How vo2 max relates to fitness

coach double u wrote:

Andrew Coggan wrote:

Having an adequately-high VO2max is a necessary but not a sufficient condition for elite endurance athletic performance.

(My words, although of course I trained with, and hence learned much from, Ed.)

Always cool to randomly see you on these boards, Dr. Coggan.

A MAP or ramp test on the bike measuring only power can determine VO2max with great accuracy as long as you know the riders weight. This can't be done with nearly as much accuracy for runners, which makes a few things very clear.

1. VO2max is akin to the power an engine can produce at the crank, also called BHP.

2. Power at the wheels, WHP, is what matters in the real world for performance.

3. In cycling, the bike is the drivetrain and the differences between one bike and another is relatively small for the sake of this discussion compared to the difference in mechanics of one runner to the next. Therefore, WHP of a cyclist (using a powermeter) can quite accurately predict VO2max (agreeing on the time parameter of VO2max is altogether different) and vice-versa.

4. In running, the body is the drivetrain and the difference in mechanics, joint stiffness, elasticity, etc. varies so much that WHP can no longer accurately predict VO2max and vice-versa.

This is why Frank Shorter can ball out and be world class with a low VO2max (sure he could hold a very high percentage of VO2max too ala Chris Boardman), yet he would have never stood a chance on the bike against someone like Greg Lemond or Chris Boardman whose VO2max was way way higher than Shorter.

So how does VO2max relate to fitness? It depends on the sport. Is it a concentric contraction dominated sport (non or very low impact) or is it a combination of concentric-eccentric cycles (impact)?

VO2max is super important in the non-impact endurance sports like cycling and rowing. It is still very important, but less so in running due to the aforementioned vast differences in drivetrain abilities among the general running population.

it's genetic wrote:

Odd...... wrote:

Well, yes, some people didn't improve, and most did.....what's your point ? The disagreement afaics is between those saying it's 'completely' genetic, and those who say it has a genetic foundation and can be improved by training (even if that's not the major factor). This supports the latter, and not the former.

I'm guessing the disagreement is actually one of semantics, and people not being precise enough in their statements previously, but I may be wrong.

It's not semantics. The problem is that VO2 max has to be properly tested. So it's more of a case of incorrect testing protocol, a cookie cutter testing method that doesn't take into account that if the person being tested is sweating profusely or is not producing enough adrenaline they won't reach VO2 max.

We should really be discussing Cardiac Output, which is not trainable despite what you may read from the ex phys quacks. Cardiologists are paid NOT to give you misinformation about your heart health. Exercise Physiologists can tell you anything you want to hear or anything they want you to believe. That is quackery. If Cardiologists behaved this way they would be out of a job. Cardiologists have to study properly, Exercise Physiologists don't and mostly won't. So there is a HUGE amount of misinformation out there in books, magazines and websites promising you increases in VO2 max if you do x and y training or take drug a or b.

We should also be discussing absolute VO2 max. When you read about a XC Skier with a Cardiac Output of 40 liters/minute, he didn't train for years to get that, it's genetic, he's a big endurance athlete with a naturally large heart and a high absolute V02 max well over 6 liters/minute.

So a 180 pound endurance athlete may well have a 50% higher Cardiac Output and VO2 max than a 120 pound guy. And that's not even taking oxygen economy into account.

Really it's common sense to understand this, which is why I say the stuff that many people say and believe about oxygen uptake is really stupid sh!t, because that's exactly what it is. Mass ignorance spread about by people with poor education on the subject who think they are experts.

Odd..... wrote:

Aragon wrote:

Yes, that is a canonical study about the difference in training adaptation, a paper known and referred to by many researchers interested in the trainability of Vo2max.

I was simply answering the question whether there is literature showing that there can't be improvement in Vo2max with training. Of course it only shows that some didn't improve at all with a given protocol even when some improved significantly, not that there can't be an improvement.

My recollection is that Dr. Louis Passfield for instance has brought up that there are studies in which the response has been on average higher and more when the cohort is significantly lower and the training protocol harder.

But just taking it as given that the maximum is closer to 45 for some people and as high as 90 for others leads almost by definition to the conclusion that there is very little room (or zero) for improvement for some people.

Sure, that makes sense.. I don't think anyone has said that vo2max improves by training for everyone, just that it's not purely genetic alone unlike some others seem to be implying, and it _can_ be a factor.

pr100 wrote:

Bluesky wrote:

Everybody talk about Vo2max or critical power, or lactic threshold, but to me the more important factor in performance

for distance running is still BMI. And this is genetic , it depends from the skeleton , how wide is it at the shoulder at pelvi.

If I'm 1'75 height but have a bigger skeleton, When I m trained with a 8% body fat, my weight will be 69kg.My BMI is 22,53.

My critical power is 300 watt. And my watt/weight ratio is 4,3 W/kg.

Let's take another body type with a little skeleton , when you ll cover it with muscles and tendons you will have a smaller volume and a lighter body, so for the same weight we ll have 57kg. This second runner has the same critical power 300 watt

( and the same we can say for the VO2max) . So watt/ratio is 5,2 W/kg.

And these value gives differents times in races of course. So here we have two runners with almost identical criticl power

and Vo2max but their difference in BMI is what makes the second runner a lot faster than the first one when it comes to

distance running.

Of course sprint and partially 800 /1500 are a different thing.

A guy like Eliud Kipchoge is able to mantain in the marathon about 320 watt. His weight 52KG . Watt/weight is 6,15 W/KG

and gives a 2:01 / 2:02 marathon.

With same watt 320 but a different weight like 60kg . Watt/weight is 5,3 W/KG. Now Kipchoge with the same critical power would be around 2:20 in the marathon.

Well, losing weight (and hence lowering your BMI) improves your VO2 max, all else being equal. Its units are ml per min per kg.

Luv2Run wrote:

[quote]it's genetic wrote:

LateRunnerPhil. You need to do a lot more research.

Cardiac output is genetic, it doesn't increase with training despite what you may read on wikipedia.

In a young person the stroke volume is lower, but the heart rate higher at all intensities and the reverse is true for an older person. This maintians cardiac output and a healthy heart.

The higher heart rate/lower stroke volume of a young person naturally gives them a higher oxygen uptake. Your research will reveal much conflicting information on the subject.

But please be aware that there are researchers whose job it is to save peoples' lives who may be much better informed on cardiology and hematology than the average exercise physiologist and so there is good and bad information available on the subject of oxygen uptake and delivery.

Luv2Run wrote:

A note: Vo2max is the product of cardiac output and a-vO2 difference. Cardiac output is heart rate X stroke volume. The latter being the amount of blood pumped with each beat. A-vO2 difference is how much oxygen can be extracted from the blood--red cells specifically. More O2 can be extracted in a trained person in part because there are more red cells in a trained person (on avg), because of an increase in capillaries in the trained muscles and an increase in mitochondria in those trained muscles.

Luv2Run wrote:

coach double u wrote:

Always cool to randomly see you on these boards, Dr. Coggan.

A MAP or ramp test on the bike measuring only power can determine VO2max with great accuracy as long as you know the riders weight. This can't be done with nearly as much accuracy for runners, which makes a few things very clear.

1. VO2max is akin to the power an engine can produce at the crank, also called BHP.

2. Power at the wheels, WHP, is what matters in the real world for performance.

3. In cycling, the bike is the drivetrain and the differences between one bike and another is relatively small for the sake of this discussion compared to the difference in mechanics of one runner to the next. Therefore, WHP of a cyclist (using a powermeter) can quite accurately predict VO2max (agreeing on the time parameter of VO2max is altogether different) and vice-versa.

4. In running, the body is the drivetrain and the difference in mechanics, joint stiffness, elasticity, etc. varies so much that WHP can no longer accurately predict VO2max and vice-versa.

This is why Frank Shorter can ball out and be world class with a low VO2max (sure he could hold a very high percentage of VO2max too ala Chris Boardman), yet he would have never stood a chance on the bike against someone like Greg Lemond or Chris Boardman whose VO2max was way way higher than Shorter.

So how does VO2max relate to fitness? It depends on the sport. Is it a concentric contraction dominated sport (non or very low impact) or is it a combination of concentric-eccentric cycles (impact)?

VO2max is super important in the non-impact endurance sports like cycling and rowing. It is still very important, but less so in running due to the aforementioned vast differences in drivetrain abilities among the general running population.

I have read the papers on the runners from the early 70s (where the runners were named in the paper which is so freaking cool) where we know Pre's and Shorter's testing values. I have always wondered: Could Shorter's values on the Vo2max test have been wrong? Anyone know if there are other Vo2max test results for Shorter to confirm? This is not meant as being disrespectful to the fine folks who conducted the study, but if I had seen that result based on the other results I would have checked by equipment and then my calculations.

I have worked in a lab that tested high level athletes and every now and then we would get an "odd" reading. My boss is a stickler for getting stuff right so we would run diagnostics and double check things to make sure. We even had an athlete come back once to do the same test over (and got the same value---or at least close enough considering the variations that do occur).

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

it's genetic wrote:

It's not nonsense. Cardiac output is maintained for cardiac health. But if you read through the literature you are going to find a mass of contradictions.

When you read about a XC Skier with a Cardiac Output of 40 liters/minute, he didn't train for years to get that, it's genetic, he's a big endurance athlete with a naturally large heart and a high absolute V02 max well over 6 liters/minute.

So a 180 pound endurance athlete may well have a 50% higher Cardiac Output and VO2 max than a 120 pound guy. And that's not even taking oxygen economy into account.

But in much of the literature you will find this dumbed down to stupid level where many authors write about how some endurance athletes have "increased their Cardiac Output, to over 40 liters per minute"

Nope, it's genetic. They had that CO when they were in their late teens before they started training.

Go on take a look, you'll see the same stupidity repeated over and over in the literature.

Ok, here are the reasons why Cardiac Output / VO2MAX increase in endurance athletes:

1) More stroke volume (30-50% more). Each time your heart beats, you will pump more blood. This is due to increase in recoil capacity, so when the heart stretches and closes when it pumps it pumps much more.

In numbers: Sedentary, untrained people only pump 100 ml of blood per beat, trained athletes pump 150 ml, with world-class athletes above 200 ml. That's a huge difference!

2) Higher blood volume. You can get 15% or more blood volume with endurance training. Red blood cells can increase by 10% - yes, this means a sedentary person will have higher Hemoglobin/Hematocrit values due to their abnormal low amount of blood volume. Since it's a ratio, it suggests they are world-class athletes but in reality they are just really unfit. I had 16.7 HB and 49% HC when sedentary which is around the levels for blood doping, and couldn't even run one mile without stopping.

With training, my RBC count increased, but my blood volume increased even more in relation causing HB and HC to drop.

3) Number of capillaries surrounding muscle fibers increase. Barrel size increases too, which increases blood flow!

4) Aerobic enzymes within mitochondria increase - better oxygen transport.

5) Density of MTC1 and MCT4 increases, increasing transport of glycogen to muscle fibers and removal of lactate/H+ out of them.

There are more reasons, but that should be enough. Do I believe VO2MAX is important? No, not the absolute value. But certainly the speed. Kastor was measured at 81-82 which is insane for a female, yet she was slower than Radcliffe who peaked at 70. Daniels tested 3 females with the same VO2MAX and one ran 8:45, one 8:58 and one 9:13 in the same race. What matters is not the absolute value, but the velocity someone can achieve at VO2MAX (which can be held for around 6-7 minutes).

To increase VO2MAX and the velocity at it you need to train/race at 2k-10k pace (unless you are a complete beginner where just running is enough). Ever wondered why some people, who train the same steady or moderate pace day in and day out don't get faster? Cos it's not enough stimulus to improve VO2MAX.