How vo2 max relates to fitness

When I was younger, my lab measured VO2 was 70.5. This is close to what Frank Shorter’s was. Yet when we competed in a 5 mile road race, he won easily and I finished 40 seconds behind.

it's genetic wrote:

My fitness greatly improved as I got older. I don't doubt that increased stroke volume is involved in increased endurance, but my absolute VO2 max cannot have increased after age 21 or thereabouts.

Prove it by showing the results of the two VO2 max tests you did.

like , science it wrote:

[quote]it's genetic wrote:

My fitness greatly improved as I got older. I don't doubt that increased stroke volume is involved in increased endurance, but my absolute VO2 max cannot have increased after age 21 or thereabouts.

I doubt your fitness got much better, unless you worked out harder.

What got easier as you got older was that your expectation dropped, and while you sort of worked hard, it didn't feel so hard.

:-)

it's genetic wrote:but my absolute VO2 max cannot have increased after age 21 or thereabouts.

Why not?

There are numerous studies demonstrating that older individuals respond to exercise training with an increase in VO2max. In fact, in relative terms trainability doesn't seem to decrease before at least ~70 y of age:

Andrew Coggan wrote:

There are numerous studies demonstrating that older individuals respond to exercise training with an increase in VO2max. In fact, in relative terms trainability doesn't seem to decrease before at least ~70 y of age:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1761503

+15% in 80 y olds:

Andrew Coggan wrote:

it's genetic wrote:but my absolute VO2 max cannot have increased after age 21 or thereabouts.

Why not?

There are numerous studies demonstrating that older individuals respond to exercise training with an increase in VO2max. In fact, in relative terms trainability doesn't seem to decrease before at least ~70 y of age:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1761503

Andrew, are you aware of the basic premise of Jon's theory of improved performance?

it's genetic wrote:my absolute VO2 max cannot have increased after age 21 or thereabouts.

I should add (since we're sharing anecdata) that even though I started training year-round for endurance sports at age 14, my absolute VO2max increased by ~5% between the ages of 21 and 25-34.

To be specific:

5.18 L/min at age 21

5.42 L/min at age 25

5.36 L/min at age 32

5.35 L/min at age 34

(all at 67-68 kg)

He seems to mistakenly believe that VO2max is immutable*, with all improvements in performance stemming from increases in running economy ("skill"). But, I generally don't pay much attention to the comments of the uninformed, other than to try to provide factually-correct information as a counterpoint.

*Just as some well-known exercise physiologists mistakenly believe that exercise efficiency is immutable, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Andrew Coggan wrote:

it's genetic wrote:my absolute VO2 max cannot have increased after age 21 or thereabouts.

I should add (since we're sharing anecdata) that even though I started training year-round for endurance sports at age 14, my absolute VO2max increased by ~5% between the ages of 21 and 25-34.

To be specific:

5.18 L/min at age 21

5.42 L/min at age 25

5.36 L/min at age 32

5.35 L/min at age 34

(all at 67-68 kg)

5% improvement in the test age 21-25 Over 80ml/kg/min. So what were your power outputs? Accurate numbers please, since many power meters seem to be off by a long way.

I'm not doubting the accuracy of the measurements, I'm saying that different results will be obtained from one test to the next for reasons of arousal level and environmental conditions. You mentioned Chris Boardman and he had tests varying from 75-80 in his peak years. Sweating profusely in the lab reduces oxygen uptake does it not?

Andrew Coggan wrote:

He seems to mistakenly believe that VO2max is immutable*, with all improvements in performance stemming from increases in running economy ("skill"). But, I generally don't pay much attention to the comments of the uninformed, other than to try to provide factually-correct information as a counterpoint.

*Just as some well-known exercise physiologists mistakenly believe that exercise efficiency is immutable, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

*You mean Jack Daniels? That argument is easily rebutted by asking an elite runner to ride up a long steep hill or a pro cyclist to run 5000m. They will both perform rather poorly due to lack of specific conditioning. And they would need many days to recover.

I don't believe a sustained high oxygen uptake is immutable. But a high oxygen uptake in an untrained individual would need to be tested with a very specific protocol that allows them to get the heart rate up to max without fatigue.

Not sure if you're aware wrote:

Andrew Coggan wrote:

Why not?

There are numerous studies demonstrating that older individuals respond to exercise training with an increase in VO2max. In fact, in relative terms trainability doesn't seem to decrease before at least ~70 y of age:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1761503

Andrew, are you aware of the basic premise of Jon's theory of improved performance?

You mean the years of conditioning theory? Oh that's not mine it's been around a while. Where have you been?

High absolute VO2 max though, that's a genetic trait.

it's genetic wrote:

Not sure if you're aware wrote:

Andrew, are you aware of the basic premise of Jon's theory of improved performance?

You mean the years of conditioning theory? Oh that's not mine it's been around a while. Where have you been?

High absolute VO2 max though, that's a genetic trait.

Cardiovascular conditioning.

Low absolute VO2 max is genetic too . Everything is.

it's genetic wrote:

5% improvement in the test age 21-25 Over 80ml/kg/min. So what were your power outputs? Accurate numbers please, since many power meters seem to be off by a long way.

I'm not doubting the accuracy of the measurements, I'm saying that different results will be obtained from one test to the next for reasons of arousal level and environmental conditions. You mentioned Chris Boardman and he had tests varying from 75-80 in his peak years. Sweating profusely in the lab reduces oxygen uptake does it not?

On-bike power meters didn't exist back then.

In the lab (i.e., on an ergometer), though, I could maintain 343 W for 77 min (subject 1 in

) and 300 W for up to 3.5 h (i.e., when fed CHO in this study:

). During an incremental exercise test I would typically fail at ~450 W.

And no, I didn't mention Chris Boardman. Also, thermal stress/dehydration doesn't necessarily reduce VO2max (although it can certainly limit performance).

If you truly thought that I meant Jack Daniels, you clearly don't know the field of exercise physiology.

What I find interesting is that you claim to let cardiologists do their job. 1) Are you a cardiologist? If not, then by your logic why the hell should I listen to you? 2) The information that Dr. Coggan, others and I have put out have been taught in textbooks and published in journal articles for decades. Where has been the hue and cry from cardiologists to combat it? I have had the pleasure of spending time with Dr. Ben Levine (a cardiologist so someone you should be okay with) and discussed sport science with him. Never in those 4-5 conversations has he ever said "Hey, you ex phys people get this VO2max thing all wrong". Ben is not one to be a wilting flower or to hold back his opinion (ON ANYTHING)!

You point out in another post that I have more access to research journals than you do. So where are you getting your information? While I may have more access to research journal articles, you have the same access to PubMed and

that I do. You can at least get an abstract. If you really want the papers there are ways to get them. 1) Emailing the author of the paper or 2) going to a local college library and logging in through SportDiscus or other similar services and you can get most any paper you wish. Ask the person at the help desk to show you how to do it.

Yaz ya wrote:

RossiCheated wrote:

Thus a running race isn’t just a Vo2max competition. If it was we could just measure that, skip the racing and all go home.

Consider: Runners with the same Vo2max line up for a 5k. They don’t tie. Perhaps one wins convincingly. Why?

Running efficiency, higher lactate threshold, pacing...

When I was younger, my lab measured VO2 was 70.5. This is close to what Frank Shorter’s was. Yet when we competed in a 5 mile road race, he won easily and I finished 40 seconds behind.

I cannot tell if you are pointing this out to support the above notion or not. But it should be noted that you were probably within about 3% of Shorter's time (making an assumption that he ran around 22 minutes)!

1) I have been skeptical that Shorter truly maxxed out.

2) VO2max is not the entire story. There are many, many other factors especially when you get a group with similar values. Shorter had a high running economy. I do not think anyone these days thinks of it as the ONLY factor in endurance sport performance, but I would argue you better have a pretty high Vo2max if you want to be successful.

3) I had a high VO2max that I could never really "live up to". I had the luxury of getting tested many, many times (as a grad student I was often asked to be the subject for teaching others how to conduct testing--I am probably in the top 1% of people in terms of frequency of getting VO2max testing done). I was in the high 60s consistently (weight varied, but absolute was pretty spot on).

Andrew Coggan wrote:

He seems to mistakenly believe that VO2max is immutable*, with all improvements in performance stemming from increases in running economy ("skill"). But, I generally don't pay much attention to the comments of the uninformed, other than to try to provide factually-correct information as a counterpoint.

*Just as some well-known exercise physiologists mistakenly believe that exercise efficiency is immutable, despite plenty of evidence to the contrary.

I am curious about your thoughts on running economy as a "skill". It seems like some runners who we would look at and think "He/she must be economical because of how smooth they are". Yet when they get in the lab and are measured, the RE does not seem to track with how a coach (who has produced some very good runners) would ID as being the most economical. It seems to me a lot of what makes a runner more economical is less skill and more metabolic. Cycling might even be less so since you are in a fixed position. I use the work out of Steve McGregor's lab at Eastern Michigan where he and his group have asked the coach for that evaluation and then measured RE and found that it was hard even for a long-time coach to look at a runner and figure out who was more economical.

Who does not think economy/efficiency cannot change? Not really expecting you to call out people, but then I have never known you to be shy with your opinions :)

Also, thanks for correcting erroneous information on the internet!

and what is that protocol?

Did you race a lot? Yes sorry it was another poster who mentioned Boardman.

When you say thermal stress doesn't necessarily reduce VO2 max, the reliablitly of the test does depend on a very low sweat rate at that measurement though does it not? Although I do take your point that sweat rate may be higher at submaximal intensitites.