so important, it all allows you to do other workouts at a higher volume without burning out or getting injured or plateauing.
I’m so glad this is becoming more and more the mainstream understanding. I argued with my professors through my entire bachelor’s degree who were stuck in the old 20th century idea that interval training was anaerobic work and had no effect on aerobic performance. I over-referenced my positions ensuring I had multiple peer-reviewed studies any time I wrote anything that disagreed with their position and I’d still get the red pen treatment for suggesting that intervals would improve endurance performance even with dozens of recent studies on my side.
Now all of those positions are part of the curriculum. Drives me nuts but at least in the long term I know I was right.
I had my best winter biathlon season after doing 30/30 intervals in my base training season and placed 24th at the North American championships that year it was my last year before starting university.
The coaches had us doing 9 to 12 hours a week of Zone 1 training to build our base and all that happened was I ended up slow and lost all of my strength gains from years in the gym. When I added the 30/30 intervals suddenly I was a contender. Too little too late but the proof was there.
I’m so glad we’re finding now that fewer hours at Zone 2 is better because so many promising athletes ended up with repetitive use injuries doing all those hours and hours of useless Zone 1 training.
Functional lungs. I have sports induced asthma, on days like today I simply cannot yawn, I cannot fill my lungs in the same way I can on a good day. I'll be doing a Vo2max test next week so I'm expecting poor results unless I get lucky and have a good breathing day.
I’m 6’2” and 205 pounds. Im still able to get a mid 17 min 5K and a sub 3 hr 20 min marathon. I do have a considerable amount of muscle compared to an average long distance runner, but I know losing muscle would take me to that next level. What’s the easiest way to lose muscle?
Lose fat instead. If you want to lose muscle just stop lifting. But may as well keep much of your muscle and just lose fat
Greg McMillan run calculator has vVo2max as 8min 😊. So an elite runner will be using 3km race pace as 100% vo2max. For less elite runners itd be 2.5-2km race pace. Cheers 🎉
does maffetone method improvement come from delaying the point ur weakest muscles are fatigued so develop coordination?
Yes bro, I think so. But I reckon the problem with MAF method is that If I want my muscle to be fatigued, I have to run over 3 hours continuously, it’ll waste too much time. Instead, I only need to run 30 minutes at high intensity 😂😂😂
@@Syntropicfarming true. currently i want a fast run time and a 100kg back squat. Strategy is MAF running and exhaust my self with the squats till get to that number then add fast runs maybe or else keep exhausting my self with the squats and trust the MAF method.
Maybe an interesting topic to explore would be why running, why not cycling, rowing, triathlon, crossfit, powerlifting etc etc.
Why running for what? What’s the rest of that question…
My watch was accurate. Just had a full test last week
Good to hear!
Same here, test said 51, Garmin said 50. Hence I trust the watch now. But yes, it is never reached in longer runs for most people, and therefore it is pretty irrelevant for my running. Compare your running ability with a chain having multiple links: muscle strength and endurance, metabolic factors including VO2 max but also many others, body structures like joints and ligaments etc. The weakest link of them all is what holds you back, and general training does not necessarily or normally strengthen all links at the same rate. Everything could be just perfect, only you get GI problems after 30 minutes of running. Well then THAT is your limiting factor. So it comes down to finding out what everyone's choker is and working on it very specifically, as opposed to chasing VO2 max just because it is hip.
It was when I learned the story of Oskar Svendsen that I decided to focus mostly on the three efficiency components of running economy and lactate threshold. His story is even normalized within a single sport unlike Armstrong running instead of cycling. He was a cyclist with the highest VO2Max ever recorded. He eventually gave up the sport because the high VO2Max compromised the cycling equivalent of running economy and he wasn't all that competitive. The more he trained, the higher his VO2Max would climb; and the higher his VO2Max would climb, the lower his gross efficiency would drop. It was a wicked genetic curse.
That’s a super interesting, I haven’t heard of this guy before, but I definitely want to go. Look him up now. Thanks for this share. And the story illustrates the point that economy of motion is most important. Your heart and lungs and metabolic fuel just provide fuel to the working muscles so that they can contract in an efficient way. It’s not that they don’t matter, but economy matters so much more.
I think body composition is not the limiting factor unless you have a very bad body composition. For example, if you are an obese person then the limiting factor is clearly your body composition, that’s the main thing that’s limiting your performance regardless of anything else.
I can appreciate that point of view. But the evidence is that most everyone has excess body fat. Even marathon runners. Because of a high fat diet that’s only possible through unnatural refined foods such as oil. Shedding excess weight that’s just body fat, will certainly improve endurance performance where you’re moving your body weight a long distance. It’s also a symptom of a non optimal diet. And of course an optimal diet would yield improved recovery and performance. The weight is just a side effect of a clean diet. Thanks for your feedback matriapunk
@@runelitecoach thank for your reply too. I get your point of VO2 Max not being the limiting factor, but then again I think there isn't an universal rule that works for everyone. In the example of Amstrong, his VO2 Max wasn't the limiting factor because we know he already had a great VO2 Max but he didn't have the muscles part of the equation. That's why I think your limiting factor is always what you don't have or the part of the pyramid that is less developed. Talking about muscles in general is a little bit confusing, because muscles don't work in isolation. When you Talk about muscles you are not talking about muscle strength or muscle endurance, wich is what many people understand when you say the word "muscles". You are talking about how the whole system is able to produce the muscle contractions that you would need to run at a certain pace for a certain period of time. And that's a very complex process that entails many different parts. So saying that the muscles are the true limiting factor is like saying that everything is the limiting factor. The interesting part becomes knowing why the muscles are not able to contract the way they should, and I think that varies in every case.
According to the figures you provided at the beginning of the video, Armstrong was considerably heavier than Tergat. In a marathon this is very important. Also, the amount of cycling Armstrong did in the decades before he ran the marathon conditioned his legs for cycling - which is actually detrimental to running. not talking about a runner cross training by doing the occasional bike ride but a cyclist with thousands of miles of cycling in their legs. Ratio of hamstring to quadricep strength.
VO2 max is dependent on weight. So being heavier doesn’t matter in the context of VO2max. If he’s heavier and has the same VO2max it means that he has a SUPERIOR aerobic engine that can deliver more oxygen. The point of the video is that vo2max isn’t the determinant of performance. And you’re agreeing, saying that weight is a significant factor. I agree
I doubt lances vo2 was 85 at the time of that marathon. 85 was when he was winning the tour.
Hi Andrew went through your audiobook and love it. My problem with your VO2 max is that Armstrong's VO2 max was probably done on a bike and probably had an average running VO2 max. I don't think this is an apples-to-apples comparison that can shed any useful information out of.
Thanks for reading the book. This exact question is in the comments, a couple of times, and the answer is that what you’re saying is exactly the point. How efficient you are at one sport does not translate to the other sport. Therefore, it’s about economy of motion, otherwise known as running economy. Not VO2max. He had a very high VO2max, he had a very high lactate threshold, but we can all agree that he wasn’t as fit as a runner. Therefore, it’s running economy, not VO2 max.
Interestingly, Dr. Cooper's fitness test developed in 1968 is 12 minutes long. Is it then a better estimator for VO2 max?
The only way to measure VO2max is being hooked up to a calibrated machine which measures inspired and expired air. And there’s a standard increase in incline every few mins until VO2max is reached. Everything else is an estimation. But then again it really doesn’t matter. What matters is “what pace can you maintain over a given distance/terrain”. But generally if running AT VO2max, a runner can likely sustain it for about 12 mins before failure.
Devoured your excellent book, really worth a 5 of 5.
Regarding the US army thing, NMN supplementation, I remain a skeptical lay person, relying on expert advise. Triggered by your book, after some digging, this thing seems to not have been settled, are you still all-in on that? Would be glad to see you following-up on that maybe-sensation.
At least I learned, my beloved avocados aren‘t the baddest idea.
Thanks for picking up the book. Please leave a review on Amazon. I’ve added you to our credit roll thank you list for next weeks TH-cam video.
I’m glad you feel better about your avocados now. Yum Yum.
And with NMN, the research is scattered in it. But mostly that’s because of the degrading of NMN while in the bottle. If it actually makes it to your gut, it will boost NAD production. Check out the citations in the book on that, but especially the military studies.
All that said, I think it has a best use case for runners over 50, and for people without optimal diets (virtually everyone). But is it necessary?… I guess we’ll see. But the evidence in the lab with mice is very VERY indicative of massive improvements performance.
For most people though, taking NMN but failing to eat a proper diet or sleep enough doesn’t make any sense at all. Only after covering these basics to a very high level doesn’t make sense to use NMN.
Thanks for reviewing the book runelitebook.com/review
@@runelitecoach Thank you, so nice 😀 I'll be tracking the subject, it would fit me as an over 50 runner. And of course, 5er review just submitted. Keep it up!
Much appreciated. You’re the best. Come to one of our QnAs. I do them in this channel every couple of weeks.
Great video 🎉 cheers
Thank you! Cheers!
They also had a big weight difference. A vo2maxx and lactate threshold at 130 will always beat the same at 160
You’re just proving the point. If someone has the same oxygen utilization capacity yet weighs 30 pounds more they be less good. It goes the same to say that if two runners were similar but one lost weight their performance and VO2max improve
brother i am from india , my apple watch notified me that my vo2 max level is low ... 28 , i am doing cardio activity on regular basis , my heart rate ,sleep ,everthing is very good , i am worried after this notification by apple watch .. please reply
What do you want me to tell you? Your watch is probably wrong. Only way to measure is with a machine that calibrates gases
@@runelitecoach okay sir , vo2 max low notifications made me worried… vo2 max low is any serious issue
Unless you actually have it measured, it’s just a guessing game anyway
Why then do very long distance runners consistently have higher vo2maxes than 5k runners?
Because VO2 max is trained when you run. It doesn’t mean it’s the limiting factor. I’m not saying that it’s not important, I’m saying it’s not the limiting factor. This is a top down approach. The proof is in the pudding, I have a video where we compare VO2 max and lactate threshold of various athletes, and a very widely, yet some athletes are able to outperform others who have lower vo2max or lactate threshold, why would that be? Because they have increased specificity.
If VO2 max were the prime driver of running performance, then cross-country skiers and cyclists would also be fantastic Runners. But they’re not. Because they haven’t specifically trained for the demands of Running. Running is a muscular Event first.
Those elite runners very well, may have a higher v O2 max, but they also have higher volume of training, higher volume of fast paced work, lower body fat percentages, better sleep, better nutrition, these things are all much more impactful
@@runelitecoach thank you
Welcome 🤗 thanks for the question
I think if they did research on lactate threshold would be a much better measure of longevity.
Why? There’s loads of research on longevity. Read “how not to age” but Michael Gregor
@@runelitecoach Because isn't lactate threshold a much more accurate measure of efficiency and endurance over long duration (life is about endurance) where VO2 max is more a measure of peak power? I think Alex Hutchinson and Olav Alexander Bu talk about this with Attia and others if I am not mistaken.
Are we not confusing a necessary condition for a sufficient one? Armstrong was not a runner so the fact that he had a high VO2 max is not sufficient for him to be breaking running or swimming records.
That’s the point. He hadn’t trained his economy as a runner. Therefore VO2 max is less important than economy
Agree. Similarly I would not expect a record holding marathoner to do as well in cycling as the top cyclists do even if they had the same VO2 max.
I think your reasoning is really flawed. We don't need to be running at 100% VO2Max in order for it to determine our marathon performance.
For a marathon distance regular people can sustain 70-80% of their VO2Max. if you increase your VO2Max you also increase 70-80% of your VO2Max and you improve your performance.
It's not the only thing of course, but if you could push a button and increase your VO2Max 20 points your marathon time will improve immediately.
So if something is getting maxed out in your race, and it’s not VO2 max, then VO2 max is not what limited your race.
Also, an average person can’t keep up 80% of their VO2max. But an average runner might. The difference being that an average person hasn’t trained their legs for running. And therefore the muscular conditioning from running is more important than the VO2max
I don’t know what to tell you. I mean, the fact that a runner can have a superior VO2 max and an inferior race time, is pretty telling.
Of course it matters. Buts not as important as the community treats it.
so the studies are wrong. Huberman, Perer Attia, the Norwegian military?
Well, Huberman, Attia, are not conducting the research, they’re reporting on the research. they’re talking about is doing vo2max training to maximize Vo2max. But that’s not the limiter of performance.
And also, it does have its place, during Support training, but doing it as part of your entire training, cycle doesn’t make sense. The opportunity cost is too high, and as stated above VO2 max is not the limit of your performance.
What would Paul Tergat's time be if he carried an extra 30 lbs for the entire marathon?
2:42 if it were just a mechanical weight added.
@@runelitecoach I get your point. When Nike did the sub 3 project, I seemed to recall that Desisa had the highest VO2Max.
I`ve come for the hate 😀 Great video! Thx
lol
It's a good video and enlightening to some degree but the moment you compare athletes with highly differentiating disciplines is utterly unrealistic. I'm pretty confident that if the tables are turned, a runner with a high VO2 max wouldn't be performing as well in cycling, especially in a Tour De France. Similar to the boxer's VO2 max to a dragon boat rower. Basic reality or common sense will tell you that our bodies will adapt to the pressure that's given to them. So if you train as a runner it will adapt and will evolve at a certain level considering other factors to a runner's physique. Take away all the terminologies and technicalities, it's plain and simple as you are great at what you do all the time. Sure there are great points but telling someone to stop to stop doing it now is nonsense. Eluid for example has a relatively very high VO2 but if you ask him, it's as simple as consistency and having a structured run, proper nutrition and rest are the most important aspects. Especially the rest part. There's no absolute thing to stop doing something. Running is running. Each individual should adjust their training depending on their purpose and what works for them. For 90% of runners, factors such as jobs, nutrition, and rest are the most impeding factors.
That’s exactly the point of the video. That specificity in the sport matters more than the straight vo2max. What do you mean by it’s “unrealistic” to compare these two athletes? That doesn’t make much sense, as the point of comparing tennis to isolate that vo2max isn’t the predictor of performance. Specificity in training is.
I don’t think we are able to hit max Vo2 for the entire marathon. I feel running economy is more important. We are raising the ceiling that’s all.
Absolutely! Improving Running) economy comes down to base training. Base training includes lots of strides for a neuromuscular, efficiency and motor economy, as well as aerobic conditioning, cellular economy.
Is your watch going to give you a perfectly accurate VO2 max? No. However, time and time again people have shown their watch is accurate within a point or two of their actual VO2 max, which for most runners is sufficient
Ok
Lance was much heavier than the other guy. That’s in my opinion the biggest factor.
Yup. And VO2max is weight dependent. So if he’d have lost weight he’d be more efficient and better vo2max. Weight is more important. That’s largely the point
1. Sports watches like Garmin are very accurate. See other TH-cam videos where this is demonstrated,
2. When I get a reading of 85 I'll cut down 🙄
3. Armstrong reportedly only trained 45 minutes a day which is crazy for a marathon. One of his pacers, a record breaking marathoner, said Armstrong was less out of breath. It was his shin splints ... his lack of running miles which held him back, not his vo2
Exactly the point of this video. It was his muscular efficiency for Running that held him back, not his VO two max. Therefore why are runners so often trying to improve their VO2max? It’s an opportunity cost to where they could be working on something more important.
And a watch can’t possibly be accurate with measuring VO two levels. All I can do is use a standardized distribution and approximately what it might be based off of a training pace. He can also use a race performance and use that with a standardized model to approximate what it might be. But all it’s doing is comparing, your running effort with a standardized distribution. An individual could be, and likely is, outside of that approximation. Even by definition, at one standard deviation away, 32% of the population is going to be more than one standard deviation away.
But it depends on the standard deviation, and how accurate you need it to be, one standard deviation may be only a couple percent so 2/3 people will be within 2.5% percent of their true VO2 max and 95% of people may be within 2.5-5% of their true VO2 max and 5% of people will be further away. Most studies show that the vast majority of people will get a watch reading within 5% of their true value which is likely good enough for everyone except professional athletes. @@runelitecoach
I heard about a runner who ran 10k a day for a few months, 70k a week, He then ran a 42k with ease,
Im tempted to do it but id like more information.
Is it possible?
I heard about a runner who ran 10k a day for a few months, 70k a week, He then ran a 42k with ease,
Im tempted to do it but id like more information.
Is it possible?
On average, statically speaking, your watch gives you a decent approximation of your VO2max.
Clearly, it's just using data that it can collect as in the test.
But you can't deny that e.g. Garmin did a decent job finding an algorithm based on the data they can collect to give you an estimate of your VO2max plus trends over time.
They should get kudos for this.
NB Garmin did show in a statically representative sample that their watch VO2max is close to what the sample has as actual VO2max when performing a proper test.
Fun fact: yes there is a correlation between VO2max and "longevity". But that's merely a proxy. Above average VO2max is usually a result of a (painful) healthy lifestyle.... No wonder that these people live longer if they are not run over by a bus 😂
Agree, the O2 max is largely a product of your body weight. It’s measured in milliliters of oxygen per kilogram of body, weight, per minute, and so your body weight is one of the biggest determinants of your VO2 max. People with healthier lifestyles, of course, have a lower body weights, and therefore better VO2 maxes.
@@runelitecoach Your right. Based on the mathematical format it's mainly the weight.
I'd assume that a healthier lifestyle and "active lifestyle" is impacting the other variables of VO2max as well.
Another thing "I have been told" is that you are impacting VO2 "early on in your life" with the usual endurance sports.
I heard it's more difficult to impact positively once one has a "certain age"....?!
Anyways, it's a bit overrated and the correlation to longevity is real but a "hyped correlation".
One more remark:
The pyramids you are showing are a good visualization. But most of the segments are "impacting each other" with "any endurance exercise one does". It's just that more specific training has greater impact on a specific segment.
Isn't LT at vo2max?
No way! Definitely different paces
@@runelitecoachcare to explain? afaik, Vo2max efforts and trainings are around LT. To be precise, LT2
Dude that example story is silly. Lance is a cyclist, not a runner. They are completely different sports with different techniques and different body type needs.
Dude, that’s exactly the point. The entire point with Lance Armstrong is that he wasn’t specifically trained for running economy for the specific demands of the marathon. So yeah dude, I’ve heard it before, you’re missing the point
Oh I see. It just sounded like you were saying that Lance not running as fast as the marathoner was proof that VO2max doesn’t matter.
@@runelitecoachhis vo2max when he runs probably isn’t as high as when he’s cycling.
Armstrong was also 30 pounds heavier than Tergat. Take off 30 pounds, and Armstrong would probably have run at least in the 2:30s.
Could be. Guess we’ll never know. And this solidifies even more that VO2 max still isn’t the limiter of performances.
@@runelitecoach I'm sure Armstrong was tested for VO2 max on a bike instead of a treadmill, so you're right that it's different muscular groups or applications and not really comparable.
Lance was also carrying 30lbs more than Paul.
And was also a biker 🚴
vo2 max. good heart but also quality arteries and capiliaries etc
Its all about lots of miles and lte1 and lt2 .
That’s not true
@@runelitecoach threshold running is the back bone of getting to where you wanna be .max work outs shouldnt be attempted unless your lt1 and lt2 works decent, running fast is all well and good but you need a proper trained engine to sustain it
Building volume of easy aerobic training, along with neuromuscular development is the backbone of getting to where you want to be
Guys from 80s doin sub 2.10 marathons didnt over complicate there running . When asked what was key answer was usually lots of 150mile weeks . With couple of easy out and then steady or hard back days which is( lt1 n lt2) more or less .elite Marathon runners for example run well into 90% of races in aerobic state not anaerobic state
VO2 Max doesn't matter when you are doping.
That’s…what?…doesn’t make sense
Tergot ran faster because we weighs 85 pounds. Muscle strength not much help
Exactly the point. Eat better, weigh less. That’s a good start for most runners. And muscle strength definitely helps
Lance didn’t run his marathon when his n7mbers were at their highest.
Cool. Yet he still wouldn’t have come close to the world record so the point remains
You totally lost me once you said anything positive about Armstrong.
Ok
This theory is full of wrong assumptions and conclusions. It's not serious honestly.
Like what?… I mean seriously if you want to debunk what I’m saying, that’s fine, but give us something we can work with here.
High VO2max is useless without a good running economy - how much oxygen your body needs to run a certain pace.
Facts
By your logic, Target would beat Armstrong in a cycling race which we all know wouldn’t happen. What you’re missing is that running and cycling are two entirely different skill sets independent of VO2 Max.
You missed the whole thing. No, by my logic Tergat would get his butt kicked in a cycling race because he hasn’t trained “specifically of economy of motion” for cycling
Armstrong was missing the muscles and connective tissues for running while Target is missing the muscles and connective tissue for cycling.
Lance Armstrong's Vo2max was all because of prolific use of EPO. In no way is he a valid comparison to anyone.
And his 6 hours a day of training had nothing to do with it? This claim is insane. You can blood dope all you want and still not win the Tour de France. Like him or not he trained very well
@@runelitecoach Recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO) induces 10% increments in VO2 max and LT surrogates (ventilatory thresholds) and tends to increase LT power output (5%, p=0·067). Armstrong was nowhere before doping. He was 97th in the general classification when he retired after stage 12 in 1993 and withdrew from three of the four Tours he attempted from 1993 to 1996, not even an average pro, and he did no more training than the average pro. Do not forget, EPO was just one of the many substances he used.
Cringe….
Ooo the cringe 😬