How ‘Trainable’ Is VO2 Max Really? – A Case Study (2019) • Hacker News Board

Re: How ‘Trainable’ Is VO2 Max Really? – A Case Study (2019)

#11

Post by nradov » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 7:22 PM UTC

dsiegel2275 wrote: post #7

nradov wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VO2 Max isn't a measure of endurance. It's a measure of maximum aerobic output. Edit: Athletes with high endurance as measured by how much output they can sustain over longer periods will also tend to have high VO2 Max scores, but that's mostly a correlation thing and not a direct causal relationship. I'm not sure there's any point in comparing VO2 Max scores across sports. It's an interesting factoid but not really…

From Wikipedia: "The measurement of V̇O2 max in the laboratory provides a quantitative value of endurance fitness for comparison of individual training effects and between people in endurance training. Maximal oxygen consumption reflects cardiorespiratory fitness and endurance capacity in exercise performance. Elite athletes, such as competitive distance runners, racing cyclists or Olympic cross-country skiers, can a…

No it's not a direct measurement of endurance capacity. It is, as the units imply, a measurement of your maximum rate of oxygen metabolism over a very short period, as normalized by body mass.

There is some correlation with endurance capacity. But that relationship gets progressively weaker as you go out to longer efforts.

Re: How ‘Trainable’ Is VO2 Max Really? – A Case Study (2019)

#12

Post by ummonk » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 7:26 PM UTC

nradov wrote: post #4

dragontamer wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VO2 max is good in that its easily tested. As such: its a microbenchmark (much like how Linpack FLOPs is touted as the supercomputer benchmark, even though dense matrix multiplications are probably in the minority of tasks) Since there's a consistent test available that "microbenchmarks" an athlete's measure of endurance across athletic fields (bicyclists, cross country skiers, runners, etc. etc.), we can now compare…

VO2 Max isn't a measure of endurance. It's a measure of maximum aerobic output. Edit: Athletes with high endurance as measured by how much output they can sustain over longer periods will also tend to have high VO2 Max scores, but that's mostly a correlation thing and not a direct causal relationship. I'm not sure there's any point in comparing VO2 Max scores across sports. It's an interesting factoid but not really…

Aerobic output matters more for endurance sports (which are limited in part by how much energy your body can keep supplying) than for power sports (which involve anaerobic activity and ample recovery periods).

Re: How ‘Trainable’ Is VO2 Max Really? – A Case Study (2019)

#13

Post by matsemann » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 7:29 PM UTC

dtf wrote: post #8

nradov wrote: post #2

This is a good article and aligns well with empirical results from polarized training plans. But focusing on VO2 Max as a single metric isn't necessarily a good approach. Race directors don't give out prizes for the highest VO2 Max and it's only a mediocre predictor of finishing times. A lot of athletes benefit more from training to hold a higher percentage of VO2 Max for a longer period.

Although the article mentions "polarization", when I look at the intensity distribution graph, is that not more an example of "pyramidal" - ie with a substantial amount of work between easy and hardest (VO2) intensities (see the bars for aerobic, tempo, threshold), rather than just being divvied up between Easy/VO2 with no-mans land in the middle. (see for instance, the definitions in this paper: https://www.frontier…

There are hundreds of definitions floating around. I think most people when talking about polarization isn't talking about the original definition, but merely the concept of having more volume and not always as much intensity.

It's a big shift, though. As someone mainly cycling I often get it a bit for "free", since it's natural to have rides being a couple of hours long and thus intensity is naturally lower. But when running, it can often feel like a run either needs to be long or fast.

Re: How ‘Trainable’ Is VO2 Max Really? – A Case Study (2019)

#14

Post by useful » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 7:29 PM UTC

I'd recommend reading Joe Friel's stuff for anyone that's interested in this and wants to improve. Executing a periodization schedule for the stress of an event is something that anyone can do.

I love stuff like this: https://joefrielsblog.com/polarized-training-update/

Re: How ‘Trainable’ Is VO2 Max Really? – A Case Study (2019)

#15

Post by nradov » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 7:30 PM UTC

agumonkey wrote: post #10

I wonder if VO2 max is equivalent to more O2 diffused to cells.. what if capillaries are too narrow or too twisted, you get a lot of O2 circulating but very few reaching the cells.

VO2 Max tests directly measure how much O2 you metabolize into CO2. If you have some kind of vascular disease then yes, that could reduce the amount of O2 reaching your cells and thus impact VO2 Max.

It's normal for capillaries to be narrow. Some only allow a single blood cell at a time.

Re: How ‘Trainable’ Is VO2 Max Really? – A Case Study (2019)

#16

Post by troysk » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 7:34 PM UTC

Reminded me of the Colorado experiment https://baye.com/colorado-experiment/

Re: How ‘Trainable’ Is VO2 Max Really? – A Case Study (2019)

#17

Post by nradov » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 7:36 PM UTC

matsemann wrote: post #9

nradov wrote: post #2

This is a good article and aligns well with empirical results from polarized training plans. But focusing on VO2 Max as a single metric isn't necessarily a good approach. Race directors don't give out prizes for the highest VO2 Max and it's only a mediocre predictor of finishing times. A lot of athletes benefit more from training to hold a higher percentage of VO2 Max for a longer period.

Yeah, many more metrics to look at as well. Like lactate threshold (often measured relative to pace in running, or wattage in cycling (FTP)). And while they correlate, even they cannot even predict performance. For instance I measured my ftp, did a training plan and measured again. No change, but still got better results on my rides. Real world cycling is "punchy" with accelerations and hills etc. So my steady state…

Yes VO2 Max tests for the same athlete will usually yield scores that differ by a few points for cycling versus running. I know at least one pro cycling team tried to identify potential new riders from outside the sport by recruiting athletes from other sports who had exceptionally high VO2 Max scores. Race results were disappointing.

Re: How ‘Trainable’ Is VO2 Max Really? – A Case Study (2019)

#18

Post by dilyevsky » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 8:03 PM UTC

useful wrote: post #14

I'd recommend reading Joe Friel's stuff for anyone that's interested in this and wants to improve. Executing a periodization schedule for the stress of an event is something that anyone can do. I love stuff like this: https://joefrielsblog.com/polarized-training-update/

Nice write up and confirms what I’ve personally experienced by trying different methods (running/climbing) over the years

Re: How ‘Trainable’ Is VO2 Max Really? – A Case Study (2019)

#19

Post by diskzero » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 8:10 PM UTC

I raced as a Category 1 USCF racer and worked on increasing a lot of thresholds as I climbed up the ranks. I would get my VO2 max tested every year and saw some improvements based on training, but I hit a limit. Other teammates also hit limits, but their initial test values were just higher than mine and I wasn't going to train myself into those higher levels.

Improving my lactate threshold, losing as much weight not related to cycling muscle mass and periodization kept me competitive. Training smart, sticking to a game plan, avoiding fast paced group rides, good sleep and nutrition was also vital.

The reality is that you can build upon your genetic platform, but you are going to get to level where you simply can't compete against someone who is doing everything you are doing, but just have better genetics. Sadly, this is why a lot of elite athletes turn to doping, even in the amateur ranks. They are training just as hard as you in addition to the EPO, steroids, HGH and who knows what else.

Re: How ‘Trainable’ Is VO2 Max Really? – A Case Study (2019)

#20

Post by nradov » Fri, Sep 17, 2021, 8:31 PM UTC

diskzero wrote: post #19

I raced as a Category 1 USCF racer and worked on increasing a lot of thresholds as I climbed up the ranks. I would get my VO2 max tested every year and saw some improvements based on training, but I hit a limit. Other teammates also hit limits, but their initial test values were just higher than mine and I wasn't going to train myself into those higher levels. Improving my lactate threshold, losing as much weight not…

It's pretty obvious when you look at amateur endurance races that a lot of those age group guys are heavily geared. There's no testing out of competition at all, and hardly any in competition either.