Ridiculous VO2 Max Test Results but average college runner

yermemian wrote:

Why would faster 400m speed foreshadow greater cycling success?

Cycling is more variable in terms of power output. Picture doing a 10,000m run on the track, but 6000m of it is at your marathon pace and the other 4000m is at some mix of pace between sprinting and walking. Further, imagine that once you've been gapped by at least 10 meters you are pulled from the race, which is basically how it goes if you lose contact with the pack. Of course that's simplifying it greatly, but being able to accelerate well makes a big difference.

Funny how all of the guys saying high numbers are meaningless are all butthurt by a high number. It's like deep down they know it does matter and are jealous that their 55 isn't going to cut it.

nothing new under the sun wrote:

LeMond was right about this, though. The point was Armstrong's VO2max when doped to the gills was NOT 78.

Why even bring Armstrong up on all of this? He was doped to gills from early on and continued on a cocktail of drugs throughout his career (EPO, HGH, T, steriods, IGF, AICAR, etc, etc.). No one has anyway of knowing what his true VO2max is when you're a CAREER doper like he was. And there was always a fair amount of disinformation spewed on his physiological attributes by his trainers to make him look very special. For all we know, he was a low-level pro turn TdF Champion by high-octane chemical engineering. He was Ferrari's prized lab rat. And with all the chemical warfare done on him, it's nothing short of a miracle that he still "appears" to be healthy in his late 40s.

I'm willing to bet this is the OP

https://m.tfrrs.org/athletes/5495966

because his vo2max was accidentally leaked and when people found out what it was it was damning evidence as cycling, like XC-skiing, requires very high VO2max if you're going to be the best. much different than running for sure.

VO2 is King wrote:

Funny how all of the guys saying high numbers are meaningless are all butthurt by a high number. It's like deep down they know it does matter and are jealous that their 55 isn't going to cut it.

10/10

No no, your Aerobic threshold at 5:40 is fine. That is consistent with your other runs. The other posters need to get their eyes checked because they thought you typed ANaerobic threshold.

VO2 Max GOAT wrote:

AT pace might be a bit off because I did this test a couple days after coming off my two week break