Random Running Questions

HelenAnne

Testosterscone wrote: »

There is a genetic component to this definitely but the cold would have probably played a part.

Also worth bearing in mind that Vo2 is only one metric (measurement how much oxygen is transported through the blood) it is not a performance indicator. Running economy and many other aspects can be improved and translate to improved performance.

(Also worth pointing out that 35 ml/kg/min is average female figure and that those figures would be classified in the excellent to superior level so wouldn't start cursing your genetics too much )

Thanks! the little app said 'This is average. Exercise can improve it', so I thought it must be low (ie the response sounded like the app thought I didn't exercise).
I'm hoping to get my mileage back up to over 40 miles a week once I recover from Achilles and cold, so fingers crossed I'll keep improving!

(I did the stepping on and off a box for 3 mins test to get the measurement - it's surprisingly tiring! I think it's harder for people with short legs to do )

HelenAnne

TFBubendorfer wrote: »

A VO2max score of 42 isn't that low. Have a look at this table. I don't know your age but you are certainly well above average.

There is certainly a big genetic component it it. In fact, When I started running there were still articles out there that claimed that VO2max is entirely genetic and cannot be modified via training. That turned out to be nonsense, but the fact that there is still a big genetic factor is indisputable.

Hmm, I'm 43, so I suppose it's not bad ... I'd still like it to be higher though. But I suppose it's better to concentrate on race time s/ consistent training etc
Thanks!

(It's amazing how much lower the scores are for women than for me isn't it?)

Sacksian

I got a proper lab test for Vo2 max and similarly was pretty disappointed with the results, despite the fact that I was actually quite happy with the times I'd been running...after reading around a bit, I found this on LetsRun - so the tone is obviously a bit sarky and arch but I think it's a useful reminder of how limited Vo2 and more or less everything other than the times you actually run in races is as a predictor of running capability. I found it quite reassuring!

The basic conclusion is that, across all distances, performance time in other races is the best predictor of performance (r = .95 to .98).

From Letsrun:

VO2 Max doesn't mean anything

The only numbers that matter are the ones that you receive at the end of the race. The most important of these is called place, and is represented as an ordinal. A '1' is the best indicator of your performance. If you get a '1' then you've done excellent. It's no small coincidence that '1' is a homophone for 'won'. Other excellent numbers to receive are '2' and '3'. Not nearly as good as a '1', but by tradition and convention the numbers '1', '2' and '3' are deemed to be the 'supreme ordinals'; that is to say, worthy of gold, silver and bronze, and are segregated from the other ordinals. The rest of the ordinals are represented by the formula: n + 1...(to infinity). There is a direct, inverse relationship between ordinal value and its worth. The closer to the supreme ordinals, the better you've done, the closer to infinity, the worse you've done.

One of the other numbers that matters much more than VO2 Max is time. Time is always secondary to place in it's value. Neither place nor time are given in the gerbil-wheel lab tests conducted by the exercise-physio-geeks. You will only receive them in the experiment that the real experts call competition. Time does not supersede place, but it is a way of comparing the place of two or more experiments from different venues and eras. The juxtaposition of time and place is the business of track statisticians, who, by the way, are also the progeny from the aforementioned failed genetics experiment.

Long ago, time was measured as a fraction of the earth's rotation in base 60: hours, minutes and seconds. It's still expressed as such, however, the predecessors to the exercise-physio-geeks have determined that time should now be measured in terms of the vibration frequency of irradiated Cesium atoms. Your watch has quartz crystals in it that will simulate this experiment for you (without the attendant radiation and disposal problems) and convert the results automatically, presenting them to you in the form of easily recognizable numerical glyphs. No complicated formulae to memorize!

Through complex mathematical machinations, physicists have proven that it is physically impossible for VO2Max to supersede either time or place in value. Physicist Richard Feynman once said, "VO2Max and five bucks will get you a cup of joe at Starbucks."

So far, in the history of sports, not one award has been given, nor has there ever been remuneration for VO2Max results.

There are many other factors that are much more indicative of athletic performance, or the potential for performance, than VO2 max. I couldn't possibly begin to list them all: height, weight, hair color, skin color, shoe size, favorite TV show...the list is endless.

---

What is VO2 max?

Simply put, the oxygen consumption capacity of the body during exercise. It's value is expressed as: Volume of oxygen (O2) consumed, per Unit Body mass, per time interval or: milliliters O2/Kg body/minute. Check that out, two variables and one constant in the formula. Look at the denominator of the formula: Kg body mass. Want to improve VO2 max without training? Lose weight.

At rest, the human body has a VO2 of 3-4 ml/kg/min. According to the exercise physiologists: sedentary individuals have a VO2 max of 40-50. Trained recreational runners 55-65. Competitive runners 65-80, and elite runners 84-92. The truth of the matter is that there are no distinct boundaries separating these groups. Many recreational runners have higher VO2 max (80s) than competitive and elite runners. Many elite runners have lower VO2 max (70s) values than some of the recreational runners.

Take a sampling of runners with PR differences of just 2% in their specialties. For example, that would be three sets of athletes collected together like so:

1) 1500m (3:29.7-3:34.0)

2) 5000m (13:00-13:16)

3) 10,000m (26:57-27:30)

Now fly in exercise physiologists from around the world and geek-out: treadmills, oxygen ventilators, calipers, rectal probes! Collect the data, crunch the numbers and what do you get? Sets of highly-trained runners with similar PRs (2% differentials) with VO2 max values that vary wildly: 10 to 15 percent (sometimes more)! Runners with slower PRs having higher VO2 max. How is that predictive of performance?

As a broad generalization, I'll agree that trained runners will have higher VO2 max than the sedentary. That is called the common sense doctrine. Within sampling sets of like-performing athletes, there is no direct correlation.

92.5 Greg LeMond, professional cyclist
92.0 Matt Carpenter, Pikes Peak marathon course record holder
91.0 Harri Kirvesniem, Finnish cross country skier
90.0 Bjørn Die, Norwegian cross country skier
88.0 Miguel Indurain, professional cyclist
87.4 Marius Bakken, Norwegian 5k record holder
85.0 Dave Bedford, 10k world record
85.0 John Ngugi World XC Champion
84.4 Steve Prefontaine,US runner
84.3 "Physiologist in training," 15:12/30:55 runner
84.0 Lance Armstrong, professional cyclist
82.7 Gary Tuttle, US runner
82.0 Kip Keino, Olympic 1500 champion
81.1 Craig Virgin, twice World cross country champ
81.0 Jim Ryun, US miler WR holder
80.1 Steve Scott, US miler 3:47
79.4 "Runningart2004," 15:43 5k runner
78.6 Joan Benoit, 1984 Olympic Marathon Champion
78.5 Bill Rodgers, 2:09:27 marathoner
77.4 Don Kardong, 2:11:15 marathoner
77.0 Sebastian Coe. WR mile, 1500
76.6 John Landy, WR miler
76.0 Alberto Salazar, 2:08:51 marathoner
74.3 Amby Burfoot, US marathoner
74.4 Johnny Halberstadt, 2:11:44 marathoner
74.2 Kenny Moore, US marathoner 2:11:36
73.5 Grete Waitz, Norwegian Marathon runner
73.3 Bruce Fordyce ultramarathoner
73.0 Jeff Galloway, US snake oil salesman
73.0 Buddy Edelen, 2:14:28 world record marathoner (1963)
72.8 Jarmila Krotochvilova,Czech Olympian 400M/800M winner
72.3 Peter Snell, Olympic champion
72.0 Zithulele Sinqe, 2:08:05 marathoner
71.3 Frank Shorter, US Olympic Marathon winner
71.2 Ingrid Kristiansen, ex-Marathon World Record Holder
71.0 Paula Ivan, Russian Olympic 1500M Record Holder
70.3 Willie Mtolo, 2:08:15 marathoner
69.7 Derek Clayton, Australian ex-Marathon World Record holder 2:08:35
67.2 Rosa Mota, Marathon runner

---

RUNNING PREDICTS RUNNING BETTER THAN PHYSIOLOGY (a duh? moment here)

Noakes, T. D., Myburgh, K. H., & Schall, R. (1990). Peak treadmill running velocity during VO2max test predicts running performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 8, 35-45.

Marathon runners (N = 20) and ultra-marathoners (N = 23) were tested for VO2max, peak treadmill running velocity, velocity at lactate turnpoint, and VO2 at 16 km/h using an incremental (1 min) treadmill test.

Results. Race times at 10, 21.1, and 42.2 km of the specialist marathoners were faster than those of the ultra-marathoners, however, only the 10 km time differed significantly. Lactate turnpoint occurred at 77.4% of VO2max and at 74.7% of peak treadmill velocity. The average VO2 at 16 km/h was 51.2 ml/kg/min which represented 78.5% of VO2max.

For all distances, performance time in other races was the best predictor of performance (r = .95 to .98).

The best laboratory predictors were: (a) peak treadmill running velocity (r = -.89 to -.94); (b) running velocity at lactate turnpoint (r = -.91 to -.93); and (c) fractional use of VO2max at 16 km/h (r = .86 to .90). The predictive value of the lactate turnpoint measure increased as the distance increased.

The poorest predictors were: VO2max (r = -.55 to -.81) and VO2 at 16 km/h (r = .40 to .45).

Conclusion. There may be no unique physiological characteristics that distinguish elite long-distance (10 km or longer) runners as is often promoted. Other factors determine success in high level sports among exclusive groups of superior athletes.

Implication. Running performance is the best predictor of running capability in elite long-distance runners. Physiological laboratory testing gives less information than does actual performance. Even the fastest speed of running on the treadmill is a better predictor than any physiological measure. This suggests that for at least endurance-dominated sports, actual performances in a variety of performance-specific situations will give more useful information than that which can be obtained in any physiology laboratory test.

HelenAnne

Wow! Loads of info, thanks! Actually, your Let'srun article reminded me of another article I read & liked years ago, so I dug it out:

https://www.runnersworld.com/runners-stories/a20838659/why-science-and-running-dont-always-mix/

V. different in tone but the same message - it's how you race that matters, not what your 'potential' on the Vo2 Max scale is.

***

PS I saw you at Jingle Bells but you looked busy! Thought we'd catch you again after we got out bags etc but we didn't sorry. Was J running? Hope it went well?

Itziger

The only thing I'd query from the Let's Run article is place Vs time. I sometimes run in really low key races here in Luxembourg and on a couple of occasions I've finished second. The same pace and time would have me about 500th in the Valencia 10k last weekend. So, place isn't always the most important.

HelenAnne

Itziger wrote: »

The only thing I'd query from the Let's Run article is place Vs time. I sometimes run in really low key races here in Luxembourg and on a couple of occasions I've finished second. The same pace and time would have me about 500th in the Valencia 10k last weekend. So, place isn't always the most important.

I’d agree with this - I’ve often finished very high up in parkruns or some mass participation races, but in club runner races I’d be much further back.

deisedude

Anyone have experience of training their body to run off fat reserves and be less dependant on carbohydrates for a marathon?

Hearing it mentioned more and more on a few podcasts recently

Testosterscone

deisedude wrote: »

Anyone have experience of training their body to run off fat reserves and be less dependant on carbohydrates for a marathon?

Hearing it mentioned more and more on a few podcasts recently

Personally I would not recommend anyone to try this for a number of reasons.

- Most people who are talking about it these days don't actually know the difference between lipolysis and fat oxidation.

- To properly become fat adapted is not a pretty state of transition. If done correctly it will still take time for your body to reduce level of carbs utilized for energy. Couple that with fact that it is a fine line between getting enough carbs to not negatively affect bodily function vs not having enough that it becomes a fuel source
.
- Most people don't have the leg turnover and anaerobic development to ignore sessions of 5k or faster pace. As such this type of training will yield more benefits for your overall performance and this style of training will heavily utilize carb energy sources.

- The more (good) research that is being done over the last few years into more longitudinal studies are showing that ketosis and carb depletion states tend to have negative implications on long term health.

If you are doing it for performance I think you are looking at the minority to the ignorance of the huge area's of improvement that can be gained.
If you have other reasons such as health, or weight (usually people see show term losses but long term plateau's) I would say that there are alternative ways to improve.

(Just my 2c)

El CabaIIo

Testosterscone wrote: »

Personally I would not recommend anyone to try this for a number of reasons.

- Most people who are talking about it these days don't actually know the difference between lipolysis and fat oxidation.

- To properly become fat adapted is not a pretty state of transition. If done correctly it will still take time for your body to reduce level of carbs utilized for energy. Couple that with fact that it is a fine line between getting enough carbs to not negatively affect bodily function vs not having enough that it becomes a fuel source
.
- Most people don't have the leg turnover and anaerobic development to ignore sessions of 5k or faster pace. As such this type of training will yield more benefits for your overall performance and this style of training will heavily utilize carb energy sources.

- The more (good) research that is being done over the last few years into more longitudinal studies are showing that ketosis and carb depletion states tend to have negative implications on long term health.

If you are doing it for performance I think you are looking at the minority to the ignorance of the huge area's of improvement that can be gained.
If you have other reasons such as health, or weight (usually people see show term losses but long term plateau's) I would say that there are alternative ways to improve.

(Just my 2c)

I think it's important to add on here as well as lot of people don't know this but mileage and training has a huge effect on this already. Running more teaches your body to body to burn fat more efficiently, general adaption to increases in mileage also happen much more quickly and have a higher ceiling of an improvement curve than ketosis. You are talking about very small gains when comparing the effects of fat adaption to training volume.

Mileage is the single best way to improve fat utilisation.

deisedude

Testosterscone wrote: »

Personally I would not recommend anyone to try this for a number of reasons.

- Most people who are talking about it these days don't actually know the difference between lipolysis and fat oxidation.

- To properly become fat adapted is not a pretty state of transition. If done correctly it will still take time for your body to reduce level of carbs utilized for energy. Couple that with fact that it is a fine line between getting enough carbs to not negatively affect bodily function vs not having enough that it becomes a fuel source
.
- Most people don't have the leg turnover and anaerobic development to ignore sessions of 5k or faster pace. As such this type of training will yield more benefits for your overall performance and this style of training will heavily utilize carb energy sources.

- The more (good) research that is being done over the last few years into more longitudinal studies are showing that ketosis and carb depletion states tend to have negative implications on long term health.

If you are doing it for performance I think you are looking at the minority to the ignorance of the huge area's of improvement that can be gained.
If you have other reasons such as health, or weight (usually people see show term losses but long term plateau's) I would say that there are alternative ways to improve.

(Just my 2c)

Cheers for that. Was just curious to see if it worked

Testosterscone

deisedude wrote: »

Cheers for that. Was just curious to see if it worked

Some people swear by it. IMO the people who benefit mostly from it tend to be the ones who make major overhauls to diet and tend to eat a bit more cleanly
(highly processed stuff tends to be heavily carb based so majority of what they are cutting out is simply the crap in there diet as healthy carbs make up a lower percentage of overall intake for many) You could argue that these benefits could be got from simply cutting out the sweets, biscuits, crisps, takeaways and pints and keeping the carbs in place but correlation rather than causation leads to confirmation bias.

The issue with diets is they are restrictive in nature and as such not sustainable for the vast majority. Better to make positive changes that try to stick to a restrictive diet.

Zipppy

Difficult motivating oneself to keep going out in cold dark wet weather..any tips?

vargoo

Zipppy wrote: »

Difficult motivating oneself to keep going out in cold dark wet weather..any tips?

Maintenance mode here, I just go during the day on my days off but for a little longer run than what I'd normally do.

I live in the country, dark, cars, potholes, murderers, feck that. If I come out the other side of winter, the way I went into, I'm happy.

Bananaleaf

Zipppy wrote: »

Difficult motivating oneself to keep going out in cold dark wet weather..any tips?

I've two tips. I alternate between the two.

1. Just don't think about it. Get out there. It's never as bad as you think, unless there is torrential rain or a storm. Keep telling yourself during the day that you ARE going out in the evening. I find it's the days that I consider the idea of not going that I give in and stay on the couch.

2. If you're really not feeling it and you really don't think you will go, get into the running gear anyway. Have a warm mug of coffee. Usually after the warmth of the coffee and the fact that I'm dressed for it, I'm motivated enough to get out and get it done.

HelenAnne

Zipppy wrote: »

Difficult motivating oneself to keep going out in cold dark wet weather..any tips?

Can you run to or from work? I find it much easier to just run home in the rain than to schlep home on two buses and then have to change and head out in the dark once I'm home. If you're a public-transport commuter, running can end up being quicker as well because you avoid the traffic.

Tigerandahalf

I don't mind the cold and wet. The last 3 weeks I have had my runners over a rad after nearly every run. It is so grey these days that it is great to just get out and blow off the bad mood.

I am lucky in that I can run on a floodlit route away from traffic and that is scenic. It makes it very easy to run. I don't envy people having to run on city or town footpaths.

A couple of weeks back the weather was so bad (driving wind and rain) that I decided to try out a local gym and just used one of their threadmill.
Initially I used one of those curved treadmills that has no motor but it killed my calves so did the majority of my run on a normal one.

I see some people have a shed set up with treadmill and other stuff for the wetter days.

Zipppy

HelenAnne wrote:

Can you run to or from work? I find it much easier to just run home in the rain than to schlep home on two buses and then have to change and head out in the dark once I'm home. If you're a public-transport commuter, running can end up being quicker as well because you avoid the traffic.

I walk 2.5k to work..too short a distance to bother gearing up, showering etc..
Also I live near city centre so have a couple routes nearby which minimize crossing etc
Roll on bright weather..

Tigerandahalf wrote:

A couple of weeks back the weather was so bad (driving wind and rain) that I decided to try out a local gym and just used one of their threadmill. Initially I used one of those curved treadmills that has no motor but it killed my calves so did the majority of my run on a normal one.

God I hate gyms..smelly sweaty places...yuk

Tigerandahalf

I hate them too. It was my first time to use a treadmill in about 2 years but it served the purpose.

BeepBeep67

Tigerandahalf wrote: »

I don't mind the cold and wet. The last 3 weeks I have had my runners over a rad after nearly every run. It is so grey these days that it is great to just get out and blow off the bad mood.

I am lucky in that I can run on a floodlit route away from traffic and that is scenic. It makes it very easy to run. I don't envy people having to run on city or town footpaths.

A couple of weeks back the weather was so bad (driving wind and rain) that I decided to try out a local gym and just used one of their threadmill.
Initially I used one of those curved treadmills that has no motor but it killed my calves so did the majority of my run on a normal one.

I see some people have a shed set up with treadmill and other stuff for the wetter days.

I've a treadmill at home and just checked there, I've ran 660 miles on the treadmill this year (22% of my running).
Great for bad weather, especially when I'm running early in the morning and I use it quite a lot for tempo runs and progression runs. I've even ran marathon distance on it.

Bananaleaf

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

I've even ran marathon distance on it.

:eek: :eek:

vargoo

BeepBeep67 wrote: »

I've a treadmill at home and just checked there, I've ran 660 miles on the treadmill this year (22% of my running).
Great for bad weather, especially when I'm running early in the morning and I use it quite a lot for tempo runs and progression runs. I've even ran marathon distance on it.

Are they not hard on the leccy?

ewc78

I use Zwift Run for the treadmill, makes it far easier to pass the time while running on it

Spirogyra

Could a marathon plan contain just 4 days running per week? One long run,one tempo/farlek,one midweek long run and one other ?. I know 5 is the ideal,but my knee is still,even after a number of physio appointments,problematic. Thanks,S

cullenswood

Spirogyra wrote: »

Could a marathon plan contain just 4 days running per week? One long run,one tempo/farlek,one midweek long run and one other ?. I know 5 is the ideal,but my knee is still,even after a number of physio appointments,problematic. Thanks,S

I did my marathon this year on four runs per week for the majority of it. Think there was about 3 weeks where I had to fit in a fifth run of about 5k just to make up the miles.
It suited me doing it this way, and it worked well.

Swashbuckler

Spirogyra wrote: »

Could a marathon plan contain just 4 days running per week? One long run,one tempo/farlek,one midweek long run and one other ?. I know 5 is the ideal,but my knee is still,even after a number of physio appointments,problematic. Thanks,S

If you've a knee problem I'd question doing any sort of marathon block. Sort out the knee before going headlong into a marathon plan.

Bananaleaf

Would people be willing to share their post-long run routines?

What do you do immediately after a long run? Mug of chocolate milk? Straight into the shower? Stretching?

RayCun

Drink of water (usually with some beetroot juice)
Straight into the shower
Then have breakfast

I usually do my stretching first thing in the morning, before running

I used to have chocolate milk after a long run, when I didn't have an appetite for real food, but now I'm fine with a regular breakfast

Swashbuckler

Bananaleaf wrote:

What do you do immediately after a long run? Mug of chocolate milk? Straight into the shower? Stretching?

Immediately chocolate milk or pint of water, then shower, then food.
I really should stretch more often. Rarely do I stretch immediately after a run.

ariana`

Bananaleaf wrote: »

Would people be willing to share their post-long run routines?

What do you do immediately after a long run? Mug of chocolate milk? Straight into the shower? Stretching?

Drink, shower, food, stretch in that order... Sometimes the stretching could be much later ie. that evening in front of the TV when all the rest of the day's jobs have been done... This may not be ideal though i don't know but it's what works for me.

El CabaIIo

If it's cold, I'll have a hot choclate and rice cake straight after
If it's warm, nice cool chocolate milk and 2 iced rice cakes as I struggle with eating proper meals straight after a long or hard run.

Shower and onto the foam roller and then have a proper meal

Some days, I'll have a short nap after a long run if I feel a bit tired