so what? wrote:
Cheetahs and racehorses are fast twitch. A racehorse has a VO2 of around 220.
Slow twitch fibers are better able to use oxygen that fast twitch fibers. ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, a slow-twitch dominant athlete will have a higher VO2max. As a cheetah or racehorse is not the same thing as a human, then all else is not equal, so their VO2max isn't really relevant.
John Turtorer wrote:
A low number certainly means a lot. That's why there is not a single 50 on the above chart.
The way people are talking about how meaningless VO2max is will instill hope to a lot of
mielageggggg wrote:
top 0.05%? can everyone train to reach above 65?
I don't know if it fully settled whether all people can elevate their Vo2MAX levels to high levels with sophisticated training or are there genetic limitations that can't be circumvented even with "clever" approach to exercise.
Cycling specialist Louis Passfield from Kent University knows well the relevant literature and dealt the issue in his presentation last year:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUuwBfXDlTs&feature=youtu.be&t=31m36sIt should be emphasized that the figure of 0.05 % for the >70 ml/kg/min figure sounds low as there are people who have extremely high aerobic capacity with no training background. Exercise physiologist Norman Gledhill for instance tested some 1900 men in late 1990s of whom six turned out to have aerobic capacity 50 % above normal with no training whatsoever.
Can't Believe What I'm Hearing wrote:
John Turtorer wrote:A low number certainly means a lot. That's why there is not a single 50 on the above chart.
The way people are talking about how meaningless VO2max is will instill hope to a lot of
a lot of??? runners???
Well why not? It is just a number. Not nearly as important as speed x distance
Those are the only number that count.
Here's a question for all you keyboard warrior experts. Is VO2 max achieved at heart rate max?
If so, explain why?
$100 prize for the best answer.
that's because wrote:
a lot of??? runners???
Well why not? It is just a number. Not nearly as important as speed x distance
Those are the only number that count.
Here's a question for all you keyboard warrior experts. Is VO2 max achieved at heart rate max?
If so, explain why?
$100 prize for the best answer.
0/10
Aragon wrote:
mielageggggg wrote:top 0.05%? can everyone train to reach above 65?
I don't know if it fully settled whether all people can elevate their Vo2MAX levels to high levels with sophisticated training or are there genetic limitations that can't be circumvented even with "clever" approach to exercise.
Cycling specialist Louis Passfield from Kent University knows well the relevant literature and dealt the issue in his presentation last year:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iUuwBfXDlTs&feature=youtu.be&t=31m36sIt should be emphasized that the figure of 0.05 % for the >70 ml/kg/min figure sounds low as there are people who have extremely high aerobic capacity with no training background. Exercise physiologist Norman Gledhill for instance tested some 1900 men in late 1990s of whom six turned out to have aerobic capacity 50 % above normal with no training whatsoever.
The second group mentioned, the Hickman study, might have improved just as much with a less brutal training regime? After all the tests usually incorporate sustained measurements as Sage said yesterday, which you can only do if you train that way too, i.e. sustained VO2 efforst. Sage's test in on youtube and although he only gets up to 68 ml/kg/min he is really motoring.
Not buying it? You don't believe I will give $100 for the best answer?
Well, no one can asnwer the question. I know because I have been asking this question for years and no-one can explain the variables. It's not even that hard a question to answer if you actually bother to study it a bit.
VO2max Madness wrote:
Lance an 84??? I think that might be a little on the drug-induced side...imagine that. 😅
No, he's a slow twitcher with a large muscle mass. As for his EPO and blood bad use, that's what all the top guys were doing. They believed they had no choice if they wanted to win. But his power numbers are the same as your local amateur cycling heroes. Look on strava and you will see.
I don't think Lance was the biggest sporting fraud in history as rojo says. rojo, you woulda done the same for at least a few weeks if you had been a pro cyclist back then. You believe in the efficacy of these drugs just as much as Lance don't you? So there is a disconnect between fantasy and reality going on in both of your heads. Look at the numbers if you don't believe me. I don't hear you going on about Kipchoge being a doper, so why do you believe this stuff is so effective?
And why don't you address this issue? Do you have too much money invested in the dogma or too much pride?
I'm a xc skier and my VO2max tested at 71 at my college's lab.
There is no way that is correct. If I'm actually a 71, then I'm the most under performing runner and XC skier of all time.
I'm guessing calibrations are not done correctly for most of these people claiming they are in the 70's to 80's.
If you test in the 70's and 80's, and I were your coach, I would recommend a big decrease in VO2 max intervals and a big increase in intervals focused on improving your efficiency at faster paces.
If you've got a big VO2max, there isn't much need to work on it more. Improving your endurance through longer, but less intense intervals is probably the way to go.
I have no evidence to back this up, but I improve most when increase the duration of my interval workouts (35-45 mins on time) and decrease the intensity. The races I race are long and rarely require high, short power outputs.
S. Canaday wrote:
Running Economy is everything. That's pretty much it....velocity at Vo2max, velocity at Lactate Threshold, Lactate clearance also.
Sounds like you must have got a score below 70, so now rather than accepting you had to become an ultra-runner because you don’t have the engine to be elite you are jumping on the “running economy†band wagon.
Running economy is important, but, if you don’t have the engine you will never be elite. You need both to be great.
quote]Low score wrote:
S. Canaday wrote:
Running Economy is everything. That's pretty much it....velocity at Vo2max, velocity at Lactate Threshold, Lactate clearance also.
Sounds like you must have got a score below 70, so now rather than accepting you had to become an ultra-runner because you don’t have the engine to be elite you are jumping on the “running economy†band wagon.
Running economy is important, but, if you don’t have the engine you will never be elite. You need both to be great.[/quote]
Derek Clayton also had a Vo2max just shy of 70.
All He Does Is Win wrote:
Incorrect conclusion.
A 2% decrease in time may well be a 6% increase in ability, since it takes exponentially more energy requirement for each time saving.
15 minutes may only have twice the speed of a 30 minute 5k, but will have well over twice the oxygen requirement.
No, according to VO2 max theory, O2 uptake is directly proportional to speed
HardLoper wrote:
All He Does Is Win wrote:Incorrect conclusion.
A 2% decrease in time may well be a 6% increase in ability, since it takes exponentially more energy requirement for each time saving.
15 minutes may only have twice the speed of a 30 minute 5k, but will have well over twice the oxygen requirement.
No, according to VO2 max theory, O2 uptake is directly proportional to speed
On a treadmill without air resistance.
800 dude wrote:
so what? wrote:Cheetahs and racehorses are fast twitch. A racehorse has a VO2 of around 220.
Slow twitch fibers are better able to use oxygen that fast twitch fibers. ALL ELSE BEING EQUAL, a slow-twitch dominant athlete will have a higher VO2max. As a cheetah or racehorse is not the same thing as a human, then all else is not equal, so their VO2max isn't really relevant.
They are not the same as each other either and yet they are in this department, just like human runners.
Point being all fast and enduring animals have high numbers. Humans don't flout that rule.
that's because wrote:
Not buying it? You don't believe I will give $100 for the best answer?
Well, no one can asnwer the question. I know because I have been asking this question for years and no-one can explain the variables. It's not even that hard a question to answer if you actually bother to study it a bit.
So you're the only one who knows, Jon? You win $100!!!!
All he does is win wrote:
HardLoper wrote:No, according to VO2 max theory, O2 uptake is directly proportional to speed
On a treadmill without air resistance.
...Which is where the EPO test alluded to took place
that's because wrote:
Not buying it? You don't believe I will give $100 for the best answer?
Well, no one can asnwer the question. I know because I have been asking this question for years and no-one can explain the variables. It's not even that hard a question to answer if you actually bother to study it a bit.
0/10...again. Yeah....right; offering $100 on an anonymous discussion forum. Like you're really going to pony-up if someone takes you up on your offer. ðŸ˜. Anonymous posters are always pulling corny stunts like this. It's so laughable on anonymous forums. Here's one for you Sam: There was this poster on a medical discussion forum who claimed to be a M.D. and was offering $$$ to correctly answer a question. When someone bit the bait and correctly answered the question, the poster refused to pay the dough and said he was never a doctor in the first place, but just played one TV! LMAO 😄😅😂
He also said the best answer. Meaning one that he thought fitted his theories rather than a correct one.
All you have to do is search Jon's posts and find the "answer" he wants and he'll have to pay up.
from one pocket to the other wrote:
He also said the best answer. Meaning one that he thought fitted his theories rather than a correct one.
All you have to do is search Jon's posts and find the "answer" he wants and he'll have to pay up.
Who the heck is "Jon?" A big shot? Someone special? Or just another run-of-the-mill poster?