How vo2 max relates to fitness

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.

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.

Correct.

it's genetic wrote:

Learneth Ernest wrote:

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.

Correct.

I would say the VO2MAX peak is genetic (if we exclude doping). The actual VO2MAX is more dependent on status of the person (sedentary, regular exercise, high training volume, weight, etc.). Solinsky went from 19:30 5k to 13:00 5k - many people went from 27 min 5k to 15 min 5k. When they run their first 5k, they are nowhere near the VO2MAX they attained after years of training.

The genetic limitation is that the people who ended up running 15 min will never run 13:00 due to genetics (but VO2MAX is just one part of it).

Also VO2MAX is exercise specific. Someone with naturally better quads and weak lower legs, will likely get a higher VO2MAX in cycling. Same with upper body and cross-country skiing.

LateRunnerPhil wrote:

it's genetic wrote:

Correct.

I would say the VO2MAX peak is genetic (if we exclude doping). The actual VO2MAX is more dependent on status of the person (sedentary, regular exercise, high training volume, weight, etc.). Solinsky went from 19:30 5k to 13:00 5k - many people went from 27 min 5k to 15 min 5k. When they run their first 5k, they are nowhere near the VO2MAX they attained after years of training.

The genetic limitation is that the people who ended up running 15 min will never run 13:00 due to genetics (but VO2MAX is just one part of it).

Also VO2MAX is exercise specific. Someone with naturally better quads and weak lower legs, will likely get a higher VO2MAX in cycling. Same with upper body and cross-country skiing.

You do realize you don't have to just make this stuff up? You can actually read through journal articles that have been peer-reviewed by people who have studied this stuff.

This is the best sort of troll. One that doesn't even realize he's a troll.

So, show us that journal where vo2max can't improve with training for some people.

Pretty canonical study where some untrained people didn't improve Vo2max at all.

coach double u wrote:

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.

No it's not. If that was true anyone with a naturally high VO2 max would be able to produce high power outputs on a bike without specific training. Pedalling techniqure requires even more training than running technique.

LateRunnerPhill the Shill.

Aragon wrote:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10484570/

Pretty canonical study where some untrained people didn't improve Vo2max at all.

That site:

The mean increase in VO(2max) reached approximately 400 ml/min, but there was considerable heterogeneity in responsiveness, with some individuals experiencing little or no gain, whereas others gained >1.0 l/min. An ANOVA revealed that there was 2.5 times more variance between families than within families in the VO(2max) response variance. With the use of a model-fitting procedure, the most parsimonious models yielded a maximal heritability estimate of 47% for the VO(2max) response, which was adjusted for age and sex with a maternal transmission of 28% in one of the models. We conclude that the trainability of VO(2max) is highly familial and includes a significant genetic component.

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.

Luv2Run wrote:

Think of VO2max as a measure of cardiorespiratory fitness.

No, don't do that. Do some research that goes beyond the stupid sh!t you learned back in the 90s and steadfastly refuse to update.

Or in other words, explain why you believe that an 'untrained' (whatever that means?) person who had normal cardiovascular and cardiopulmonary health would be uncapable of running at their VO2 max given the associated level or arousal to do so?

Aragon wrote:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/10484570/

Pretty canonical study where some untrained people didn't improve Vo2max at all.

Canonical? This study is completely flawed. I tell you why.

"Subjects started training at the heart rate associated with 55% of their initialV˙o2 max for 30 min/day and gradually progressed to the heart rate associated with 75% of their initial V˙o2 maxfor 50 min/day at the end of 14 wk. They maintained this intensity and duration throughout the remaining 6 wk. Frequency was maintained at three sessions per week throughout the 20-wk training program"

So the sedentary people trained 3x30 min at 55% HR in the beginning and ended with 3x50 min at 75% HR. Some people increased their VO2MAX, and others didn't. So they are non-responders, right? NO!!!

The training stimulus wasn't the right one for them!!! Maybe those few individuals needed more intensity, e.g. work closer to 90% VO2MAX. Maybe they needed more volume, like 6x50min/week to increase VO2MAX.

Studies are built for the average, ignoring those who fall outside those realms.

It’d be like if we took a 7 man cross country team, trained them all the same and who cares if a couple don’t improve as long as the majority (4) did. That seems kind of unfair to the few who didn’t improve at all! (Magness)

Imagine two runners, both run 15 flat 5k. One only needs 50 mpw to see aerobic benefits, the other needs 80 mpw. Now they would both be tested with 50 mpw, and the conclusion would be the 50 mpw guy increases VO2MAX and is a responder and the other guy, who needs 80 mpw is a non-responder so VO2MAX doesn't change. No, the study just didn't take individualization into account.

So what does it mean? While upper VO2MAX limit is genetic, it needs the right stimulus to improve it for each individual runner. Often, getting a new coach or changing the training led to massive performance increases for individuals - no matter what their starting VO2MAX or ultimate peak VO2MAX are.

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.

This is you moving the goalposts....you said "VO2 max is genetic" and there is a study showing it's not (it has genetics as a primary component). I'm still waiting for a study you are basing your info on, to show how vo2max can't be improved by training.

You can say, we should be studying Cardiac Output..sure, that's for another thread, this is about vo2 max, as per the title. Feel free to start one up on Cardiac Output.

Are you denying that Cardiac Output and absolute VO2 max are related?

Sure there are other variables, age, hemoconcentraton and arterio-venous difference.

Mitochondrial density is another red herring that people bring up. Does that include you?

Do you think my Absolute VO2 max:

1, went up when I trained harder in my late 20s/early 30s?

2, Stayed about the same?

3, Went down slightly?

What about my late 30s - mid 40s when I trained even harder?

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.

it's genetic wrote:

Are you denying that Cardiac Output and absolute VO2 max are related?

Sure there are other variables, age, hemoconcentraton and arterio-venous difference.

Mitochondrial density is another red herring that people bring up. Does that include you?

Do you think my Absolute VO2 max:

1, went up when I trained harder in my late 20s/early 30s?

2, Stayed about the same?

3, Went down slightly?

What about my late 30s - mid 40s when I trained even harder?

You're not talking about vo2max again. Stick to the topic, you are derailing it.

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.

Odd..... wrote:

You're not talking about vo2max again. Stick to the topic, you are derailing it.

No, I'm not derallint the debate, I'm trying to get you to understand what the factors are involving oxygen uptake, you are avoiding them.

I made massive improvements to my race paces, but not my VO2 max, because it doesn't work that way.

It's not me who is moving the goal posts. That's your misinterpretation based on what you have been taught.

Explain to me why you believe that training will improve the factors I listed?

it's genetic wrote:

Odd..... wrote:

You're not talking about vo2max again. Stick to the topic, you are derailing it.

No, I'm not derallint the debate, I'm trying to get you to understand what the factors are involving oxygen uptake, you are avoiding them.

I made massive improvements to my race paces, but not my VO2 max, because it doesn't work that way.

It's not me who is moving the goal posts. That's your misinterpretation based on what you have been taught.

Explain to me why you believe that training will improve the factors I listed?

No, that's a different discussion. I'll be happy to, if you want to start one on that topic.