St. George Running Center - Run For Life.

Steve I'm just going to try and do a speed workout on Wednesday morning at 6 @ the high school. 800"s....

How did they measure your VO2 max? If it is indeed 86, it means that you run like an elephant, and a really big and clumsy one too. Compared to you, I would be an antelope, if that test was right.

Steve runs like a cheeta after an Antelope! look out!

They tested me on the New Leaf System:

http://www.newleaffitness.com/

I'm not sure how you're coming up with the above assumption? Please explain more. . . I'm curious.

Ed Eyestone was one of the most inefficient runners, and with the VO2 Max of around 85 he ran 13:32 5 K. Right now you are probably around 17:00-17:30 for a 5 K. Your VO2 Max according to the measurement is higher than that of Ed Eyestone. Granted that your running economy right now may not be ideal, but I seriously doubt it is that bad.

If they did not actually measure the amount of oxygen going in and coming out (you need a special mouth piece for that) while you were running all out, this is only a very rough estimate, which sounds like it is much worse that one could get just from your races and workouts. Your VO2 Max is probably somewhere between 55 and 65.

Well, at first I thought either the test was flawed or I'm running way below my potential. Possibly a mixture of both.

However, After reading a bit on VO2 Testing - I'm beginning to think it's not a perfect indicator of how "elite" a runner/athlete is or the potential.

For example you can't say you have a 76, I have a 86 VO2Max therefore I'm going to be faster than you. There's too many other variables.

I'm planning on getting re-tested in about 6 weeks and see how my metabolic rate has changed. The test was set up with "the mouthpiece" and seemed to follow the protocol for a typical VO2 test.

Well, at first I thought either the test was flawed or I'm running way below my potential. Possibly a mixture of both.

However, After reading a bit on VO2 Testing - I'm beginning to think it's not a perfect indicator of how "elite" a runner/athlete is or the potential.

For example you can't say you have a 76, I have a 86 VO2Max therefore I'm going to be faster than you. There's too many other variables.

I'm planning on getting re-tested in about 6 weeks and see how my metabolic rate has changed. The test was set up with "the mouthpiece" and seemed to follow the protocol for a typical VO2 test.

I keep wondering if it would be better for an athlete who does most of their training off of a treadmill to do be tested out on the track or trail with a mobile system (ie you're still running with the mask, but its attached to the system on a cart or is free and radio transmitts the data).

Do you think you would have performed better out on a track or do you think it wouldn't of made much of a difference? (disregarding the 86 score)

Well, at first I thought either the test was flawed or I'm running way below my potential. Possibly a mixture of both.

However, After reading a bit on VO2 Testing - I'm beginning to think it's not a perfect indicator of how "elite" a runner/athlete is or the potential.

For example you can't say you have a 76, I have a 86 VO2Max therefore I'm going to be faster than you. There's too many other variables.

I'm planning on getting re-tested in about 6 weeks and see how my metabolic rate has changed. The test was set up with "the mouthpiece" and seemed to follow the protocol for a typical VO2 test.

Well, at first I thought either the test was flawed or I'm running way below my potential. Possibly a mixture of both.

However, After reading a bit on VO2 Testing - I'm beginning to think it's not a perfect indicator of how "elite" a runner/athlete is or the potential.

For example you can't say you have a 76, I have a 86 VO2Max therefore I'm going to be faster than you. There's too many other variables.

I'm planning on getting re-tested in about 6 weeks and see how my metabolic rate has changed. The test was set up with "the mouthpiece" and seemed to follow the protocol for a typical VO2 test.

Well, at first I thought either the test was flawed or I'm running way below my potential. Possibly a mixture of both.

However, After reading a bit on VO2 Testing - I'm beginning to think it's not a perfect indicator of how "elite" a runner/athlete is or the potential.

For example you can't say you have a 76, I have a 86 VO2Max therefore I'm going to be faster than you. There's too many other variables.

I'm planning on getting re-tested in about 6 weeks and see how my metabolic rate has changed. The test was set up with "the mouthpiece" and seemed to follow the protocol for a typical VO2 test.

Well, at first I thought either the test was flawed or I'm running way below my potential. Possibly a mixture of both.

However, After reading a bit on VO2 Testing - I'm beginning to think it's not a perfect indicator of how "elite" a runner/athlete is or the potential.

For example you can't say you have a 76, I have a 86 VO2Max therefore I'm going to be faster than you. There's too many other variables.

I'm planning on getting re-tested in about 6 weeks and see how my metabolic rate has changed. The test was set up with "the mouthpiece" and seemed to follow the protocol for a typical VO2 test.

There is a lot of variation in the marathon performance for the people with the same VO2 Max, but there is much less in a 5 K. I would say for somebody with a VO2 Max of 86 measured while running to be a 17:00 5 K runner is exceptionally unusual, especially if that person runs regularly. If I were you, I would ask them to double-check their equipment.

I have done a lot of VO2 max testing in the Ex. phys. lab up here at Utah State with Trever Ball. I am pretty sure that some calculations were done wrong, because you would have the highest VO2 max out of any person that I have ever met! Lance Armstrong and Paul Tergat have a VO2 max around 84-85.

You are right about other variables though. For example, Alberto Salazar only had a VO2 max of 71 and was able to run 2:08? in the marathon. Part of the reason was because his Lactate Threshold was extremely high and made up for what he wasn’t able to consume and utilize with oxygen. VO2 max only tells some of the tail. I would guess your VO2 max is probably in the mid 60s though.

James - do you still have access to the lab? If yes, can we have the Fast Running Blog VO2 Max test party sometime?

Since posting yesterday I've continued to do some reading. I think you guys are right - The test must have been done wrong or the reading somehow got botched. a 86 Vo2 Max is even higher that Ryan Hall. It just wouldn't make sense that I would be that high. 60's would be a little more accurate.

Sasha,

I do have some access to the lab and it wouldn't be hard to do it this fall. I don't know if Trever is still the lab assistant or not, so I can find out. If someone really wanted to do a V02 max test we could arrange it. I offered it to the guys up here last spring but no one seemed interested. Those tests are not very fun to do, but they are interesting.

James - I'd like to do one next time I am in Logan, which would probably be the day before TOU. 400 meters at VO2 Max should be a nice pre-race stride.

See if you can get the Logan chapter of Fast Running Blog to do it. My predictions: Paul - 68, Cody and Logan - 65, you and Jon - 63, Dan - 60.

Sasha,

Remind me in a month and I'll see what I can do. You are almost right on with mine (66), but I bet Paul has one a bit higher or his LT is higher than I think it is.

I think James' would be higher than mine. I would predict low 60's for me. Closer to what Jon's would read.

I am curious to how you came up with my prediction Sasha. Should I be faster than I am? Do I run like an elephant too?

James- when did you offer it to us? I think I would have done it...

Cody - your form does look rather inefficient. To back up the visual clues, you struggle with a 32 second 200. Your legs look too powerful to have to struggle to run that if you had decent biomechanical economy. James visually does not appear inefficient. I did wonder, though, why he had to work so hard to run a 76 quarter and a 33 200 in a workout. With his VO2 Max being as high as 66, that now explains it. There is something not so easily seen with a naked eye in his form. With Jon, the way he ran the uphills in Del Sol while still being out of shape aerobically and even a few pounds overweight suggests to me that he is on the efficient side, although still not as efficient as Paul. I anticipate that Paul will be the most efficient of all of you by far. He looks perfect visually, and has very good top speed even though his legs do not appear particularly powerful.

Very interesting Sasha-

I think you may be on to something. I agree that Paul does has the most efficient form and probably the highest VO2 Max. I do think that Jon may be more efficient as well as he seems to hardly work when we run together.

I feel slow and my 200/400 times prove it. What I wonder is whether its lack of fast twitch muscles or poor form keeping me from running sub 30 seconds on a 200. I would say that it is poor form, but I can't pin-point what it is that is wrong with it. Do you know? Do the Logan guys know? They have run with me lots. One thing I do notice is that even with me in pretty good shape right now, I still seem to be working harder than everyone else (in Logan) during our runs and races. My HR is high, my breathing is heavy, and I feel like I am going to die any second (most of the time). I at first thought it was from lack of fitness, but I dont think that as much anymore and now this form question may answer that.

Thanks Steve for letting us take over your blog....

Cody - even a really slow twitch guy should be able to do 12x200 with 200 rest in 29-30 seconds if he is biomechanically OK. Also, if you have very little fast twitch fibers, and can run even one 200 in 32 even it is 100% all out, you would be able to run at least 4:40 for the mile, and you should be able to do 3x1 mile in 4:50 each. I would argue that your hold-back is of a structural nature. In fact, I would argue that almost any male runner that cannot break 27 in a 200 is structurally impaired. Maybe there is a leg length difference, bowed bones, damaged disks in the lower back, etc. But it is not power. Power comes into play when you try to run sub-24. Of course, it is possible for somebody with a lot of power to be stuck at 25 because he is structurally impaired. But I would say 27 is the slowest you can go if you are structurally OK and do not suffer from muscular dystrophy or some other similar disease regardless of your fast/slow twitch composition.

The fix for that is difficult, and in most cases not known to science, or at least not any science that I am familiar with. I do have a goal/dream of developing a science of understanding and eventually fixing structural impairments in runners, though. I am currently looking for somebody with the right equipment/background/desire/interest to help me.

I don't know. I just run.

Paul, if you weren't so busy winning all the time, you would have more time to ponder why you are not winning.

Sasha, why is there never an easy fix? I have followed all that you have tried to do to help your form and have been amazed at your persistence. Now I understand why. It is frustrating to not be able to fix a problem so you just keep at it until you finally do come to a solution.

I need to hit the track and see what I can do all-out one day to give you more accurate data to analyze. It has been a while since I did that.

Is this the most comments ever on a thread?

I agree with Paul- I don't know, I just run.

Form is a very interesting subject. Cody- I think if you could figure out if there is something wrong with your form (and this goes for all of us) it would help to some degree. But running fast is more than VO2 max and form, there is so many other factors and genetics that come into play, it is hard to really pin point things. I think all of us Logan guys have stuff that we can work on, but we are really not too bad.

Sasha- Steve and I have always said that if you weren't always putting on the brakes by sitting back so much you would be freaky fast! I do think if you could learn to run on you toes a little more and push forward with your stride instead of pulling back you would see quite a bit of time come off of your marathons. None the less, you are still very good the way you run, better than me. Form is a relative things, and who is to say exactly how we should run. Running, for the most part, should be as natural as possible, although sometimes we need a bit of help. Michael Johnson is the fastest man ever(that is something that should never even be argued) and everyone always told him he had bad form. But look at what he did, and I have never seen anyone look more relaxed for having the wrong form.

When I measure my VO2 max it was in March when I was just getting into shape, so could even be a bit higher now. I think in an all out sprint I could still run a 26-27 second 200. Back in the day I could run around 24 flat, not bad for a distance kid! I know that my form is decent, but I can work on it. I definitly don't have the spring in my step, or get up on my toes like I did 6-7 years ago. I know that my fastwitch count is about zero right now too, and that has a lot to do with it. I used to be able to dunk a mini ball(never got a big one down) and now I bet I can't get halfway up the net. Everything I do now is completely slowtwitch recuiting.

Steve has just won the prize for the most long and boring comments ever in Fast running blog history!!! Things like this are kind of fun to analyze though, and we all have things that we can do to get a little better, but none of us are genetic freaks that will be setting world records either!

James, what is it that I need to work on in your opinion?

Cody, you can have your form analyzed for $75 at the Logan Hospital- they have an awesome setup there with some special computer software, treadmill, etc.

Jon,

I don't really know because I never pay attention that much, unless it is blatantly obvious or Sasha pricks my interest with his analytical mind. Besides, I am not an expert on biomechanics, I have only had a few classes. I'll tell you tomorrow when I am following you in the 10K.

OK - with all this being said about our VO2 Max. Where does this put us?

I obviously don't have a 86 VO2 Max - but am I wasting my time - thinking in the back of my head that if I keep with it - In a year or two I might be able to bring it down to the mid 2:20's in the marathon? Are my goals realistic to my potential? That's what I ultimately would like to know.

You never know what tomorrow will bring. But if you keep at it. chanches are, you will have success!

some one kill this blog already!!!

James - I have tried every possible reasonable suggestion with my changing my form, including trying to get up on my toes, with absolutely no improvement. I can fake the looks, but I cannot fake the efficiency. I believe the beast is hiding somewhere in the pelvic bones and/or the lower back. I know what a good push off is supposed feel like. I get it when bounding. I also remember what running felt like at 13, and how much worse it felt at 15.

James - if you can indeed hit 26-27 in an all out 200, I would say that your fast twitch count is pretty good. If you were predominantly slow twitch, and you could go that fast at all, with your current training you would have run the DesNews 10 K under 32:00. I think you've lost something biomechanically since college, although it may not be visible in the form.

Jon - I think you need to work on your aerobic endurance for a couple of years very consistently, then you'll be smelling the Trial's qualifier.

Steve - I would more specific ideas if we could measure your VO2 Max correctly, and if we could time you in an all out 100 or 200. It would also help if you raced an honest properly measured 5 K. However, assuming the biomechanical damage since your glory days is either non-existent or still repairable, I think sub-2:20 is a very realistic goal. My intuition does tell me, though, that some damage has happened - with your training you would be running faster by now otherwise.