Posted: August 12, 2005

Science of Sport: Being Practical With vVO2Max

By Owen Anderson, Ph. D. (Copyright © 2004-2005)

As you may well know, your running velocity at VO2max (aka your vVO2max) can be estimated by means of a simple, all-out, six-minute run on the track (or measured course). Once your average pace from this six-minute test is calculated, you can use the speed to carry out interval workouts, with the intensity of each work interval set specifically at vVO2max (your tempo from the test).

Thanks to pioneering efforts by Veronique Billat, the time lengths of these work intervals are usually set at 30 seconds, 60 seconds, and 180 seconds, with the ultimate vVO2max workout consisting of 5 X 3 minutes (180 seconds) at vVO2max, with three-minute jog recoveries (recovery times are almost always equal to the work-interval durations). Veronique has shown that average oxygen-consumption rates are actually similarly lofty when the 30-, 60-, and 180-second work intervals are employed (high rates of O2 consumption during workouts are thought to be particularly advantageous), although the 180-second intervals are considered to be toughest to complete, especially when five of them are packed into one workout. They are also the most race-specific, since there are fewer disruptions of sustained pace within the session. vVO2max is an excellent predictor of race performance at middle and long distances (1), and training at vVO2max is generally considered to be the best way to optimize vVO2max.

Although the Veronique vVO2max formula (30-, 60-, and 180-second intervals at vVO2max) is often considered to be the gold standard for vVO2max-boosting training, there are cases when runners and other athletes may profitably diverge from this tried-and-true path. As an example of this, let’s take a look at recent research carried out by Tim Smith (timsmith210@hotmail.com) and colleagues at the School of Human Life Sciences at the University of Tasmania in Australia (2). In this new investigation, maximal oxygen uptake (plain-old-vanilla VO2max), vVO2max itself, running economy, ventilatory threshold (the running speed above which ventilation rate begins to increase dramatically, often viewed as a surrogate for lactate threshold), and 3- and 5-K performance times were determined in a group of 27 well-trained runners. These 27 subjects were also tested for “Tmax” – the length of time they could actually sustain vVO2max without falling over into a heap. The athletes’ average age was 25, and mean VO2max was 61.4 ml.kg-1.min-1. The subjects were either competitive middle-distance runners, triathletes, or 10-K harriers.

Huh?! If you are a careful reader, you may well be puzzled by that last definition. After all, isn’t vVO2max measured during a six-minute test, and therefore won’t Tmax always be just six minutes? What’s the point of using a six-minute exam for vVO2max if Tmax might be something else – say, eight minutes?

Before total confusion reigns, the important point to remember is that the average Tmax for all of the human runners on planet earth is six minutes; that’s why we use the six-minute test. For the majority of runners, the pace established in the six-minute test will be very close to vVO2max and thus is quite usable for vVO2max training. However, individual runners may have Tmaxs which stray considerably from our six-minute average. In fact, there is good reason to believe that the shortest Tmax in the world is probably around four minutes, while the longest is about 10 minutes. As you might expect, Tmax is not a bad predictor of performance in its own right; harriers with longer Tmaxs tend to fare better in competition than runners with shorter Tmaxs (and similar vVO2maxs). Tmax is in effect an indicator of one’s ability to sustain a scalding running pace.

Note, however, that this darned Tmax situation has the potential to create troubles for some runners who can’t measure their vVO2maxs precisely (in other words - most of us). The “trouble” can come in this way: Let’s say that your Tmax is actually four minutes - but you take the six-minute test. Since by definition you can only handle vVO2max for four minutes, the pace established in your six-minute test will be slower than your true vVO2max, and your subsequent training, revolving around the six-minute exam, will actually focus on a sub-vVO2max intensity, instead of the real thing. The good news is that your training will still be high in quality, and eventually your Tmax should climb toward at least the six-minute mark, especially, I would argue, if you use the longer work intervals (about 180 seconds rather than 30 seconds, for example; the reasoning here is that these longer intervals can compensate a bit for the lower intensity by allowing oxygen-consumption rate to climb). Thus, on subsequent vVO2max re-tests, the pace you establish for six minutes should be closer to your real vVO2max. Naysayers, of course, will argue that although Tmax might climb, the Tmax that is doing the climbing is the one for the six-minute pace, not for the real vVO2max. As far as we know, there is no scientific data available to evaluate these ideas.

Alternately, if your Tmax is really 10 minutes and you take a six-minute test, you will probably run faster than your vVO2max during the six-minute effort, and your subsequent training will be above your real-live vVO2max, with unknown effects on your fitness (one possible – although not inevitable - result is that you won’t be able to perform as many intervals during your “vVO2max” workouts). The good news here is that these sessions might be better at augmenting your maximal running speed (also a good predictor of performance), compared with true-blue vVO2max exertions.

But let’s get back to the study in Tasmania. A very interesting facet of this research was that nine of the runners were asked to complete their weekly vVO2max interval workouts with a work-interval duration of 60 percent of Tmax, instead of the usual 50 percent (remember that the Veronique formula centers on a six-minute test, followed by, ultimately, three-minute work intervals, with three minutes of course being 50 percent of the six-minute Tmax). Nine other Tasmanian runners were required to be even more courageous, with work-interval lengths of 70 percent of Tmax. The nine control competitors completed no work at vVO2max and focused on moderate-intensity, long-duration running. All of the runners were monitored over a four-week period, and the 60-percent-Tmax and 70-percent-Tmax runners completed two interval sessions at vVO2max each week. The “hitch” was that the 60-percent-Tmax athletes performed six work intervals at vVO2max per session, while the 70-percent-Tmax runners conducted “only” five intervals per workout (the idea was that the 70-percenters would compensate for their reduced number of intervals by running longer per interval). In a departure from the classic Veronique method, recovery intervals were twice as long (in time duration) as the work intervals (Veronique favored equal recoveries).

After four weeks (and eight total interval workouts with the intensity set at vVO2max and work-interval length poised at either 60 percent or 70 percent of Tmax), only the 60-percenters improved 3-K race times significantly, enjoying a nice 18-second upgrade, compared with just six seconds of improvement in the 70-percenters and a half-second for controls. In addition, ventilatory threshold and Tmax were significantly higher in the 60-percent-of-Tmax group after four weeks of training but had not improved for the other two collections of runners. Tmax swelled by a lofty 23 percent (50 seconds) for the 60-percenters, and ventilatory threshold moved up by 6.8 percent.

In the 5K, the 60-percent-of-Tmax athletes lowered average finishing times by about 26 seconds after the four weeks of training (from 18:40 to 18:14), while the 70-percent-of-Tmax group was faster by just four seconds (the controls were close-to-10-seconds quicker). However, these differences were not statistically significant, due to extensive variation in performances within the groups.

Why did the 60-percenters fare better than the 70-percent athletes? A key problem for the 70-percent-of-Tmax runners was that they were more likely to be unable to fully complete their work intervals, compared with the 60-percent-of-Tmax group. In fact, the 70-percent-of-Tmax group completed just 86 percent of its required interval time, compared with 96 percent for the 60-percent-of-Tmax group; this meant that the 60-percent-of-Tmax group spent about 768 seconds running at vVO2max per vVO2max workout, compared with just 655 seconds per session for the 70-percent-of-Tmax group. To put it simply, it is very difficult to rack up five complete intervals at vVO2max within an interval workout when the work-interval duration is set at the rather-expansive 70 percent of Tmax; the high intensity of the intervals makes this very tough to pull off. Although reducing work-interval length to 60 percent of Tmax does not seem to be much of a break, it is enough to make the completion of prescribed work intervals more feasible. This is obviously a good thing: The more time one can spend at vVO2max during training (without overtraining), the greater will be the improvement in performance.

The lessons from Tim-Smith’s Tasmanian research? First, four weeks of twice-a-week vVO2max training can heighten Tmax and 3-K performances to a substantial degree in already well-trained runners and does not elevate the risk of overtraining (the runners were monitored closely for fatigue, sleep quality, stress, and muscle soreness to determine whether the high-intensity vVO2max training was pushing them toward the overtrained state). Second, 60 percent of Tmax is a very viable work-interval length for vVO2max training; with 60 percent of Tmax, the runners were able to complete 96 percent of their prescribed work-interval running.

Naturally, we are not surprised by the first lesson: The great power of vVO2max running remains unchallenged. When you choose an intensity for your quality workouts, it is very hard to go wrong with vVO2max. If you are a 3-K runner, you would be wise to consider the completion of two vVO2max workouts per week during the four weeks leading up to the tapering period before your major 3-K competition.

We are happy about the second lesson, because we think it is important to be able to use variability and flexibility when planning one’s vVO2max training. For example, let’s take the case of someone who covers 1510 meters in his/her six-minute vVO2max test. That’s a pace of 1510 meters/360 seconds, or 4.19 meters per second, which is a tempo of 400 meters/(4.19 meters . second -1), or 95.5 seconds per 400 meters. Let’s put the results of this test into table form:

TIME	DISTANCE COVERED
360 seconds	1550 meters
180 seconds	755 meters
60 seconds	252 meters
30 seconds	126 meters

To create this simple table, we simply entered the test results – 360 seconds and 1510 meters – in the first data row. We then calculated the distances required for the Veronique-formula work-interval durations (180, 60, and 30 seconds), first by dividing 1550 by two to arrive at the distance for the 180-second interval, then by dividing the length of the 180-second interval by three to determine the length of the 60-second work interval, and finally dividing the latter by two to get the 30-second interval length.

Easy as pie, or is it?! The runner is now ready to embark on vVO2max training. Usually, a runner does some workouts with the 30-second intervals first, then progresses to some sessions with the 60-second work intervals, and finally begins hitting the 180-second affairs. For the runner described above, then, the first vVO2max workout might reasonably be, say, 12 X 126 meters in 30 seconds each. That should be manageable. After all, our hero(ine) surged for six minutes continuously in his/her six-minute vVO2max test, the one used to establish the right pace for these sessions. Surely he/she can handle 12 X 30 seconds (126 meters) at vVO2max, with 30-second recoveries.

That’s true, of course, but – that 126-meter work-interval length hurts a little bit. It’s an odd distance on the track – a full straight plus part of a turn or a full turn plus part of a straight. It may be hard to make it back to the starting point in time to start the next work interval. Jogging in place for recovery and then blasting 126 meters the other way may not work well, since the “flow” on the track may not tolerate reversals in direction (besides, jogging in place is a very uncomfortable recovery strategy). Finally, how many of us can measure 126 meters precisely?

There’s a solution, though, and it hinges on that tempo we calculated for this runner – the tempo of 95.5 seconds per 400 meters, or about 47-48 seconds per 200 meters. Would anything be lost by starting with, say, 8 X 200 in 47 seconds each, instead of the “Veronique original” of 12 X 126 in 30 secs each? Not a thing, we would argue! Total time spent working at vVO2max would be quite similar in the two cases, and the 200-meter work-interval lengths would be much simpler to manage from a practical standpoint.

When the runner feels confident with these short-interval lengths (and has progressed to about 10 minutes or so of vVO2max running within the workout), he/she will want to graduate to longer-duration work intervals. Using the classic Veronique system, 10 X 252 meters in 60 seconds each would come next. Yikes! How about a much-more-tolerable 7 X 400 in 95-96 seconds each instead? It will work just as well (or better) from the standpoint of vVO2max improvement, and it is much easier to manage. Of course, if the runner is a stickler for the Veronique system and wants to reside a bit closer to 60 seconds, he/she could go for ¾ X 400 and ¾ X 96 seconds, emerging with 9 X 300 in about 72 seconds each. Would there be a bettering of performance in such a case (associated with adhering more closely to 60-second work intervals)? Probably not.

How about the big kahuna – the long-duration work intervals at vVO2max? For the strict Veronique disciplinarian, these would be 5 X 755 meters in three minutes each, but why not shoot for 5 X 800 in 3:11 each (95.5 per 400 pace)? If the runner’s Tmax is really six minutes, 3:11 is just 53 percent (191/360) of Tmax, well within the 60-percent-of-Tmax range which the Tasmanian scientists found so acceptable and profitable (we know from Veronique’s research that setting work-interval length at 50 percent of Tmax works wonders and from the Tasmanian research that putting the intervals at 60 percent of Tmax is also nice, so work-interval lengths in the range of 50 to 60 percent of Tmax should be fine). 800s are also much more convenient and precise to run, compared with odd distances such as 755 meters.

The bottom line? Be flexible with your vVO2max workouts. Don’t hesitate to make them conform to what is easy for you to plan and manage on the track (or on your favorite measured course). As long as you are progressing with your vVO2max sessions (from shorter to longer work intervals, from less time to more time spent running at vVO2max within the workouts, from an occasional vVO2max session to one or two such efforts per week), the gains in your fitness which accrue from vVO2max training will be sizable, and your chances of setting PBs will increase dramatically. ©

References

(1) “Intermittent Runs at the Velocity Associated with Maximal Oxygen Uptake Enables Subjects to Remain at Maximal Oxygen Uptake for a Longer Time than Intense but Submaximal Runs,” European Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 81, pp. 188-196, 2000
(2) “Optimising High-Intensity Treadmill Training Using the Running Speed at Maximal O(2) Uptake and the Time for Which This Can Be Maintained,” European Journal of Applied Physiology, Vol. 89 (3-4), pp. 337-343, 2003

To learn about Owen's running camp in Malibu, California this summer, please visit www.RRNews.com, scroll to the bottom of the page, and click on the running-camp "splash."

Copyright © 1998-2005 by Running Research News

To purchase Owen's new e-book, which contains great workouts for competitive distances ranging from 800 meters to 100K, please go to www.runningresearchnews.com.

To obtain Lactate Lift-Off, Owen's hard-copy book about lactate-threshold-velocity-enhancing training, please go to www.rrnews.com/products.htm.

To download free samples of Running Research News, Cycling Research News, Swimming Research News, and Weight-Loss Research, please visit www.rrnews.com/sample-issues.htm.

To find out how to lose the pounds which are slowing you down, please consider a subscription to Weight-Loss Research (www.runningresearchnews.com).

To obtain back issues of Running Research News on topics ranging from 5-K and marathon training to carbohydrate intake to plantar fasciitis, hamstring troubles, shin splints, ITB syndrome, and running-injury prevention, please go to www.rrnews.com/archive.htm. Please use the search engine provided to look for articles on specific subjects.

To learn about the contents of the latest issue of Running Research News and about upcoming events at RRN, please go to www.rrnews.com/next.htm.