You can’t be a high level endurance athlete without having an upper percentile vo2max though.
You’ll hear guys say “But my one teammate only had a vo2max of 55 and he ran X times, so Vo2max doesn’t matter”. This is still a top 2-3% Vo2max score. You take 50 random people, and have them all race a 3k at their maximum potential and this guy will still most likely win let alone podium.
What about someone with a Vo2Max in the upper average range of 35? 40? Ever heard of any people like that being successful in competitive running?
Yes, you can have a high VO2 max and still be slow. But you don't need a high VO2 max to be fast. 70ml/kg/min with a low bmi isn't high. But it's typical for elite runners and it's typical for a lot of non elites too. But elite distance runners have good speed endurance far better than most.
What I don't understand is why you deny your own abilities?
A Vo2Max of 70 isn’t astonishingly high when you’ve been used to running at a high level or studying athletes that run at a high level, this is correct..
But it’s extremely statistically unlikely to have a Vo2max of 60 let alone 70. If you take a highschool team of 40-50 kids (and remember, the team will already naturally attract kids with some degree of talent, and kids with less than average talent don’t tend to stick around) Statistically, 0-1 kids will have a vo2max of 70 or higher, and 2-5 kids will have a Vo2max higher than 60. Everyone else likely sitting between 40-55 which is still upper average to uncommon. The roughly 0.9% of these kids going on to be recruited to compete in collegiate athletics is no doubt a heavy correlation.
Once you get to D1 athletics, most guys have a Vo2Max of 65-75, with those in the high 50s to low 60s and into the 80s being the new outliers. So for a national caliber athlete, no, a vo2max of 70 is not anything special, but a national caliber athlete is special. These guys will run a turkey trot for sillies, bust a 15:30 and beat 2000 people by at least a minute and call it a fun tempo race on strava. Don’t let the 14:20 11th place finish at conference fool you, someone with a vo2max of 70 is definitely special. Something like 90% of the population sits between 30 and 45. If I remember right, a vo2max of value of 70 is roughly 1 in 1000.
yes but the volume benefits eventually diminish. you don't want to spend months just increasing mileage while jogging. your legs will get sluggish and you will struggle to run with any speed. just make sure you do some strides or maybe put on some 1600m paced running for a minute at the end of your run. mileage is king when it comes to distance or even middle distance running.
"He's been running 75 miles a week... for 20 years... and his 24 minute 5k pb was set in his late 30s? So many aspects of this are quite literally unbelievable."
Agreed. Should take a year or less. I'll like to meet the person though for evidence.
This post was edited 4 minutes after it was posted.
Reason provided:
Quote reply
omething like 90% of the population sits between 30 and 45. If I remember right, a vo2max of value of 70 is roughly 1 in 1000.
there is a difference between 1:1k having a vo2max of 70 and 1:1k having a vo2max of 70 when actually trying to maximize it. Get everyone to run 70mpw for 18 months and drop their bmi down to 22 or so and you will have a lot more people pushing 70. It will still be somewhat rare but I am guessing it would be more like 10% of the young male population.
In the end for any individual the volume of work matters a lot. Doing 3 vo2 max sessions and say 3 hours of jogging and calling it day doesn’t work anywhere near as well as doing 7-10 hours of easy work and 1 hard session for most people. If you start putting constraint like only training 3 hours/week, the value of making those 3 hours harder goes up.
i wud agree with an add; and run as fast as possible (WITHOUT getting injured) the majority (not all) of the time. for most people this pace is harder than easy pace but not as hard as half marathon pace or in some cases not even marathon pace. simply put; below threshold (whatever that is...).
I'm not saying mileage is bad. Low mileage & high mileage approaches have proven successful for certain individuals. However, the reality is high mileage approaches will always be more time-consuming, so why wouldn't athletes opt for a low-mileage approach if it could yield the same results?
I think that's the runner's "sweet spot". I'm 64, I can't handle the volume I did when I was 34 or 24. If I find my sweet and add in some aerobic cross training I can reach my potential at my age.
Yes, you can have a high VO2 max and still be slow. But you don't need a high VO2 max to be fast. 70ml/kg/min with a low bmi isn't high. But it's typical for elite runners and it's typical for a lot of non elites too. But elite distance runners have good speed endurance far better than most.
What I don't understand is why you deny your own abilities?
A Vo2Max of 70 isn’t astonishingly high when you’ve been used to running at a high level or studying athletes that run at a high level, this is correct..
But it’s extremely statistically unlikely to have a Vo2max of 60 let alone 70. If you take a highschool team of 40-50 kids (and remember, the team will already naturally attract kids with some degree of talent, and kids with less than average talent don’t tend to stick around) Statistically, 0-1 kids will have a vo2max of 70 or higher, and 2-5 kids will have a Vo2max higher than 60. Everyone else likely sitting between 40-55 which is still upper average to uncommon. The roughly 0.9% of these kids going on to be recruited to compete in collegiate athletics is no doubt a heavy correlation.
Once you get to D1 athletics, most guys have a Vo2Max of 65-75, with those in the high 50s to low 60s and into the 80s being the new outliers. So for a national caliber athlete, no, a vo2max of 70 is not anything special, but a national caliber athlete is special. These guys will run a turkey trot for sillies, bust a 15:30 and beat 2000 people by at least a minute and call it a fun tempo race on strava. Don’t let the 14:20 11th place finish at conference fool you, someone with a vo2max of 70 is definitely special. Something like 90% of the population sits between 30 and 45. If I remember right, a vo2max of value of 70 is roughly 1 in 1000.
I hear this but I would say that I find the opposite to be more true. I think most amateurs are undertrained & could get better by running more. I think this example is more for the runner maybe in the 40-50mpw range who does every run slow. At that point, sure, they need more workouts because the slow running, alone, won't help them get faster. But they're still not running enough miles to tap out. I've never met someone doing 100mpw who isn't decently competitive.
I think mileage, within reason, is a great place to look for improvement.
Right here- this is the answer. I have a lot of friends who would be considered Hobby Joggers.
They seem to be looking for any way to become a better runner except actually running.
Some of these people run 3-4 days a week at a few miles and trudge through a "long run" at a pace too slow to help and can't figure out why they can't get faster.
Mileage at one's own personal limits- due to physical limitations and time constraints.
I think someone with a demanding job and multiple kids involved in different activities simply can't handle much volume.
Yes and he set it in his late 30s. He runs slower now and complains constantly. He barely races 5k at a faster pace than he does 10 mile training runs.
I think he simply has not guts to get out and run/race fast. Maybe he runs slow because he just doesn't have the guts to hurt.
Simply put- what you're saying about him doesn't make logical sense to people who have been running and competing (most of us since high school and middle school.
I used to run 16:00 on 40-50 mpw just basically going out to run, very few actual workouts.
Simple idea: you do more, you get better. In the broadest strokes and for the broadest folks, this is probably true. Right? We can argue the minutiae of what the "right" volume is and how to find it but I think that it is generally true that increasing volume increases performance. I want to also make sure the discussion is broad because I think too often the training discussions here focus on the elite and for a highly fit athlete focusing on specific race stimulus, generic volume is maybe not as helpful. But for the LESS FIT OR DEVELOPING RUNNER, I think volume really can be the closest thing to a training "magic bullet." But if you disagree, let me hear it!
Also, I originally typed this with "mileage" as the operative word but I think that is an important distinction. I think volume is a better term because it can catch things like cross-training. For the training of runners like Natalie Cook and Parker Valby, many say they are low mileage but I think if you were to look at their training volume it would be rather high, with things like elliptical and alter g.
This post was intended to addresses “the less fit or developing runner”. Not so much the established/elite runners. But it appears the the vast majority of comments here can’t resist getting up on the stage and showing off how much advanced knowledge they possess.
I've been thinking the same thing reading through. Really, there's two discussions here.
I think the OP was talking about recreational runners.
Then again, I remember Bob Kennedy saying that he upped his mileage because he couldn't compete with the best on 80 mpw. THEN, he broke 13:00
Kiptum? At 150 mpw he's probably not improving with more miles. Maybe just faster shoes? lol
True. But those 8 miles as opposed to doing another easy 10 miles in the same amount of total time is going to yield much more benefit.
That has nothing to do with the idea that 8 miles run at an easy pace takes less time than 8 total miles in a workout for a runner who may be pressed for time.
True. But those 8 miles as opposed to doing another easy 10 miles in the same amount of total time is going to yield much more benefit.
That has nothing to do with the idea that 8 miles run at an easy pace takes less time than 8 total miles in a workout for a runner who may be pressed for time.
This was my point and why I tried to make my original post very broad to include people other than elites. It is very easy to incorporate more volume into training and yet for most it can provide a significant benefit. Also I want to reiterate that the additional recovery on subsequent days or after the run is done is another reason why incorporating intensity can be harder than just increasing volume.
Lots of studies have shown that the average recreational and club runner is slower now than they were 40 or 50 years ago. The average runner is unlikely to be doing less intensity, than they were back then. However, their lifestyle now is undoubtedly more sedentary. In the past runners got the low level aerobic stimulus from their everyday life. Walking miles everyday, running upstairs/for the bus/or when they were late for something, work probably involved hours of standing/moving about and lifting things. The modern day runner goes out for a run, and then spends the rest of the day sitting. The 8 to 10 hours of daily movement that previous generations got from their lifestyle, and no longer get, cannot be made up with high intensity. Youngsters or even adults who struggle to run a 5k in the low 20s don’t need more intensity, they need to run more. Adding volume is always going to be a winner, unless of course you are already a high volume runner.
Simple idea: you do more, you get better. In the broadest strokes and for the broadest folks, this is probably true. Right? We can argue the minutiae of what the "right" volume is and how to find it but I think that it is generally true that increasing volume increases performance. I want to also make sure the discussion is broad because I think too often the training discussions here focus on the elite and for a highly fit athlete focusing on specific race stimulus, generic volume is maybe not as helpful. But for the less fit or developing runner, I think volume really can be the closest thing to a training "magic bullet." But if you disagree, let me hear it!
Also, I originally typed this with "mileage" as the operative word but I think that is an important distinction. I think volume is a better term because it can catch things like cross-training. For the training of runners like Natalie Cook and Parker Valby, many say they are low mileage but I think if you were to look at their training volume it would be rather high, with things like elliptical and alter g.
I would argue specificity. In longer races sure, doing enough race-specific work requires some sort of fitness that comes from overall volume, but if someone is running 30-40 mpw and struggling to break 20 minutes in the 5k, the "first line" of advice probably doesn't need to be "Hey, go run twice as much as you currently do and try again."
I would argue specificity. In longer races sure, doing enough race-specific work requires some sort of fitness that comes from overall volume, but if someone is running 30-40 mpw and struggling to break 20 minutes in the 5k, the "first line" of advice probably doesn't need to be "Hey, go run twice as much as you currently do and try again."
Why not? Obviously our runner isn’t super talented by why do you think upping the miles from 30-50 isn’t going to make them 10-20% faster?