The Sub 3:15 Marathon Thread
1 lurker |
330 watchers
Jul 2016
8:28am, 29 Jul 2016
5,713 posts
|
paul the builder
There's three elements at play, isn't there. 1) converting GPS-recorded activity in to a VO2max number 2) predicting (generally) race performance from a VO2max number 3) the 'conversion' within those predictions, especially HM to Marathon. Unless some of us volunteer for lab testing, then we can't really comment on VO2max from Garmin compared to 'real' VO2max. So 1) and 2) are effectively combined, as far as our observations go. Seems like about half the problem is with the 1) & 2) part, and half with the familiar HM > M conversion of 3). At least taking postie's numbers as the example. |
Jul 2016
8:33am, 29 Jul 2016
893 posts
|
larkim
I wonder if the stats about VO2Max and race predictions are sort of the wrong way around. There probably is a correlation between certain VO2Max figures and HM / Mara outcomes, but it would be harder to prove that a certain VO2Max predicts a certain HM / Mara outcome. i.e. 1h18 half runners typically have a VO2Max of 60 isn't the same as people with a VO2Max of 60 can run a 1h18 half. Garmin / FirstBeat are quite confident about their algorithms, but as ptb says you can't really judge that for yourself without having alternative testing methods used and seeing if they all agree on the same VO2Max figure. When VO2Max was being calculated for me via Garmin Connect (now sadly not available as its been switched off for my watch) there was a strong correlation that I felt between improvements in those figures with improvements in my running / fitness. Though whether the artibrary numbers were "lab accurate" I don't know. |
Jul 2016
8:38am, 29 Jul 2016
22 posts
|
GavD
Back from a few days away with kids, so 4 days no running, Im sure it will have done me some good Planning a repeat of my 15 miles again tomorrow |
Jul 2016
8:45am, 29 Jul 2016
1,019 posts
|
jdarun
The numbers themselves must be pretty arbitrary, vo2max is not a great predictor of race times. However the real question is whether maximal performance can be estimated from submax training. Based on the numbers posted it doesn't seem accurate enough to be useful.
|
|
Jul 2016
9:26am, 29 Jul 2016
5,714 posts
|
paul the builder
I think I read in the firstbeat PDF that they claimed accurate to 5%. Which isn't all that good to folk like us, to whom a 5% improvement is a big deal. But for more sedentary / beginnery types, it's probably an OK level of accuracy.
|
|
Jul 2016
10:17am, 29 Jul 2016
3,049 posts
|
lunaman
I did a VO2 max lab test a few years ago as part of a pine bark extract study, but never really understood the point apart from the admiring gasps from your friends. More useful if you're already maxed out in terms of training, but yes, for most of us there's just so much more training to be done before we need to worry about a potential limit to our performance. And fewer pies to eat.
|
Jul 2016
10:34am, 29 Jul 2016
2,625 posts
|
Windsor Wool
Always make me smile when I think of you sucking on a big stick while running on the treadmill Luna!
|
|
Jul 2016
10:38am, 29 Jul 2016
3,050 posts
|
lunaman
And they kept stabbing me in the thumb as well!
|
|
Jul 2016
11:24am, 29 Jul 2016
1,020 posts
|
jdarun
I did some VO2 max testing years ago when rowing seriously, it was supposed to help identify who had the potential to be really good versus who was never going to make it. But it turned out that one of the best rowers had a relatively poor value and he was still really good, so I'm not sure it helped all that much. Jack Daniels uses something he calls vdot in his book which in theory is supposed to be some sort of vo2max adjusted for running efficiency, which seems in principle more use than a pure measured vo2max anyway. But he only uses it to index the different performance levels, the number itself doesn't really matter much. Eg my number was about 55, meaning I can do a half mara in about 1:24 and should do threshold at 3:56 per km (etc). The pdf of the algorithm linked to a few posts up uses an extrapolation to an assumed age-dependent max HR which is simply bollocks for many (used to be miles out for me, though it's getting closer now I'm getting older). |
Jul 2016
12:21pm, 29 Jul 2016
10,381 posts
|
Bazoaxe
JDA, I listened to something about rowing a while back and one of the coaches was asked who the best rower was. Interesting reply saying Pinsent was far and away the best, but not exactly the most committed. Cracknell however wasn't quite at the same level but was an actual beast and was able to block out pain and get to levels he shouldnt have been able to. This then acted as a spur to Pinsent to then get the best from the genetic advantages he had.
|
Related Threads
-
Sub 3Hr Marathon
Apr 2024
-
The sub 3.30 marathon thread
Apr 2024
-
The sub 2.45 marathon thread
Apr 2024
-
The sub 3.45 Marathon Thread
Oct 2023
-
The sub-5 hour marathon thread
Apr 2022
-
Sub 2:30 Marathon
Feb 2021
-
5:43 Marathon to Sub 5hrs
Dec 2018
-
The sub 4:00 marathon in 2007 club
Feb 2017
-
The sub 5:00/5:30 marathon in 2007 club
Sep 2016
-
Sub 3.05 Marathon Plan / Advise - Help please
Aug 2016
