Smoking parents and VO2 max levels

HS3

I was talking to a friend last week who is what I would call quite a dedicated runner at this stage. He took it up late in life. His marathon times would be around 3:30, 5k = 18 mins and 10k 38 mins. In a conversation with him he says he's taking a break from marathon running to concentrate on his 5k and 10k times but said he wasn't sure how much he could improve by, given that he spend his childhood surrounded by smoking parents. I asked did he really think that has an effect and he was adamant it does.

My parents and grandparents all smoked around us as kids, my mum smoked when she was pregnant on us. I'm a twin and so my brother would have been exposed to exactly the same amount of smoke as me. He chose the healthy life route, me the less healthy (including smoking myself). I don't see how my brother has been effected by smoking parents, but perhaps if he was targeting the same series race times, the limitations might be highlighted.

So my question is can smoking parents, and a smoking mother whilst carrying you effect your VO2 max levels. And can it slow down your progress as a runner in general? Or is it all excuses requiring a prescription of htfu medicine?

ThisRegard

Purely as a non scientific example, my mother smoked and I remember in school during science we done one of those experiments to measure your lung capacity and strength by blowing through tubes to see how high up you can get water up one of them. The teacher reckoned if you're a smoker or passive smoker it would be obvious, and I know she thought I was a smoker as she said it to me one time, I was disgusted. Anyway, I pretty much got the highest mark, much to my delight, suck it Miss Palmer!

Anyway, even if you're a smoker and stop before there's too much damage, don't your lungs pretty much return to how a non smokers are within a couple of years?

El Caballo

ThisRegard wrote: »

Purely as a non scientific example, my mother smoked and I remember in school during science we done one of those experiments to measure your lung capacity and strength by blowing through tubes to see how high up you can get water up one of them. The teacher reckoned if you're a smoker or passive smoker it would be obvious, and I know she thought I was a smoker as she said it to me one time, I was disgusted. Anyway, I pretty much got the highest mark, much to my delight, suck it Miss Palmer!

Anyway, even if you're a smoker and stop before there's too much damage, don't your lungs pretty much return to how a non smokers are within a couple of years?

Yep as does the heart, our body is incredible at repairing damage. Steve Jones who once was the world record holder at the marathon was a smoker at one(age 11-19) time as was Bill Rodgers who was one of the great marathon runners as did Robert Cheruiyot(4 times Boston Winner) and the great Herb Elliott. Not saying smoking is ok as it obviously isn't but our body is incredible at healing as those guys prove in running.

As for been around smoke while still developing, I'm sure there are effects on the lungs and heart but all you can do now is stay away from it and play the cards you were dealt, no point fretting over something you had no control over in the past. We are all shaped by nature and nurture and can only work to improve where we are now. If you actually you are anywhere near your limits now, I can tell you that you're miles away from your potential. Talent may cap your ability but you don't find out where that ceiling is without years of hard work in distance running, in fact, I'd say there is very few if any people out there who actually ever reached their athletic ceiling in terms of potential.

ger664

Anyone able to do 18 for 5K and 38 for 10K that has a 3:30 marathon needs to concentrate on their endurance and not be worrying abut their VO2 Max

HS3

ThisRegard wrote: »

Purely as a non scientific example, my mother smoked and I remember in school during science we done one of those experiments to measure your lung capacity and strength by blowing through tubes to see how high up you can get water up one of them. The teacher reckoned if you're a smoker or passive smoker it would be obvious, and I know she thought I was a smoker as she said it to me one time, I was disgusted. Anyway, I pretty much got the highest mark, much to my delight, suck it Miss Palmer!

Anyway, even if you're a smoker and stop before there's too much damage, don't your lungs pretty much return to how a non smokers are within a couple of years?

That was my understanding. But this guy was fairly certain it will effect his ability to reach his target times and was very surprised I didn't know it. He wouldn't be the type that would shy away from hard work, or to use excuses which is what we me curious .

El Caballo wrote: »

Yep as does the heart, our body is incredible at repairing damage. Steve Jones who once was the world record holder at the marathon was a smoker at one(age 11-19) time as was Bill Rodgers who was one of the great marathon runners as did Robert Cheruiyot(4 times Boston Winner) and the great Herb Elliott. Not saying smoking is ok as it obviously isn't but our body is incredible at healing as those guys prove in running.

As for been around smoke while still developing, I'm sure there are effects on the lungs and heart but all you can do now is stay away from it and play the cards you were dealt, no point fretting over something you had no control over in the past. We are all shaped by nature and nurture and can only work to improve where we are now. If you actually you are anywhere near your limits now, I can tell you that you're miles away from your potential. Talent may cap your ability but you don't find out where that ceiling is without years of hard work in distance running, in fact, I'd say there is very few if any people out there who actually ever reached their athletic ceiling in terms of potential.

No. I'm no where near my potential or limits. I'm at the back of the field in fact But my lungs feel years behind my legs. I just put it down to lack of fitness and needing to slow down. But when he said that I just wondered was there another layer to it.

ger664 wrote: »

Anyone able to do 18 for 5K and 38 for 10K that has a 3:30 marathon needs to concentrate on their endurance and not be worrying abut their VO2 Max

I think he has his training sorted. I wouldn't know enough to tell you the shape of his training, but he's fairly sound on it all. Just this v02 max craziness

ultrapercy

ger664 wrote: »

Anyone able to do 18 for 5K and 38 for 10K that has a 3:30 marathon needs to concentrate on their endurance and not be worrying abut their VO2 Max

My thoughts exactly.

Murph_D

His marathon time is the same as mine, and I smoked actively (not passively) for 37 years. Nothing to do with second hand smoke, I reckon.

HS3

Murph_D wrote: »

His marathon time is the same as mine, and I smoked actively (not passively) for 37 years. Nothing to do with second hand smoke, I reckon.

Can I ask ....just from my own perspective where I smoked too..When did you start running? How long before taking running up did you give up smoking ? Or where you always a runner?

I think he's OK with his marathon time. He just seems to think that his ability to improve his 5k time will be effected by passive smoking as a kid. Like I say, he was talking as this was something obvious that every one knew, but I had never heard it before

Murph_D

Started running one or twice a week on the treadmill at 50, at the same time I gave up the cigs (five years ago). It was about six months before I started running outside. By the time I did the first race I'd been running in some form or another for almost a year. After that I was hooked and started training in a more structured way. I don't know how old your friend is, but I've no doubt he can improve - I'm nowhere near your friend's 5k or 10k time but I'm still pretty sure I can get down to 3:20 myself (if I can only find a cool weather marathon).

HS3

Murph_D wrote: »

Started running one or twice a week on the treadmill at 50, at the same time I gave up the cigs (five years ago). It was about six months before I started running outside. By the time I did the first race I'd been running in some form or another for almost a year. After that I was hooked and started training in a more structured way. I don't know how old your friend is, but I've no doubt he can improve - I'm nowhere near your friend's 5k or 10k time but I'm still pretty sure I can get down to 3:20 myself (if I can only find a cool weather marathon).

Yeah. I think you've just blown his remarks out of the water . Will be interesting to see how he does. I've no doubt he'll give it everything and hopefully he'll prove himself wrong.

HelenAnne

Is VO2 max connected to lung capacity, or is it something else?
I think my lung capacity is really low -- I recently got a peak flow monitor (for asthma) and I'm only just about normal for my age, despite being a runner.
It kind of depressed me when I saw that, but it doesn't seem to affect my running -- I run as quickly as some other women my age -- so maybe that's just normal for me?

aero2k

HelenAnne wrote: »

Is VO2 max connected to lung capacity, or is it something else?
I think my lung capacity is really low -- I recently got a peak flow monitor (for asthma) and I'm only just about normal for my age, despite being a runner.
It kind of depressed me when I saw that, but it doesn't seem to affect my running -- I run as quickly as some other women my age -- so maybe that's just normal for me?

I also have asthma. There are a lot of terms that get bandied about, it all gets a bit confusing. A peak flow meter just measures how fast you can get the air out of your lungs. I'm only about 70% of peak flow for a normal untrained adult. On the other hand I'd have a bigger than average lung capacity, and a VO2 max which indicates I should be able to run much faster than I do. That's all based on lab tests from a long time ago.

VO2 max is a measure of how much oxygen your muscles can use, and how quickly. I don't think it has any direct relationship to lung capacity.

sconhome

HS3 wrote: »

I think he's OK with his marathon time. He just seems to think that his ability to improve his 5k time will be effected by passive smoking as a kid. Like I say, he was talking as this was something obvious that every one knew, but I had never heard it before

It will be more down to his genetic make up of muscle structure and development through early twenties (I think up to ~23 in men)

The balance of fast and slow twitch muscles will be more of a factor than passive smoking. AFAIK once you pass that stage of development it is much harder to remap your muscle structure from one type to another. Its why sprinters don't do endurance (slow) runs as the 'twitchies' don't like it is what I was told.

Firedance

aero2k wrote: »

I also have asthma. There are a lot of terms that get bandied about, it all gets a bit confusing. A peak flow meter just measures how fast you can get the air out of your lungs. I'm only about 70% of peak flow for a normal untrained adult. On the other hand I'd have a bigger than average lung capacity, and a VO2 max which indicates I should be able to run much faster than I do. That's all based on lab tests from a long time ago.

VO2 max is a measure of how much oxygen your muscles can use, and how quickly. I don't think it has any direct relationship to lung capacity.

So what determines lung capacity? I used to feel my lungs were the issue not my legs but have noticed a massive improvement since increasing mileage (yeah, imagine that .) Can we develop our lung capacity by training more or is that something pre determined by genes?

HS3 my dad smoked around us as kids and I was a smoker for 20 years, I do think whatever damage was done can be undone to a certain extent, some very interesting replies coming in from all the ex smokers with great racing times

El Caballo

Firedance wrote: »

So what determines lung capacity? I used to feel my lungs were the issue not my legs but have noticed a massive improvement since increasing mileage (yeah, imagine that .) Can we develop our lung capacity by training more or is that something pre determined by genes?

Lung capacity is genetically predetermined but can be diminished by things like asthma and smoking. Training doesn't increase the size of your lungs, it trains the heart and lungs to become more efficient at transporting oxygen to the muscles and helps improve the muscles ability to absorb and use oxygen faster and more efficiently. This is why your RHR will drop as you become more and more aerobically fit, your heart and lungs don't have to work as hard as things like the amount of oxygenated blood your body can push with one beat (stroke volume) is improved as the heart muscle becomes stronger through training, more oxygen receptive muscles etc.. . The problem with smoking besides the obvious heart and lung damage is that it diminishes lung capacity through irritation which means you will often have trapped Co2 in your lungs when you exhale (that's why they use peak flow meters) which means your ability to inhale a full lung of fresh oxygen is diminished, it's also a stimulant which increases BP and HR and carbon monoxide has a huge attraction to heamoglobin, it sticks to it and prevents them from transporting oxygen around the body which creates an effect like running at high altitude, basically hypoxia without any of the positive after effects for performance.

So basically, that why exercise helps your heart and lungs and the very short term effects that smoking has on your body and performance.

ThisRegard

This thread reminds me of Miguel Indurain who had a lung capacity of almost 8 litres compared to the average of 6, but his VO2 max is not the highest recorded by an athlete, that goes to some other cyclist or cross country skier.

Sacksian

I was a fairly heavy smoker from my early teens up until my mid-thirties and I've only really given up properly (or at least stopped buying them!) in the last year or so. I'd probably still have a smoke if I was out.

As far as I can tell, it has had no impact on my running. I was still smoking when I ran my first marathon and that was sub-3. Having said that, I don't have a very high vo2 max, and my actual vo2 max would be much lower than various calculators would predict given my personal bests.

However, my pbs at 1500m & 3000m are considerably weaker than my pbs at 400, 800 and 5k, despite having only raced 400 and 5k a couple of times. The 1500m and 3000m are more demanding in terms of v02 than either 400m, 800m or 5000m, so I've often wondered if that weakness is a hangover from my smoking days (although it's much more likely to be a function of my training).

Murph_D

How are you doing with the ciggies yourself, El C?

El Caballo

Murph_D wrote: »

How are you doing with the ciggies yourself, El C?

Ha, let's just say I should be taking note of my own posts.

walshb

ThisRegard wrote: »

This thread reminds me of Miguel Indurain who had a lung capacity of almost 8 lites compared to the average of 6, but his VO2 max is not the highest recorded by an athlete, that goes to some other cyclist or cross country skier.

Some Nordic skier. I could be wrong, but LeMond had a higher VO2 than Indurain. It's all genetics. Plenty of obese people with excellent lung capacities.

El Caballo

walshb wrote: »

Some Nordic skier. I could be wrong, but LeMons had a higher VO2 than Indurain.

Some 18 year old TT rider broke the record of the skier last year with something ridiculous like 98. LeMond had a slightly higher score than Indira in alright but Vo2max isn't everything in performance. A guy with great economy or lactate threshold can take down a guy with a huge Vo2 score or vice versa, all 3 together are more important than a single value alone.

Indurain is a complete freak of nature though, think he still tested in the 80's at 50 years old.

ultrapercy

walshb wrote: »

Some Nordic skier. I could be wrong, but LeMond had a higher VO2 than Indurain. It's all genetics. Plenty of obese people with excellent lung capacities.

There's always more, always.