I wondered what a realistic 10k running goal is. To try and work this out I found a Vo2 max predictor using your 10mile bike TT time on a flat course: -4.219 +(0.7727 x 10m tt velocity in metres per second). I haven’t riden any flat tt courses as the local quicker flat ones seem to be the most dangerous ones for traffic, but my quickest time last year on a reasonble sporting course was 24:16 (1456 secs). If my rather poor memory is right 10miles is about 16098meters. 16098/1456 = 11.056 m’sec. This means I have a have a vo2max of 4.32l/min (4324ml divide by my wieght 64kg = 66.52ml/kg).
How acurate is this likely to be?
Using a chart in Tim Noakes ‘Lore of Running’ a 66ml/kg vo2max should roughly equate to a 35-36min 10k(currently high 39-43mins in Duathlons) - Is this a realistic goal? A few coaches have suggested that I have a good build for running (when at peak condition I probably only wiegh around 60-62kg). I guess I need to work some more on running form and at training up my running mucles to be able to run at my vo2max capability.
I guess that are lots of varables that this prediction model doesn’t take into account - such as aerodynamic etc, which make it a poor relative of a proper test. It may be my cycling is quite effiecent (i am a pc user) which I guess would mean my VO2 max would not be as good.
What if any info can I gain from ithis to use to focus my training? or is it relatively useless?
the variation in time due to position makes it not very useful. There are some running VO2 estimation tests you could do on a track that would be more accurate.
IMHO, finding out your Vo2max really is rather worthless. Even if you pay all kinds of money and have it tested in a lab. What are you going to do with the result? If the number is too low for your liking are you going to quit training?
To me it just seems like bragging rights. Now if you are an aspiring pro or olympian you may put a little more stock into it, even then there have been cases of people with average Vo2max who were produced amazing world-class results.
Train hard, keep pushing and see what comes out on the other side.
VO2 max is very important in most endurance sports, but that does not necessarily make it a good predictor espcially for running. Bikes create efficiency for you, so a high vo2 max is likely to mean that you will ride a bike fast. Running is very technique dependent; there are plenty of male xc skiers around 90 ml/kg/min who couldn’t take Paula Radcliff ina 10k.
The point is that VO2 max is an aweful indicator of running ability(I tested at 82 which is higher than some of the best runners ever, and I run a 10k(not off the bike) in a very mediocre 31:40). Use running tests to determine what you might run for a 10k.
I use a tool called a Fitsense when I run. It is similar to devices from Nike and Polar, in which they use an accellerometer attached to you foot to measure your running pace and distance. Fitsense came out with a new feature that takes this data and predicts your VO2 MAX. They have provided a study that shows their method was accurate to about 8%.
FWIW, I ran my data and my runs tend to vary from high 50’s to mid 60’s. I probably wouldn’t break 40 minutes for a 10K at this point. If it were able to show improvement over time that might be interesting, but faster running paces at the same or lower heartrate is ultimately more useful data.
It’s pretty useless. First it’s a prediction. Second there is more to determine running speed than just Vo2max. If that were the case then Derek Clayton should never have held the world record at 2:08:xx, or it could be that Bill rodgers was loafing through his best marathon since his Vo2max values are almost 10 points higher. The athlete with the highest vo2 would always win if it were such a good predictor of performance. Third running economy is important. I don’t care how high your Vo2 is, if your economy is poor, you’ll never be as fast as someone with a lower value but significantly better economy.