Intuitively seems likely. Share some science showing correlation - "we see . . . " and how many "average person(s)" get their VO2max tested. Do you think the 'average person' is able (mentally) to push themself hard enough to get an accurate measurement?

Twenty-three recreational triathletes, 16 male and 7 female (mean = 21.7 yrs), performed max tethered swim (TS), cycle ergometer (CE), and treadmill run (TR) tests prior to participation in a competitive triathlon (0.91 km swim, 40 km cycle, 10 km run). The VO2max values on the TS, CE and TR were similar to those reported for trained athletes in each sport. As a group, cycling times were significantly correlated to both absolute (p less than 0.01) and relative (p less than 0.001) cycling VO2max (r = -0.57 and r = -0.78, respectively); running times significantly correlated with relative (p less than 0.001, r = -0.84) but not absolute (p greater than 0.05) running VO2max; and swimming times significantly correlated with absolute (p less than 0.01, r = -0.49) but not relative (p greater than 0.05) swimming VO2max.
https://europepmc.org/article/med/1798302

Swimming is probably not a good example, as technique plays such a big role.


It's pretty easy to know if you measured a true vo2max in a lab as the oxyen consumption is plotted on a graph for each stage, and should "flatten out". I've definitely seen a few cases where people didn't reach a true vo2max (or at least the graph didnt flatten out, potentially the last data point could have been a vo2max but probably unlikely). However, most people go past their vo2max without too much difficulty.


V02 max correlates so well with performance, you can get some pretty accurate predicitons of vo2max based off performance alone. Coopers 12min run test being an example (not perfect, but based on its simplicity pretty good). Also some of the watches that are meauring distance and HR can get pretty accurate vo2max estimates.

Of course its not a perfect predictor of performance. But it certainly has a lot of merit. Definitely not "useless".

All the studies use time trials of under an hour as the measure of "performance". Cooper test is only 12 minutes. The correlation is pretty much a direct link to how similar your race effort is to your lab test. Tells you that there's a lot of type IIa fibres in the legs, not much else.

The study above was done in recreational triathletes doing an Olympic distance race. So we can assume significantly longer than an hour.

I think it's pretty reasonable to think we can scale up based on short distances anyway. Plenty of running calculators will give you a decent estimate of your 5km or marathon time based on the other. Of course not 100% perfect but a general trend.

I don't think anyone would say vo2 max is the be all and end all. Obviously other factors in play. But it's hardly "useless".

The fact it correlates for short-course speed doesn't make it useful.
To be useful, the lab test result has to improve your performance, e.g. by informing what to change about training.

To improve your lab VO2max number, the best training intervention would be short intervals at around the power output you failed at last test.
Doing that would not improve your triathlon performance - it might even make it worse, as you convert already-efficient intermediate or slow-twitch fibres to fast-twitch.
Perhaps it'll help someone who's coming down from ultra distance to sprint distance and is really lacking power on hills.
For everyone else, even a sprint tri is limited by your maximal steady-state output of your muscles, not your VO2max.

Just pressing this as a pet peeve because VO2max tests reinforce the belief that performance is strongly tied to genes or doping.
Many national governing bodies even select youth athletes based on VO2max tests. That's the opposite of constructive for sport.

Of course it's not the most useful training tool, something like lactate testing is much more useful in that regard. It is useful for identifying potential, like it or not there is a genetic component, but it can certainly be trained (and for that reason you may actually want the kid with a lower vo2 max but similar performance as you might assume he has a higher potential ceiling*). Also for identifying strength/weakness (i.e. if you can maintain a high % of your vo2 max for extended periods its probably time to focus on trying to improve it. If you can't maintain a high % probably little use doing vo2max work.).

* similar story about taking the kid with lower hematocrit as more room to boost it (not necessarily legally).

There's too much over-emphasis on all of the "metabolics" in most sports, but particularly in triathlon. In reality, they are a supporting player and a by-product of what actually wins or leads to peak performances. The brain and how it is trained wins races.

Here's a very simple analogy from George Mumford, "The car is to the human body as the driver is to the human brain." You can build the fastest, biggest engine, lightest, most efficient race car in history and by the numbers it should win every race it enters. If the driver doesn't have the skill to drive it, it does not lead to success.

I hope this helps,

Tim

---

http://www.magnoliamasters.com
http://www.snappingtortuga.com
http://www.swimeasyspeed.com