How vo2 max relates to fitness

Learneth Ernest wrote:

Ernest wrote:

This would be one of the "usual stupid answers here".

Genetics may largely define an individual's highest achievable V02max, "max V02max" if you will, but V02max for an individual varies over time and is highly dependent on training.

No.

Absolutely no.

Having a high VO2max is completely dependabt on genetics and is the least trainable variable.

Concentrate on lactate threshold, running efficiency , and speed endurance. Your VO2max comes from mommy and daddy, but mostly mommy.

No.

Absolutely no.

VO2 does depend on training. Genetics does play a very important role in limiting how high your VO2 can be it is not the lone factor. There have been studies that have shown a decrease in VO2 by about 10% after only 2 weeks of no training.

Luv2Run wrote:

it's genetic wrote:

*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.

and what is that protocol?

It would depend on the individual. The basic premise all of you exercise physiologist offer is that Cardiac Output is trainable/detrainable. Well please excuse my semantics because I'm not doubting that a sustained high or maximal cardiac output is what endurance athletes strive for, but does Cardiac health decline so much that Cardiac Funtion is impaired in a healthy person who is in an untrained state? No, it doesn't and if it did you would no longer be in good cardiac health.

Figure 3.3 in this article Cardiac Output drops because the test is too long:

Figure 3.3 is a schematic diagram of *resting* experiments in animals. It has essentially no relevance to the question at hand.

Luv2Run wrote:

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 :)

I was mocking Michael Ashenden.

Andrew Coggan wrote:

Figure 3.3 is a schematic diagram of *resting* experiments in animals. It has essentially no relevance to the question at hand.

It's relevant to Starling's law though isn't it?

And why do cycling power output calculations differ so much in calibration? Who sets the standard? Is 7 watts per Kilo the new 6?

Is that why everyone says that Lance Armstrong's power up Alpe d'Huez was 7 watts per kilo? Because 7 is the new 6?

And why are today's TdF riders producing the same power as Lance? Is it because they are all blood boosted or maybe because EPO and blood transfusions don't actually give magical supercalorimetry beyond the laws of Physics like everyone imagines they do?

Or is thermoregulation another red herring doc?

Andrew Coggan wrote:

I was mocking Michael Ashenden.

My gut feeling was that you were referring to Ashenden, who had this "no elastic component in cycling = no way efficiency can be improved" notion when he was against the (at least partially flawed) Ed Coyle paper about Lance Armstrong in journals and in the SCA case. I think LeMond also sees improved efficiency as "technique" and "skills", how "well" one moves legs, feet, angles, interplay between pulling and pushing, cadence etc that can be improved by roughly one percent at best.

I think it was also somewhat dubious when Ashenden has taken Armstrong's IN and OFFseason Vo2max figures and concluded that his Vo2max was around low/ mid-70s (average of the figures) when the only INseason value was something like 81 ml/kg/min and 6.1 litres.

Out of curiosity, what is your take or the consensus on the Coyle paper which despite wrong equations in the DE calculations indicates that Armstrong's Watt output at 5.0 l/min still was almost 10 percent higher after years of training?

it's genetic wrote:

And why do cycling power output calculations differ so much in calibration? Who sets the standard? Is 7 watts per Kilo the new 6?

Is that why everyone says that Lance Armstrong's power up Alpe d'Huez was 7 watts per kilo? Because 7 is the new 6?

And why are today's TdF riders producing the same power as Lance? Is it because they are all blood boosted or maybe because EPO and blood transfusions don't actually give magical supercalorimetry beyond the laws of Physics like everyone imagines they do?

Or is thermoregulation another red herring doc?

This garbage again?

Aragon wrote:

Andrew Coggan wrote:

I was mocking Michael Ashenden.

My gut feeling was that you were referring to Ashenden, who had this "no elastic component in cycling = no way efficiency can be improved" notion when he was against the (at least partially flawed) Ed Coyle paper about Lance Armstrong in journals and in the SCA case.

I think it was also somewhat dubious when Ashenden has taken Armstrong's IN and OFFseason Vo2max figures and concluded that his Vo2max was around low/ mid-70s (average of the figures) when the only INseason value was something like 81 ml/kg/min and 6.1 litres.

Out of curiosity, what is your take or the consensus on the Coyle paper which despite wrong equations in the DE calculations indicates that Armstrong's Watt output at 5.0 l/min still was almost 10 percent higher after years of training?

" I think LeMond also sees improved efficiency as "technique" and "skills", how "well" one moves legs, feet, angles, interplay between pulling and pushing, cadence etc that can be improved by roughly one percent at best."

Who said one percent at best? You or Lemond, I don't understand what you are saying there Aragon?

Jon Morange wrote:

it's genetic wrote:

And why do cycling power output calculations differ so much in calibration? Who sets the standard? Is 7 watts per Kilo the new 6?

Is that why everyone says that Lance Armstrong's power up Alpe d'Huez was 7 watts per kilo? Because 7 is the new 6?

And why are today's TdF riders producing the same power as Lance? Is it because they are all blood boosted or maybe because EPO and blood transfusions don't actually give magical supercalorimetry beyond the laws of Physics like everyone imagines they do?

Or is thermoregulation another red herring doc?

This garbage again?

The fact of the matter is Exercise Physiologists are largely responsible for the EPO problem and most of them have no idea about how thermoregulation relates to oxygen uptake. And you have no interest in the subject other than trolling. Idiots like you make the problem worse.

When the Coyle paper and Armstrong's alleged improvement in delta efficiency of some 8 % is discussed in one book by David Walsh, LeMond ridicules the figure because his pedalling expert told him that the improvement due to better technique was at best roughly one percent.

Aragon wrote:

When the Coyle paper and Armstrong's alleged improvement in delta efficiency of some 8 % is discussed in one book by David Walsh, LeMond ridicules the figure because his pedalling expert told him that the improvement due to better technique was at best roughly one percent.

Okay thanks. I haven't read the Walsh book. I don't doubt Coyle's numbers. I've seen my own big improvements in cycling and running over the years despite inevitable slight decline in VO2 max.

Lemond should make peace with Hinault and Armstrong in my opinion.

it's genetic wrote:

Jon Morange wrote:

This garbage again?

The fact of the matter is Exercise Physiologists are largely responsible for the EPO problem and most of them have no idea about how thermoregulation relates to oxygen uptake. And you have no interest in the subject other than trolling. Idiots like you make the problem worse.

Red Herring. Dope works.

Here is the actual quote from Walsh's book From Lance to Landis (pp. 183-184) about LeMond listening to one Ed Coyle lecture in 2001:

[T]he key component for Coyle was mechanical efficiency, or more simply, Armstrong's more efficient pedaling style. LeMond couldn't buy this. He had worked with a very good physiologist in Europe, Adrie Van Diemen from he Netherlands, who argued endlessly that a more efficient pedaling style helped rider's endurance. To bolster his argument, Vie Diemen spent much time working with riders prepared to change to a more economic pedaling style and was convinced they could improve by a half to 1 percent. If LeMond was hearing right, Professor Coyle was claiming an 8 percent gain for Armstrong from pedaling more efficiently.

Despite any doubts about the true mechanism (i.e., training vs. drugs vs. experimental variability/error), I think that Coyle's case study has proven to be a valuable publication, if only for all of the subsequent research that it helped stimulate. (Indeed, I can think of at least one younger physiologist whose entire career has really been built upon the "wave" that Coyle's paper inspired.)

I would also note that there are studies dating back to at least the 1930s demonstrating an improvement in cycling economy/efficiency with training. Thus, I am at a bit of a loss in trying to understand where the notion that economy/efficiency is immutable arises.

it's genetic wrote:

Andrew Coggan wrote:

Figure 3.3 is a schematic diagram of *resting* experiments in animals. It has essentially no relevance to the question at hand.

It's relevant to Starling's law though isn't it?

Non-sequitur.

Non-sequitur.

Thanks for the information. When I went through the SCA papers, I found it also strange that Ashenden didn't see anything beneficial in the very low lactic acid figures of Armstrong because lactic acid isn't automatically "bad" because body can use it as fuel source, a statement I as a non-specialist found weird because my understanding is that the mmol figure is the accumulated residual that remains still in the bloodstream after body has used what it can use, not automatically an abundant fuel source to use ad libitum by the muscles when needed.

If I can bother you with another question,what is your take why Ed Coyle hasn't recalculated his efficiency calculations or published the raw data of the tests, because it would be good if the efficiency issue could be settled as best as it could be from the available data.

IIRC, there wasn't anything to recalculate - contrary to Ashenden et al.'s claims, delta efficiency *was* calculated correctly/acceptably (and identically at all time points). Questions only arose because he used a different approach than described in the paper cited in the Methods.

As for the raw data, again IIRC, Ed stated that he no longer had it. Again contrary to the Aussie's claims, that is certainly plausible - in fact, our IRB (institutional review board) generally *requires* us to destroy all research records/samples within 5 (? need to check) years of closure of a study. The purpose of this regulation is to comply with state and federal laws designed to protect the privacy of individuals who participate as research subjects.