I did that calculator thing and my vo2max is 49. So for my age (35) that falls in the "excellent" category. Greater than 49.4 would be superior. Does that sound right? Is 49 really an ok #?
I mean, technically my fatigue often comes from tired legs (lactate) or mental road-blocks since I don't like to push past the "can't breath great" threshold.
Your 60 is really good though, right?
EDITED!!!! OK, I am not a male...I am a female. Looks like I am "superior" on the female chart. Who would of thunk it? Maybe I need to see what my garmin says....if it's the kind that can track it.
EDITTED again: I did it three more times after making sure I was really resting and got 52 each time on those. Which is just one second heart beat less. And now I've over-analyzed it.
Here is the calculations for a VO2max of 49 and 52:
49
52
Again, the calculation you used to get your VO2max value is crude and not individualistic but it's a good estimate. It says to me you have a high "floor" for your capabilities. You've got the pure speed what you need to focus on is the lactate threshold and running economy (surprise, that's what we're doing in your training plan). So that it makes sense, your max speed is a 6:18 min/mile (could maintain for 2-5 minutes, although I can't maintain mine for much more than 25-30 seconds) and your predicted typical finish times for a HM and M are:
HM - 1:51-2:11
M - 3:55-4:35
Does this mean you could walk out the door and hit these paces? Nope. But it means that you are cardiovascularly capable of hitting these goal times. The more you maximize your LT and Running economy the higher up in the %VO2max you could hit. I put the red zone (elite) on there to show when you maximize essentially everything (VO2max, LT, Running Economy, and Mind) that's where you could end up. However, it takes some serious training and genetic predisposition to get there.
I don't include 5K and 10K predicted times based on %Vo2max because there are a ton of other variables that come into play on being able to maximize that potential.
My 64 VO2max is superior as well and shows that I am genetically predisposed to being a runner. I'll say though that when I started it was around a 48, so it has definitely improved over the years. One thing I'd like to do is break out the old Garmin HR chest strap after the marathon and see where the heart rate variability values fall these days. I wonder how close to the 64 it believes I am.
I also did it like 3 times and each time got in the superior range (just barely), which I find doubtful.
Anyway, I PM'd
@DopeyBadger, but doing the math myself I come up with my potential to be a 7:58 mm. Assuming I did the math right which is a big assumption.
So, that would mean that's like the absolute fastest I could go right? And is that for a mile and then you calculate something else from that for longer distances? I guess that's the part I don't understand exactly. And now my head hurts.
I'm not surprised by your higher than average VO2max because of all of the run/walk training you do is typically very heavy in the pace ranges that improve LT/VO2max.
SAME...except for the emailing Dopey. But yes, thinking that same thoughts you are.
My guess is that ideal conditions and training play a big part in hitting your vo2max paces. Like, I am 5'9" but also 158 lbs. (Ack to type my weight publicly..but we are all being honest here.) I'd imagine someone my height with less weight on their frame would fair better during long distances. I do have a "running-back's hind area" though and I've known this since my college athletic days and it helped me during my best events which were sprints in rowing. So I gotta imagine that's different than someone with different kinds of muscles. I also know my "core" is a bit garbage at the moment. Or at least "for me". Then there's the whole eating perfectly and hydrating perfectly which are all works in progress. And so much more....like people being more injury prone than others and hence more cautious. I'm also only running three days a week. Etc etc.
Yeah, not sure I will ever hit a 19:17 5k even if I tried so very very hard to be "ideal"
But maybe it gives me hope that I can hit that elusive 27 or 26 one of these days.
Signed - Roxy "not a scientist" Mama
That would come into play for running economy. The less of you there is the easier it is for the body to propel it forward. To a point of course, because if you disappear too much then you start to diminish the necessary muscles to do the work to propel forward. I also remember reading a study about how extra weight around the lungs and stomach makes it harder to breathe during exercise because the fat is less moveable during each breathe. It takes more energy to take that breath and thus it's less useful. So minimizing the extra weight around the lungs and stomach makes it easier to breathe and thus helps maximize each breathes potential use for energy.
A 26 minute 5K is around a 75% VO2max at your current fitness level. So the question isn't
if you'll hit a 26 min 5K, but rather
when. The only thing preventing you from hitting that is likely your LT and Running Economy. Which both only become improved with more running. So keep running for the next couple months/years, and consider doing 4x/week running and you'll hit that 26 minute 5K without a doubt. Technically, you don't even need much work at 5K paces, you need more work at 10K-HM paces. Conveniently your upcoming goals of a 15K and HM play right into this and by improving your endurance you'll hit the 26 min 5K without actually training for it specifically.
Signed - Dopey "I'm a scientist, but running's my hobby" Badger
