How vo2 max relates to fitness

it's genetic wrote:

odd..... wrote:

I understand the distinction, and if you start a thread on it, I'm pretty sure you will actually find I agree. But that's not the thread here, as I keep saying.

Cardiac Output is very much linked to VO2 max. But there are lots of variables. If we can't go through them on this thread, then what will another thread achieve?

Practically unlimited trolling opportunities, Jon.

Luv2Run wrote:

Hmmmmm, this paper (from 2 MDs) says that cardiac output increased after training (albeit in those with CAD).

Cardiac Rehabilitation. Hopefully, none of us here will need it?

it's genetic wrote:

Andrew Coggan wrote:

I worked alongside cardiologists in a world-class medical school for over 10 y. None of them really knew anything about exercise physiology, just as I don't really know anything about, say, congenital heart disease.

It would be good to discuss these issues with a cardiologist who is a long term competitive runner or cyclist.

I have. They all agree with me (as do all of the textbooks in the area):

VO2max is trainable, with anything more than a ~10% increase of necessity being due to an increase in maximal cardiac output. (You can increase your VO2max by up to ~10% simply by widening the a-vO2 difference by that much, but no more, because even an untrained individual already extracts the vast majority of the oxygen from the blood during maximal exercise - IOW, the v in a-vO2diff can only go to zero, and not below.)

You, OTOH, are simply spouting nonsense over and over.

So this guy is a Brit? Or an Aussie? That would explain the trolling.

Andrew Coggan wrote:

it's genetic wrote:

It would be good to discuss these issues with a cardiologist who is a long term competitive runner or cyclist.

I have. They all agree with me (as do all of the textbooks in the area):

VO2max is trainable, with anything more than a ~10% increase of necessity being due to an increase in maximal cardiac output. (You can increase your VO2max by up to ~10% simply by widening the a-vO2 difference by that much, but no more, because even an untrained individual already extracts the vast majority of the oxygen from the blood during maximal exercise - IOW, the v in a-vO2diff can only go to zero, and not below.)

You, OTOH, are simply spouting nonsense over and over.

I'm not disputing increases in fitness. I'm not disputing increases in Stroke volume.

I am disputing increases in Cardiac Output, which has to be maintained for heart health. And this goes on throughout your life. Stroke volumes increase, heart rate decreases. Capillarisation increases, These things necessistate changes in cardiac function to maintain blood pressure.

If you can't discuss the variables, then who is spouting nonsense? Read through the literature and you will see so much disagreement, because the variables aren't understood.

Just saying that increase in Stroke Volume increases Cardiac Output is a misconception that gets repeated over and over.

He's a Brit and a really dumb one.

Whether your maximal cardiac output is 20 liters per minute or 40 liters per minute

It's genetic.

If your Cardiac Output falls, you're in trouble. A healthy heart maintains Cardiac Output.

If this is not understood, then don't argue on the subject until you have got a grasp of the variables.

Luv2Run wrote:

Odd..... wrote:

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.

According to Claude Bouchard's work the trainability of Vo2max has a hereditary component. This may be part of the explanation for why some improve on a training plan and others do not (or not as much).

If you want a deep dive into genetics and trainability here you go

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5688475/

One of the problems of many VO2max tests/testers is that a repeat test or a verification bout is not done to verify that VO2max was attained (no increase in VO2 [above % instrument error] with an increase in workload ... a plateau). VO2max tests do not always show a plateau in VO2, but repeat tests and verification bouts are good for confirming that a maximum VO2 (true VO2max) was attained. A verification bout might be done at 105% of the velocity of the last stage of the VO2max test that didn't show a plateau. If the 105% velocity also shows no increase in VO2 (greater than the instrumentation error), then either the highest value or an average of those two VO2 (last stage and verification bout) is VO2max.

Unfortunately, many testers not not do this, and too many VO2max training adaptation studies have not accounted for this. Too many testers relied on secondary criteria (which are less reliable) to assume that a maximal effort was given and that the corresponding VO2 value is maximal as well. Common secondary criteria: RER, blood lactate, RPE, and max heart rate (within a number of beats of HRmax).

it's genetic wrote:

Whether your maximal cardiac output is 20 liters per minute or 40 liters per minute

It's genetic.

If your Cardiac Output falls, you're in trouble. A healthy heart maintains Cardiac Output.

If this is not understood, then don't argue on the subject until you have got a grasp of the variables.

Proven in your lab.

This group shows the difference, also accounting for biological variability, which can affect training adaptation interpretation. Heredity is probably overstated if measurement error considerations (possibly a comparator group or a prior relevant repeatability study) are not taken into account.

Where did you get this? I see it as plausible as I have seen high level athletes bail on difficult tests in person, but I would like something more than an anonymous internet poster.

Luv2Run wrote:

Shortchanged wrote:

Shorter bailed on his test while Pre raged against the machine. That's why those two numbers should not be brought up constantly.

Where did you get this? I see it as plausible as I have seen high level athletes bail on difficult tests in person, but I would like something more than an anonymous internet poster.

Kenny Moore documented it in his book. Shorter just couldn't get into the test in race mode while Pre did.

it's genetic wrote:

odd..... wrote:

I understand the distinction, and if you start a thread on it, I'm pretty sure you will actually find I agree. But that's not the thread here, as I keep saying.

Cardiac Output is very much linked to VO2 max. But there are lots of variables. If we can't go through them on this thread, then what will another thread achieve?

Can you link to papers, texts, or anything else to support your claims? Both Coggan and I have posted links to peer-reviewed papers to support our points. Both of us could easily pull textbooks off of our respective shelves that support our points. (You would of course dismiss them as being written by exercise physiologists). If you have articles from the Journal of Cardiology or something similar, please post a link.

Also what did an ex phys person do to you? Your broadsides to the profession (I have worked in high performance labs and with a pretty good number of high level athletes as an ex phys) must stem from something.

Oh, if you want to listen or read stuff from a cardiologist, check out Ben Levine.

it's genetic wrote:

odd..... wrote:

I understand the distinction, and if you start a thread on it, I'm pretty sure you will actually find I agree. But that's not the thread here, as I keep saying.

Cardiac Output is very much linked to VO2 max. But there are lots of variables. If we can't go through them on this thread, then what will another thread achieve?

"Linked"????? It is one of the variables in Vo2max. Linked is like saying the pig is linked to making bacon. (I do not acknowledge the existence of turkey as a bacon source).

Luv2Run wrote:

it's genetic wrote:

Cardiac Output is very much linked to VO2 max. But there are lots of variables. If we can't go through them on this thread, then what will another thread achieve?

"Linked"????? It is one of the variables in Vo2max. Linked is like saying the pig is linked to making bacon. (I do not acknowledge the existence of turkey as a bacon source).

Are you not aware of Jon Orange and his wild theories?

Wait until he starts going on about homeostasis and thermoregulation. Lance Armstrong on l'alp d'huez and how drugs don't work.

What is there to discuss? You are disputing well-established facts, and with individuals with clearly far more expertise in the area under consideration than you possess. This conversation is as pointless as one between a climate change denier and a climatologist.

Andrew Coggan wrote:

What is there to discuss? You are disputing well-established facts, and with individuals with clearly far more expertise in the area under consideration than you possess. This conversation is as pointless as one between a climate change denier and a climatologist.

Jon has nearly 20 years of experience as an internet troll/expert. He'll tell you what's up.

Luv2Run wrote:

it's genetic wrote:

Cardiac Output is very much linked to VO2 max. But there are lots of variables. If we can't go through them on this thread, then what will another thread achieve?

"Linked"????? It is one of the variables in Vo2max. Linked is like saying the pig is linked to making bacon. (I do not acknowledge the existence of turkey as a bacon source).

Cardiac output and VO2 max are not the same thing. That's what you seem to be missing.

Luv2Run wrote:

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).

When you say and "odd" reading, do you mean too low?

If the stoke volume is very high, you will get a too low reading because of the hemodilution and the low heart rate. You need to induce a plasma shift to get the true VO2 max. Just giving everyone the same testing protocol doesn't take this into account.