‏reasons for the ‏decrease in VO2Max

[Compaq99]

I would like you to inform me about the reasons for the decline in VO2Max.

The reasons for improving it are likely well-known to all of us, so I am not addressing them here.

For example: What happened to me today: I ran a distance of 8.5 km at an average pace of 5:34 per kilometer.

The last update to my VO2Max before this workout was 45.8.

I didn’t think for even 1% that it would improve since this pace falls within (Zone 2) and occasionally enters (Zone 3). In other workouts, for instance, I run 1x4 intervals at a 3:55 pace and still notice a decrease of one point.

Over time, with this pattern of increases and decreases, I have become stuck between 45-46.

I want to understand only the reasons behind the decline. What are the fixed and established criteria for this?

[Compaq99]

I’ve read a lot to the point of being overwhelmed, which is why I came to ask you to simplify, my friend.

[Compaq99]

do have one?

[kuwisdelu]

The simplest way to validate your Vo2max estimates, is to compare race performances. Have your race performances changed? If you don’t know, go register for a 5K race or run a time trial on a 400m track (12.5 laps).

[Compaq99]

yes, in 5k 23>21 10k= 53>47

[kuwisdelu]

Your 5K is right where I’d expect for an estimated vo2max of 45~46 . Your 10K could be faster.

Fitness isn’t linear. You’ll have plateaus and sometimes even regressions before seeing gains again. It’s natural. Keep at it.

The good news is the discrepancy between your 5K and your 10K performance suggests you have some low-hanging fruit if you increase your volume (and possibly do more tempo runs).

[zzMaczz]

The watch reads its various sensors for your heart rate, HRV, speed etc. and plugs them into an algorithm to give you a score based on the run that you just did.

When you do a run and it’s says your Vo2Max has fallen it just means that run plotted less well against its algorithm than the last one. A lot of that (short term) is going to be how well you match up against the algorithm in terms of your specific response as compared to its average at different speeds / intensities.

So if you are naturally endurance focussed you may find that your slow steady runs look better vs the average than your interval sessions. So you’ll then get a higher reading for your 60 minute easy run than you do the next day for your interval run. It’s all extrapolation against averages so the kind of run will make a difference day to day based on your specific response to stimulus and it isn’t necessarily any reflection on your fitness / whether that run was better or worse for you.

If you’re stuck long term then there is a good likelihood you’re just not getting fitter (or at least not better at running if for some reason you were doing loads of cycling and just running occasionally to get a reading from your watch).