VO2max

robkit said:

anyone ever had it tested and if so what was your number?

people cite it as the "gold standard" of fitness and potential but i wonder, is it less important in cycling that other sports.

surely watts:kilo at functional threshold is more important and critically takes into account the percentage of VO2 you can actually use for a sustained period of time?

It could become important, even in cycling. It helps you determine at what level you can expect to compete.

My athletes (around 25 of them, in triathlon) had VO2Max values ranging from 55 to 78 (male values).

People with low VO2Max should not expect to compete at National or International Levels for instance. But 55 ml/min/kg is good to compete at a provincial level (in Canada, States are called Provinces).

That test was mandatory for all my athletes, male and female. And it was done after the first year of serious training. NOT at the very begining of the very first season. The reason for this, is that VO2Max will improve a lot with proper training during the first few seasons.

Cheers🙂

robkit said:

anyone ever had it tested and if so what was your number?

people cite it as the "gold standard" of fitness and potential but i wonder, is it less important in cycling that other sports.

surely watts:kilo at functional threshold is more important and critically takes into account the percentage of VO2 you can actually use for a sustained period of time?

It could become important, even in cycling. It helps you determine at what level you can expect to compete. Also, it may help you to better define your training zones, if % of VO2Max is what you want to use. Also, at the end of a VO2Max test, you usually get a good idea of what your Max HR is.

My athletes (around 25 of them, in triathlon) had VO2Max values ranging from 55 to 78 (male values).

People with low VO2Max should not expect to compete at National or International Levels for instance. But 55 ml/min/kg is good to compete at a provincial level (in Canada, States are called Provinces).

That test was mandatory for all my athletes, male and female. And it was done after the first year of serious training. NOT at the very begining of the very first season. The reason for this, is that VO2Max will improve a lot with proper training during the first few seasons.

Cheers🙂

Interesting. It was suggested that one can probably improve their "genetic" level by circa 30% with training.

But i'm not sure if there is a good "baseline" to define what we mean by genetic level. Completely sedentary for years, or just casually active?..

Maybe it would be better to say "start with a level after 1 years serious training and call that an inherently genetic level". In that case, what sort of further improvement related to training would generally be possible?

I just finished a year of "base training", very little high end work, after no cycling for 8 yrs. My number was 76 so what level could i hope to seeby next year, given a regime of VO2max intervals through the winter? I will probably do another test in April.

robkit said:

I just finished a year of "base training", very little high end work, after no cycling for 8 yrs. My number was 76 so what level could i hope to seeby next year, given a regime of VO2max intervals through the winter? I will probably do another test in April.

IANAEP*, but my understanding is that 76 is an unusually high VO2 max number, even for an elite-level trained athlete. You probably have a formidable genetic gift. My understanding concerning VO2max is as follows:

1. Absolute VO2max plateaus very quickly (with a few months of hard training) at a genetically set maximum.

2. Improvements to absolute VO2max can range from 10-25%. This is usually an "improvement" relative to an untrained state. I.e., you've already climbed partway up that curve. Also, the bigger responders (those who might make 25% improvements) tend to be those who started out at the low end of normal. So, life's tough when it comes to absolute VO2max; choose your parents well.

3. You can still improve your relative VO2max (absolute VO2max divided by bodyweight) by reducing body mass. I don't know how light you are to have your current relative VO2max. If you're still carrying around some extra fat (and who isn't, really?), this could be a worthwhile avenue to explore.

As to your question about the relative importance of VO2max vs. "threshold" (functional, anaerobic, lactate, etc.), consider that threshold is much more trainable than VO2max. I.e., most riders are able to improve their thresholds for several years of focused training. Also, VO2max is less sport-specific than threshold; a great VO2max from running is still somewhat applicable to cycling, since most VO2max adaptations are central (i.e., heart, blood, etc.), whereas "threshold" adaptation happen out in the sport-specific muscles.

Since you already have an excellent VO2max, and since you've only been training in cycling for a year, I would hazard a guess that you'd get a lot more out of training your threshold than training VO2max. Just a guess, though, and all riders are different. Hey, maybe you're a freak of nature and a few months of VO2Max intervals will get you into the low 90's; anything's possible.

* "I am not an exercise physiologist."

kmavm said:

IANAEP*, but my understanding is that 76 is an unusually high VO2 max number, even for an elite-level trained athlete. ."

76 ml/kg/min is quite a standard VO2peak for an elite level cyclist or VO2max for an elite level runner. With such a number, one would need to have a relatively high threshold to likely be competitive at an elite level. An "unusually" high number would be in the low 90's.

cealrly the mass divisor is very important, maybe i'm fortunate to be 147 pounds. i guess the next 6 months is crunch time!

robkit said:

people cite it as the "gold standard" of fitness and potential but i wonder, is it less important in cycling that other sports.

This depends on the cycling discipline you choose to specialize in. A TT rider or pure climber can get away with a slightly lower VO2peak if their aerodymanics are exceptional or their power at threshold is very high in relation to their VO2peak/MAP, respectively. However, when compared to other endurance sports, a high VO2peak/MAP can be more crucial in road cycling due to the surging, very high intensity nature of the sport; whereas something like marathon racing is much more of a time trialing/steady state effort where a high relative threshold plays an increasingly important role.

robkit said:

Interesting. It was suggested that one can probably improve their "genetic" level by circa 30% with training.

But i'm not sure if there is a good "baseline" to define what we mean by genetic level. Completely sedentary for years, or just casually active?..

You know what? This is a hec of a good question. If I'd had to guess, I would think that's it's more or less 30% from one's "sedentary" level. 🙁 Oh yeah I know... bad news...

SolarEnergy said:

You know what? This is a hec of a good question. If I'd had to guess, I would think that's it's more or less 30% from one's "sedentary" level. 🙁 Oh yeah I know... bad news...

A reasonable expectation might be to improve VO2max between 5% and 15% (Daniels, Yarbough, et al 1978 cited in Lore of Running, TD Noakes) but Noakes suggests (I can't tell whether or not he pulls this from the study or it is his own data/opinion) that the possible range of adaption is between 0% and 60%.

Roadie_scum said:

A reasonable expectation might be to improve VO2max between 5% and 15% (Daniels, Yarbough, et al 1978 cited in Lore of Running, TD Noakes) but Noakes suggests (I can't tell whether or not he pulls this from the study or it is his own data/opinion) that the possible range of adaption is between 0% and 60%.

Well, I don't want to sound like a politician, but it depends :
1) the general fitness level when the 1th test is made
2) if we compare Absolute, or Relative VO2Max

Take a sedentary man, 20 pounds overweight. This guy tests 45ml/mi/kg. I would not be surprise to learn, that after 4 or 5 years of proper training, the same man can score 58, 59ml/mi/kg, maybe even higher... at least if manages to trade the french fries for rice and veggies 😄