V02 Max Challenge

[jacob]

VDOT doesn't seem to correct for bodyweight. All other things being equal, schlepping around 20 pounds of additional weight is going to increase running times. Perhaps this is folded into the table under the presumption that everybody is pursuing the runner's physique that is a set of lungs on a pair of thin legs. A rower, say, may have a higher VO2max than their VDOT score running times suggest based on carrying all that muscle in the upper body.

[Scott 2]

I found a thread talking about the relationship between VDOT and V02 max:

https://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read ... ad=3802725

An interesting quote

The relation between VO2max and VDOT is called economy. Daniels and Gilbert created a "generic" economy curve, which represented a kind of average of the subjects tested, not a maximum. Both VO2max and economy can vary widely for the same performance. By combining them, you factor out the variability, and get a steady metric called VDOT.

It's reasonable to think my running economy is poor.

The Cooper test ignores body weight, but would still put my v02 max in the low 40's. Maybe higher if I knew how to give 100%.

[mountainFrugal]

Sub-threshold run PR (not all out effort, but can continue for another 40-60 minutes) of 1:00:49. Threshold would consist of zone 2 going away and I would maintain a more consistent 172-174 bpm. 33 total attempts at this 13km (~8 miler) technical trail workout run with 300 m of gain/loss at ~1350 m (4500 feet elevation). My next best times were in late September and early October of last year (1:02:04 and 1:02:06). I am getting much faster for a given effort and this is at the end of a three week training cycle where I am deeper in the accumulated training red compared to when doing the same efforts last fall. I have been incorporating sprints/strides at the end of my work outs and it is helping to keep my cadence high when I am tired.

All offense intended at that bubble gum music @scott_2 has been listening to . You need something much harder and irreverent if you want to go harder ... try Death By Stereo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9eepYb7Bfrw&t=22s

[Scott 2]

If Death by Stereo will make me run like that, I'm in! Great to see continued improvement.


The further I go down this rabbit hole, the more extreme your runs look. Like I knew they were hard, but I didn't have the experience to understand them.

I had my first day with 300m+ of elevation change yesterday. I was on my bike. It took 34 miles to accumulate. You're doing it on foot, on trails, in an hour. That's wild. There was a segment my Garmin called "hill climb" - about 50 meters in 0.8 miles - roughly a 3% grade. It took me 6 minutes. The average grade of your entire run is almost that steep. If my math is right, you would have easily passed me on that hill.

And that's not accounting for the starting elevation. I still have no comprehension of what working at 4500 feet is like.

[mountainFrugal]

The grade of the run is steeper because it is an up/down lollipop loop. The elevation gain happens in the first 30 minutes, then I descend over a longer distance of rolling terrain for the second half.

And that's not accounting for the starting elevation. I still have no comprehension of what working at 4500 feet is like.

Open invitation to you for a training camp. We have a spare bedroom. I promise you will leave tired. .

[Scott 2]

This is what I'm talking about. Picking up all that elevation in 30 minutes is sick. Your hour loop could be a hard day hike for me.

We're not traveling yet, but I appreciate the offer to train. That's a great opportunity. I'd like to make it out there eventually.

[mountainFrugal]

Same route as above (with slight alteration to avoid some forest service workers), but nose breathing. The top of my zone 1 (Uphill athlete definition) is ~158-160 for nose breathing. I have 159-164 as zone 2 for color purposes, but it has significantly shrunk over the years as mentioned up-thread in the sketchnote. I can maintain this effort for 7+ hours (depending on how hard the +/- elevation profile is). The steeper sections of the run I went into zone 3 (yellow).

[Scott 2]

Thought I'd bump this thread. Some developments on my end:

1. My typical bike ride has been about 10 miles. A few weeks ago I decided to play with making it longer. First 15. Then 20. Then I got lost and went 34. Of course, I hurt my foot. Comes with the territory. I had to back off on trail running, but am resuming longer bike rides. Tripling my range dramatically changes ride variety, as well as skill requirements. There's been a huge path finding effort on my side. Mental growth too. But it also impairs my 5k time and v02 max training.

2. Injury along with a high AQI lead me back to the elliptical. From a v02 max perspective, it is much more effective. While my run times have improved since early Spring, I'm not sure my fitness has. The Garmin says no. And I have yet to reproduce elliptical sessions I was doing 4 months ago. It's just much easier to dose high volumes of zone 2 on the exercise machine. There's minimal physical toll or hassle. No impact, sun screen or blisters to deal with. But it's real boring.


In aggregate - I'm feeling the pull between conflicting goals and priorities. If I want to level v02 max, exercise machine is best. Fun and memories - low intensity bike rides. Ease of access - trail runs. Mixing them? Maybe a ticket to mediocrity. But it's what I'm choosing for now.

[C40]

Well I've gotten really back into bicycling. Been loving it. Riding a lot and focusing on training to improve my fitness. Here's and update on my testing. I don't have a power meter so I use two hills/mountains and ride up alone for tests, then estimate the power with a calculator.

Shorter climb. (1.5km, 7% avg gradient)
Date - Time - power - power/bodyweight
4/17 - 6:48 - 215w - 3.3 w/kg (baseline)
5/06 - 5:53 - 250w - 3.8 w/kg
6/10 - 5:03 - 312w - 4.9 w/kg

(Back when I was racing over 10 years ago, I think I got my 5 minute power pretty close to 6 w/kg)


Longer climb. (9.1km, 5.4% average gradient)
Date - Time - power - power/bodyweight
4/12 - 43:00 - 170w - 2.6 w/kg
5/10 - 35:00 - 240w - 3.6 w/kg
6/15 - 30:05 - 270w - 4.3 w/kg

(back when racing I was probably around 5 w/kg)


This chart is used by bicycle racers to compare power numbers verses means or averages at different racing categories. Nothing is entirely accurate, especially now because I'm estimating my power.
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-UHO30HSQx6E/ ... coggin.jpg


Since I started riding again a few months ago, I've made a LOT of improvement quickly. Some is from getting my bike set up correctly and riding more efficiently, but also my fitness did improve really quickly in those first two months. It's been a nice surprise. I'm not sure how much the quick improvement is from me now having some training expertise (whereas before I rode for many years improving at a FAR slower rate, even though I was young), or how much it is that the fitness came back fast because I had been really fit before. Another change is now that I'm retired and have very few obligations, I can ride however much I deem correct, can take a nap when I want, nothing messes up my diet, etc.

Either way, from here on it will change at a much slower rate. I will test again in July.

[C40]

Ok I tested again for July. Here are the updates. It's good news, better than I expected on the longer climb.

Shorter climb. (1.5km, 7% avg gradient)
Date - Time - power - power/bodyweight
4/17 - 6:48 - 215w - 3.3 w/kg (baseline)
5/06 - 5:53 - 250w - 3.8 w/kg
6/10 - 5:03 - 312w - 4.9 w/kg
7/11 - 4:53 - 322w - 5.1 w/kg

(Back when I was racing over 10 years ago, I think I got my 5 minute power pretty close to 6 w/kg)

Out of curiosity, I just plugged numbers into the first "w/kg to VO2max" calculator that comes up on google, and it says I'm at about 60. At by best 10+ years ago that calculator would say 65. I've never had a real VO2max lab test so IDK if those could be considered accurate.

I don't think you guys should put much stock into calculated VO2max numbers. It's better to only look at directly measured numbers or at numbers easier to calculate. VO2max doesn't really matter anyway for us normal people. It's more related to checking genetic potential of professional athletes. I guess perhaps the calculations/estimations are using a linear formula based on either measured or estimated power output, so for measuring one's own personal improvement, it's not worse than looking at the either measured or estimated power numbers.

Longer climb. (9.1km, 5.4% average gradient)
Date - Time - power - power/bodyweight
4/12 - 43:00 - 170w - 2.6 w/kg
5/10 - 35:00 - 240w - 3.6 w/kg
6/15 - 30:05 - 270w - 4.3 w/kg
7/13 - 28:37 - 288w - 4.6 w/kg

(back when racing I was probably around 5 w/kg)

I would have expected to improve more on the long climb, given how I've been training - doing a lot of base/zone 2 stuff. Now I will start doing more interval work and should continue improving on both climbs over the next couple months. But it will still only be in 10s of seconds on the small climb. 4:30 is about the best I could expect in the long run. On the big climb, I should eventually get to about 26:00.

[Scott 2]

Out of curiosity, I just plugged numbers into the first "w/kg to VO2max" calculator that comes up on google, and it says I'm at about 60. At by best 10+ years ago that calculator would say 65. I've never had a real VO2max lab test so IDK if those could be considered accurate.

High score! How many hours a week are you putting in? Been tracking strength off the bike in any way, to see changes there?

I like v02 max for relative comparison against myself, and as a crude reality check, when taken for absolute comparison. Now that I am fitter, I am finding it less predictive of overall performance. Especially given what might maximize the score can detract from quality of life.

Lately I've been faced with the opportunity cost of endurance training. My strength is suffering, because my energy is elsewhere. Didn't really think about it, until I got back into the weight room. Now I see the 17 year old kids moving heavier dumbbells than me. Not my favorite.

[C40]

High score! How many hours a week are you putting in? Been tracking strength off the bike in any way, to see changes there?

I've been riding from 5 to 15 hours per week. Only a few weks were at the higher end. I'd do more but I'm not quite ready in terms of equipment and my body being used to long rides.

I haven't been tracking my strength or even lifting much lately. In the past, I would only lose strength in the places that I wasn't working. So if I'd continue upper body strength training, I'd lose little there. A benefit of getting really lean and in good shape from riding is an increase in general athleticism - including things like reaction speed, and especially other speed/force related movements (even things you might not think get better, like punching hard)

[ebast]

@Scott2 I could benefit from a modern watch for the reasons you mention and I would also like to get easy elevation stats if I ever get my act together to try trail running seriously. I generally treat any of my desires for buying new electronics sternly as if a adolescent asking for a more expensive guitar ("you can have it after you get too good for the one you have") but maybe it'd be a nice reward for some progress along the way here, and maybe it'd get me a little more progress along the way here. Although, I also have this voice in my head telling me to turn off my targeting computer..

I'd also note using those VDOT tables I referred to, calibration issues aside, all these people casually dropping VO2 maxes in the 50s (or more).. those are really pretty competitive, impressive numbers to me.

Run report (2 weeks in): Pushing 30 miles per week now. slow slow slow. I did all my base period running without thinking about pace and I have forgotten how or lost the habit to run fast.

Web of Goals: Met a carnival roustabout. Got free tomatoes. (separately).

[ebast]

The Shockingly Simple Math Behind ERE-Boosted Boston Qualification on Four Hours a Week

(Note: if you are reading this from the future, please read downthread. I'm not sure this works.)

1. Training to reliably qualify probably requires peak 50-70 miles per week in the training period
   Boston qualifiers (racers) average 1750 miles (and virtually none are under 1000) in the preceding year which averages to 33 miles per week. That's an average which includes the base and training periods and fans of chance might also note this is not the conditional probability I am looking for. But using that as a guide and seeing typical training plans suggests a skew to get somewhere around 50-70 mpw during the training period.
2. Marathon is an oversubscribed event and so Boston Qualification may be easier than it might sound
   Half a million people run one (at least in non-pandemic-inflected years) (n.b. from that report.. picture an average race runner, any race from 5k-ultramarathon. if you said "female pushing 40 years old at least", you're right. 60% of all race registrants are female, and 56% are over 35). Stats are a little different for marathons, which furthermore could qualify as personal fitness's bucket list equivalent of personal finance's "become a millionaire," at least in terms of a goal that seems unimaginably big until you get anywhere near it at which point it seems pretty pedestrian. Thanks to the large number of casual entrants, reaching the top quartile or decile is probably easier than a sport with an actual learning curve. At any rate, amidst this popularity, (conflicting) statistics report that 5-8% broken down by cohort or maybe 12% overall of marathon runners have Boston qualifying times. 5-8% is a little more challenging than the more approachable 12% figure I got on first searching, but well, It's Too Late Now.
3. Marathon is an endurance event primarily dependent on aerobic performance.
   Unlike the fast sort of events Scott 2 talked about running in this thread, I mean the sort you could find yourself actually puking at the end, due to the distance a marathon is run sub or around lactate threshold at a stately pace corresponding to 70-90% VO2max.
4. Marathon training plans are quite polarized, 90% in easier zone 1 & 2 training, often in an alternating day pattern (hard days / easy recovery days).
   The large amount of slower training means background aerobic exercise (cycling etc.) can contribute. The alternation means a 3 or 4 day dedicated running schedule snaps in nicely to cover long and high intensity runs with the remaining recovery runs substituted with background activity. What in the '70s was lots of long slow distance (must add speedwork) and is now polarized (zone 1 & 2) training amounts to training plans that are 90% slow-enough-to-hold-a-conversation runs, with the remaining 10% high intensity. This appears to hold up in in recreational runners.
5. ERE 1.0 car-free lifestyles often provide a background base of potential zone 2 training which could suffice for the easy days.
   Remember that? Going car free?
   
   This may be most applicable and suggestive to folks currently in the accumulation phase as five days worth of commute and lentil runs could easily give you 4-5 hours a week aerobic zone 2 training. I recognize this does not necessarily generalize to the post-accumulation FIRE phase where thanks to physical and digital delivery services there may be few regular trips outside the home and it's a little too easy to manage to never leave the house (you know who you are),
   
   At any rate, it's easy enough to maintain a zone 1 or 2 effort for a bike commute / errand. The big question is whether they are long enough. I have been at times variously blessed with long cycling commutes easily hitting 45-50 minutes one way, or even for a time to a worksite with 800ft climb up dirt singletrack, but I recognize it could commonly require lengthening one leg of the trip. An issue: in commutes and errands exercise is interrupted and while I'm not too worried about quick pick-up/drop-off errands my big question here is how to deal with a 30 minute trip to grocery shop... Both ways, you've got a total of one hour zone 2 training, but inbetween, look, by the time I'm asked to leave for the other customers in line at the cheese samples, my heart rate is back to resting and I am very skeptical two separate 30 minute workouts would be close to as aerobically taxing as one equidistant 60 minute workout. Have not really delved into the research on this yet but may after this season. The minimum 45 minute to an hour length seems pretty important from what I have read, so I would like to get to specific formulae for how to accumulate over discontinuous training sessions and then I can better strategize to optimize my trips correspondingly. Pointers appreciated.
6. During a training season, combining ERE background hours (4-5 hours) with a moderate dedicated training schedule (4-6 hours) imputes to necessary miles per week.
   A full dedicated running schedule of 50-70 mpw, polarized for 90% at a zone 2 pace, would require somewhere in the range of 6-10 hours, depending on specific pace. So 4 hours background ERE-inspired aerobic training + 6 hours dedicated running training should satisfy aerobic training requirements. Open question is how much dedicated running is needed for specific running economy and neuromuscular training. None of the sources I've read take cross-training seriously enough or as a large enough contributor to differentiate minimum requirements. It's almost as if they're not exploring the whole parameter space...
7. During the base season, a short dedicated training schedule (2-3 hrs/week) should maintain VO2-max
   Dr. Iñigo San Millán on The Peter Attia Drive podcast gave a heuristic that two sessions a week (of sufficient dosage--higher performing athletes need longer sessions) should be enough to maintain performance (three to improve).
8. Year-round this averages to 4 hours a week.
   Marathon training plans seem to come in around 18-24 weeks or so. So averaging over a 20-week training season plan of 4-6 hours (the one I am using--more details ensuing--amounts to ~6 hours) dedicated running per week on average with base season of 3 hours (I was getting 20-25 mpw)...
   
   ((20w * 6h) + (32w * 3h)) / 52w = 4.15 h
   
   Peter Attia in Outlive recommends at least 3 hours aerobic workouts (as well as one 30 minute VO2-max). So this isn't so out of line from his minimum allocation for lifelong health.
   
   
   tldr: if you have a hefty aerobic commute or weekly errand schedule, a respectable marathon time may require only modest marginal effort of 4hrs on average a week.

[mountainFrugal]

@ebast - I encourage you to try this hack, of course, but I am guessing that you are going to run into a few problems when you attempt to run at threshold for a qualifying time. Here are some additional things to consider:

You mentioned earlier that you are in your 40s, and I do not know your gender, so either a 3:10 early or 3:20 late for men, or 3:40 or 3:50 for females, are the current Boston Qualifying times. I am not saying you cannot achieve these times on a USA track course, but it seems like you are treating running and cycling as equivalent forms of training. They are not equivalent. While cross-training using cycling is a good thing and can keep things fresh, substituting too much training time with cycling, especially for a threshold run event, is going to be very challenging. The reason is that while the time spent on cardio may be equivalent, running at a slower Z1/Z2 pace also works on the efficiency of your stride by training all the specialized muscle contractions to coordinate together. Additionally, running has a much higher impact, which means you are also training your muscles and soft tissues to be able to absorb that impact, even if at a slower pace. This is especially true on harder surfaces, which most road marathons are. Running at threshold for 3-3.5 hours is going to be difficult if you do not have the appropriate soft tissue training load and muscle impact training. These factors have led to a general rule of thumb of a ~3:1 ratio of miles cycled to miles run. Your additional efficiency on the bike also plays into the overall metabolic response. The number of calories burned per distance, even with harder cycling, is much lower. This will also be a factor that while your heart rate might be elevated for the same amount of time, you are not actually burning the same amount of calories.

If we follow some of the conversions in the links below and you are trying to substitute 4 hours of Z1/Z2 training... depending on your cycling speed... you may be getting much less training load then you think.

For example, riding 20 miles at 15 mph burns 620 calories (20 miles X 31 calories per mile = 620 calories). Determine the running equivalent by dividing the distance (20 miles) by the conversion divider for 15-mph (3.5). The result is 5.7 miles.

This means that cycling 20 miles at 15 mph burns as many calories as running 5.7 miles.

If you rode 20 miles at 20 mph, you would divide by the corresponding number on the table (2.9). The result is 6.9 miles. So, in terms of energy expenditure, riding 20 miles at 20 mph is equivalent to running 6.9 miles.

I am guessing that you are not going to be commuting/errands 15-20 miles for a short/medium length marathon training run equivalent.

https://www.boston-discovery-guide.com/ ... times.html
https://www.active.com/cycling/articles ... vice-versa
https://endurancefam.com/how-many-miles ... e-running/

[Scott 2]

My first 40 mile bike ride. Benefits of a higher v02 max:



Heart rate:


I might not be a mountain biker. Bugs were insane in areas benefiting from the bike. I was not prepared and couldn't really explore. Once in the woods, all I wanted was to escape the mosquitos (ie no dirt single track) and avoid the ticks (ie no grass single track). Gravel was in bad shape too. That felt more dangerous than fun. Ruts, washouts, loose substrate, hilly stretches of 1"+ stone. We've had a lot of rain, and it has not been kind to the trails.

Another go would require coating myself in bug spray, so I can play where the bugs are. I'm hesitant on making that a habit. I am leaning towards well groomed trails, maybe jettisoning the mountain bike entirely. Between the paved bike paths and crushed limestone trails, there's probably 100 miles of options, that don't require any deet.

I like the idea of mountain biking, but zipping around on a hybrid might be more my style. Most of today's distance was on paved paths anyways, getting to and from the woods. The big tires and heavy bike were a hindrance there.

[mountainFrugal]

You are already reaping the benefits of spending some of your time on cardio. Think back to October 2021... would that Scott 2 even think it was possible to do a 4 hour MTB ride?

MTB season is in the spring/fall when things cool down and there are less insects. Put your steed away for the season and revisit later.

[mountainFrugal]

We have brought back the Wednesday Hill Climb Challenge!
We spend 3-4 Wednesday evenings at the same climb and then move to another to keep it fresh. This keeps it fresh while also allowing us to compete against our previous times. It is a mass start that is hilariously chaotic with a number of ~60lb+ dogs thrown in the mix. It feels like a wolf pack at the start! We usually meet up at the top and then have a recovery/conversational pace on the way down.

The run above was right at threshold where a balanced time above lactate threshold (Orange, Z4) and just below (Yellow, Z3). On flat ground it is much easier to maintain a threshold line of heart rate right at threshold (172-174 bpm for me). I spent time in higher heart rates to push that end and then cycled back below threshold, but still going hard to flush all that lactate. THIS HURT VERY BADLY, but PR! Woot!

We have 2 climbs that make up a bulk of the meet-ups:
Longer, steep in parts, less technical - 5.3 km with 640 m (~2100 ft) of ascent (starting at 1495 m, 4902 ft above sea level) - Goal Sub 40:00
August 2022 - 42:38
July 19, 2023 - 41:23
July 26, 2023 - 40:48

Shorter, steeper, more technical - 4.2 km with 534 m (1752 ft) of ascent (starting at 1382 m, 4582 ft above sea level) - Goal Sub 36:00
May 2022 - 37:35
July 2022 - 36:47
2023? - TBD

[C40]

Update with new test results. I've been doing more interval work and it is paying off really well.

Shorter climb. (1.5km, 7% avg gradient)
Date - Time - power - power/bodyweight
4/17 - 6:48 - 215w - 3.3 w/kg (baseline)
5/06 - 5:53 - 250w - 3.8 w/kg
6/10 - 5:03 - 312w - 4.9 w/kg
7/11 - 4:53 - 322w - 5.1 w/kg
8/05 - 4:34 - 350w - 5.6 w/kg


Longer climb. (9.1km, 5.4% average gradient)
Date - Time - power - power/bodyweight
4/12 - 43:00 - 170w - 2.6 w/kg
5/10 - 35:00 - 240w - 3.6 w/kg
6/15 - 30:05 - 270w - 4.3 w/kg
7/13 - 28:37 - 288w - 4.6 w/kg
8/06 - 27:21 - 308w - 4.9 w/kg

I feel I can continue with a lot of intervals and keep improving pretty quickly for another month or two. I feel that the best I'd get on these test climbs is around 400w on the short climb and 325w on the longer climb. My testing power numbers, if estimated correctly, are now very close to my power back when I was racing. A big difference though is that I cannot recover from efforts and do them again many times like I could while racing. After I do one significant anaerobic effort, I'm cooked. I feel my glycogen is depleated very easily. Back when racing, I'd be doing many anaerobic efforts again and again, sometimes with only short/partial periods of recovery (while in the race). That is an important aspect of fitness but something that is more difficult to measure and test. Continuing with more interval work will help this. Thus far, my training was very endurance/base heavy. That side of my fitness is pretty good, while efforts close to and over lactic threshhold are comparably weak.

These power numbers are all estimates. I am in the process of getting an actual powermeter. It's difficult buying specific bike parts like that in the SEA country where I'm currently living.

[mountainFrugal]

Great progress @C40!

It is really a balancing act and working on different aspects of fitness. Max scores could be nice, but like you say, being able to repeat 90% efforts throughout a race might be more important than complete top end. My cousin is really into cycling racing. He said that now his races are determined in the 2-3 minutes that make up a break-away pack. The rest is just riding with a small breakaway group and knowing who your sprinting competition is within that group. When I raced in college we were never that sophisticated with tactics. haha.