[HN Gopher] How 'Trainable' Is VO2 Max Really? - A Case Study (2...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       How 'Trainable' Is VO2 Max Really? - A Case Study (2019)
        
       Author : dsnr
       Score  : 86 points
       Date   : 2021-09-17 18:29 UTC (4 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (simplifaster.com)
 (TXT) w3m dump (simplifaster.com)
        
       | nradov wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | dragontamer wrote:
         | 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 athletes of different styles
         | against each other and learn from all of them.
        
           | nradov wrote:
           | 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
           | actionable.
        
             | ummonk wrote:
             | 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).
        
             | elevaet wrote:
             | It's not, but it does correlate with the highest performers
             | in endurance sports.
        
             | dragontamer wrote:
             | And Linpack FLOPs aren't a measure of 64-bit integer
             | performance. And yet, we use Linpack FLOPs to compare
             | supercomputers against each other, even if they're going to
             | run 64-bit math on them.
             | 
             | No microbenchmark is perfect. But maybe some
             | microbenchmarks are useful.
        
             | dsiegel2275 wrote:
             | From Wikipedia:
             | 
             | "The measurement of VO2 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 achieve VO2 max values exceeding 90
             | mL/(kg*min), while some endurance animals, such as Alaskan
             | huskies, have VO2 max values exceeding 200 mL/(kg*min)."
             | 
             | So maybe it is a measurement of "endurance capacity"...
             | 
             | [edited for clarity]
        
               | nradov wrote:
               | 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.
        
               | gameswithgo wrote:
               | Wikipedia's entry is overly simplistic. It is true that
               | many people use VO2 in this way, but many of us feel it
               | is silly. Some people are able to get more power to their
               | legs at a given metabolic consumption, for instance. Two
               | athletes may run the same time because one is more
               | efficient with a lower VO2 Max, and the other has a
               | higher VO2 Max but is less efficient. Interestingly no
               | elite athlete has both things maxed out, perhaps because
               | it is impossible, they are at odds with each other.
        
         | dtf wrote:
         | 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.frontiersin.org/arti
         | cles/10.3389/fphys.2015.0029...)
        
           | matsemann wrote:
           | 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.
        
         | matsemann wrote:
         | 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 performance hadn't increased, but
         | my ability to endure going over lactate threshold and come back
         | had.
         | 
         | And also the other way. When my friend started cycling, he was
         | already an insane runner with good vo2max (70+). But his ftp on
         | cycling was comparably low, since his muscles couldn't handle
         | that lactate build up from this unknown moving pattern. Of
         | course he quickly improved, but it's another point showing that
         | vo2max doesn't necessarily translate to performance in an
         | event. (One could argue him redoing the vo2max test on a bike
         | would have yielded a different score, though)
        
           | nradov wrote:
           | 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.
        
             | rhizome wrote:
             | I wanna say speed skating is the only dependably crossover
             | sport so far? Not just from the Heidens 40 years ago, lots
             | of other examples here:
             | https://www.google.com/search?q=speed+skating+cycling
        
       | useful wrote:
       | 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/
        
         | dilyevsky wrote:
         | Nice write up and confirms what I've personally experienced by
         | trying different methods (running/climbing) over the years
        
       | troysk wrote:
       | Reminded me of the Colorado experiment https://baye.com/colorado-
       | experiment/
        
       | gwern wrote:
       | > In fact, when I model the average response to training across
       | the entire group that I have VO2 and long-term training data for,
       | I see an average shift from 54 to 67 ml/kg/min (a change of 24%)
       | when a long-term, high-volume training plan is undertaken. > >
       | Conversely, when a short-term, high-intensity training plan is
       | undertaken, the model shows a maximal increase (in 4-6 weeks) to
       | only 63 ml/kg/min (16%). > > So, while a 40% increase in VO2 max
       | may not be considered "typical," after my experience testing and
       | observing athletes over the past 10+ years, I would have to
       | consider a ~25% increase in VO2 max to be very typical given the
       | right training over a sufficient period of time (the two items
       | missing from those initial studies that suggested high genetic
       | limitations).
       | 
       | Bait and switch. He starts out talking about averages over
       | ordinary people suggesting 10-15% average improveability, and
       | then presents a 25% estimate... from an extremely selected group
       | of athletes after lots of attrition from those getting worse
       | results (just what percent of the population even _has_ VO2max
       | numbers from a  "long-term high-volume training plan"?). I would
       | suggest that his end result strongly reinforces the original
       | claim, rather than debunking it.
        
       | diskzero wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | albertgoeswoof wrote:
         | Does chess really require high max V02?
        
         | nradov wrote:
         | 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.
        
           | gameswithgo wrote:
           | How is it obvious when you look at them? I mean, it is
           | obvious that people cheat, because people cheat everywhere,
           | but what does looking at them have to do with anything?
        
         | 6gvONxR4sf7o wrote:
         | > 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.
         | 
         | This is the hardest thing for us to admit, culturally, even
         | though there are some glaringly obvious examples, like height.
         | 
         | That said, I think most people can generally train themselves
         | to compete at high levels, just not not elite levels. For
         | example, you see a good variety of people competing on decent
         | college teams in all sorts of sports. It's just at the elite
         | college level and above that you see people's shapes become
         | more uniform.
        
           | typon wrote:
           | It's also overstated, culturally, especially in online
           | circles. Most people will never be elite in anything in their
           | lives, so these genetic limits don't impact most people.
           | They're sometimes used as a crutch to justify not working
           | harder.
        
           | elric wrote:
           | > This is the hardest thing for us to admit, culturally
           | 
           | Is it? It seems pretty obvious. And unless you're aiming to
           | be an elite in whatever field, it's pretty much irrelevant.
           | Barring serious defects, most people can do reasonably well
           | in most disciplines (physical & mental) if they apply
           | themselves. Of course, if everyone were to apply themselves
           | equally, the genetic lottery would still win out, but that's
           | not something that seems to happen?
        
             | throwaway675309 wrote:
             | Sure but you could argue that the ability to "apply
             | oneself" is fundamentally just another neurological
             | character trait also rooted in one's physiological
             | characteristics which stem from your environment (family,
             | socioeconomic background, etc) and your genetics... neither
             | of which you had any control over.
        
       | agumonkey wrote:
       | 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.
        
         | nradov wrote:
         | 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.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2021-09-17 23:01 UTC)