1.5 mile run

[philibusters]

Yes isn't vo2max kind of a genetic/age affected parameter? In other words you're not going to increase it too much without Peds?

VO2max is just your maximal oxygen consumption.

If I had to guess what your confusion is, I would guess you are thinking about your max heartrate which cannot really be improved. If you max heartrate in 190 beats a minute there is nothing you can do that bring that up 200. That said, your heart is a muscle just like your quad or pecs are and if you train the heart to get stronger it can pump more blood each stroke. So if you through your training got your heart 15% stronger so that it could pump 15% more blood which each stroke, you'd have increased your VO2max by 15% because even though your heart can still only beat 190 beats per minutes each beat can pump 15% more blood. It is a little bit analogous to muscle fibers. No matter how hard you train you cannot grow new muscle fibers, but you can make the ones you have a lot stronger.

[philibusters]

There are a number of things that affect VO2Max, but yes you can change it without PEDs. That said, it's not a terribly reliable indicator of performance improvement in and of itself.

Lifting gives you a great analogy. Muscle size is not a terribly reliable indicator of pure strength, but we all know its still useful. Somebody can add muscle and get weaker on their 1RPM lifts if they lose neuromusclar efficiency, become less efficient in their technique, et cetera. Likewise you could improve your VO2max and run slower. But that is going to be rare. Much more common will be the case where you improve your VO2max say 9% but you only get a 3% performance increase because some other factor is limiting performance.

That said, if we were going to pick an endurance duration where VO2max would be most predictive I would think it would be the 12 to 20 minute range because you are either at max heart rate or very close to it (95%+) and the event is long enough that hydrogen ion buildup will somewhat limit the role anaerobic processes can play in energy production. Go longer than 20 mintues and you start to have the issue you have in lifting of 5RPM not predicting 1 RPM. Go shorter and anaerobic systems become critical. So given the duration of the original poster's endurance event improving his VO2max would likely increase his performance (unless some other factor is acting as a limiting factor). But your right, an improvement of VO2max without an improvement in the other running systems may not lead to an improvement, but that is why the original poster was also advised to down a long steady state 30 minute effort and do a tempo--so they improve the other running systems too.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

VO2max is just your maximal oxygen consumption.

If I had to guess what your confusion is, I would guess you are thinking about your max heartrate which cannot really be improved. If you max heartrate in 190 beats a minute there is nothing you can do that bring that up 200. That said, your heart is a muscle just like your quad or pecs are and if you train the heart to get stronger it can pump more blood each stroke. So if you through your training got your heart 15% stronger so that it could pump 15% more blood which each stroke, you'd have increased your VO2max by 15% because even though your heart can still only beat 190 beats per minutes each beat can pump 15% more blood. It is a little bit analogous to muscle fibers. No matter how hard you train you cannot grow new muscle fibers, but you can make the ones you have a lot stronger.

Eh, no- there are multiple inaccuracies here:

- you're conflating many elements of cardiac output here in your analogy
- no- increasing stroke volume by 15% would not necessarily increase VO2max by 15%, despite cardiac output playing a major role in VO2max performance. The relationship is not linear.

[Jordan Feigenbaum]

Lifting gives you a great analogy. Muscle size is not a terribly reliable indicator of pure strength, but we all know its still useful.

This is a reasonable analogy, though a bit of a correction. LBM level is the most reliable morphological predictor of strength, particularly in individuals with equal training (and untrained folks). That said, yes sometimes people with less LBM are stronger on certain tasks. The relationship between LBM and strength (or power) performance is much stronger than VO2Max and endyrance performance.

Somebody can add muscle and get weaker on their 1RPM lifts if they lose neuromusclar efficiency, become less efficient in their technique, et cetera. Likewise you could improve your VO2max and run slower. But that is going to be rare. Much more common will be the case where you improve your VO2max say 9% but you only get a 3% performance increase because some other factor is limiting performance.

I disagree, as multiple studies contradict this notion because:

- there are multiple inputs in performance determination independent of VO2Max
- VO2max plateaus in many individuals while performance increases
- VO2max can regress in many individuals while performance increases
- VO2max doesn't tend to change reliably in elite athletes
- Efficacy for training designed to improve VO2max is lacking

My whole point here is that invoking anything relating to VO2max seems low-yield.

That said, if we were going to pick an endurance duration where VO2max would be most predictive I would think it would be the 12 to 20 minute range because you are either at max heart rate or very close to it (95%+) and the event is long enough that hydrogen ion buildup will somewhat limit the role anaerobic processes can play in energy production.

While I agree that Cooper Test or similar can be used as a field test for VO2max, but the hydrogen ion part is incorrect here as well. That happens much earlier depending on intensity.

[Dotyl9h]

yeah, tldr