I assume that Jerry is talking about VO2max changes between modalities (e.g. cycling, running and nordic skiing).
Altering the active muscle mass will change peak oxygen uptake.

I believe AC is saying that within one exercise modality (e.g. Cycling) there is a true max with lesser values being referred to as Peak. This varition should not be construed as changes in max.

---

I talk a lot - Give it a listen: http://www.fasttalklabs.com/category/fast-talk
I also give Training Advice via http://www.ForeverEndurance.com

The above poster has eschewed traditional employment and is currently undertaking the ill-conceived task of launching his own hardgoods company. Statements are not made on behalf of nor reflective of anything in any manner... unless they're good, then they count.
http://www.AGNCYINNOVATION.com

You're close: the highest value regardless of modality is VO2max - everything else by definition is a VO2peak (see, e.g., Loring Rowell's classic review).

Note that if you're exercising at VO2max (e.g., by running uphill on a treadmill), adding additional muscle mass will NOT result in an increase in VO2. This was shown ~50 y ago, and in fact is part of the evidence that VO2max is primarily limited by convective O2 delivery, not O2 utilization at the tissue level.

Try telling that to this guy:

http://www.the-aps.org/...iving-History/Rowell

Maybe he should have a conversation with Michail Tonkonog, Kent Sahlin, Jerzy Zoladz, Bruno Grassi, Peter Snell, Benjamin Levine and Jere Mitchell. I am sure I can find lots more that say that things happening at the cellular level affect how much oxygen is used.



-----------------

---

Jerry Cosgrove

Sports Resource Group
http://www.lactate.com
https://twitter.com/@LactatedotCom

I'm quite sure he has. However, I fail to see what that has to do with the accepted use of the terms VO2max and VO2peak, as well as the accepted understanding of the primary limiting factors.

From what I understand VO2 peak is when there is no plateau and VO2 max is when there is a plateau. Not necessarily the same for each muscle group being worked.

Were all those studies conducted on cyclists by Coyle VO2 max or VO2 peak? Or something else?


So now we are talking about primary limiting factors. No one said the muscles were the only limiting factor but muscle adaptations are definitely a factor according to everyone I have read. Except you. Distribution is the major factor but amongst athletes testing with different sports it is different. I bet cyclists would have a hard time generating a high VO2 max while swimming.

Ever wonder why all that mitochondria biogenesis and increase in size and number as well as enzymes and capillaries changes are about? I guess it has nothing to do with oxygen transport and increased usage.

--------------

---

Jerry Cosgrove

Sports Resource Group
http://www.lactate.com
https://twitter.com/@LactatedotCom

You misunderstand the appropriate use of the terminology, then.


VO2max (unlike untrained individuals, well-trained cyclists can achieve VO2max while cycling).



Oh, no question that muscular factors play a role in whether or not you can achieve VO2max during a particular form of exercise.


You mean that their VO2peak while swimming would be well below their true VO2max (something not true for highly-trained swimmers, BTW).


I would say that I know what they are "all about" better than you do (having contributed some novel observations in this area...who do you think recognized that the 4 or 5 subjects falling above the mean regression line in our 1988 performance study were the subjects with the highest capillary density?). Clearly you don't, though, so here's a hint:

Did you know that during large muscle mass exercise (e.g., running), the O2 content of venous blood draining exercising muscle is very low, even in untrained individuals? What does that tell you about the potential to further increase whole-body VO2 by extracting more O2 by recruiting more muscle?

Why outside the scope?

Whatever the changes training specifically for the new sport increases sustainable power at that new sport, even if the cardiovascular system is trained to a maximum before switching to the new sport.

So the improvememt in power output can not be down to improvememt in heart lungs or blood. The improvememt can only come from changes in the muscles and improvements in brain muscle communication.

I would conclude that if you could deliver more blood (oxygen) that the muscles would use it. Sounds like a delivery limitation.

The discrepancy between say....cycling and running VO2 max (or peak) is different though, right? That is a question, not a statement. I assume that having lower cycling VO2 peak compared to run VO2 max indicates a local, rather than central cardiovascular limitation while cycling because you are using the same central cardiovascular system. Could be capillary density or mitochondrial density etc..... Could this be an evolutionary issue, since we evolved to walk and run, so our running muscles exceed the capability of the cardiovascular system to deliver oxygen, but not our cycling or swimming muscles? I guess what I am asking is how does the research data (if it does at all) reconcile what looks like a contradiction? Thanks in advance. This has been an interesting thread.

---

Simplify, Train, Live

(As already stated in this thread) trained cyclists can reach VO2Max cycling (ie. the highest possible oxygen consumption of an individual).

I assume that if I said the sky in blue, it would be wrong to some even if it was noon, was sunny and not a cloud to be seen. I find the personal responses the most interesting thing about interchanges on this site.

For example on what is called VO2 peak: From

Zoladz, J. and B. Grassi (2012). Maximal Oxygen Uptake ( VO2 Max). Encyclopedia of Exercise Medicine in Health and Disease. F. Mooren, Springer Berlin Heidelberg: 552-555.

In other words, strictly speaking the term VO2 max should be used only when a plateau in the VO2 power output relation during incremental exercise test is reached. In cases in which no plateau is observed the highest VO2 reached should be called VO2 peak…in the case of healthy individuals and in athletes, on the other hand, VO2 peak is close or equal to VO2 max.

I believe there are studies that talk about the different VO2 max between disciplines with triathletes.


---------

---

Jerry Cosgrove

Sports Resource Group
http://www.lactate.com
https://twitter.com/@LactatedotCom

I know that. I have been there and seen it in my lab. I am asking about the situations when that is not the case. Like when a runner gets say 55 ml/kg/min on the bike and 60 ml/kg/min on the run.

---

Simplify, Train, Live

Sorry, your talk about evolution of running muscles got me thinking otherwise. I believe it is simply the amount of active muscle mass involved (so that the muscle fatigues for reasons other than oxygen availability before it can produce a work rate that could consume all delivered oxygen).

Here is a good review article about the issue: http://www.aleixomkt.com.br/fisio/16.pdf

There is no spoon.

Take as an example someone trained to their potential VO2Max running. If they switch to cycling, at first their cycling specific muscles will be untrained and unable to deliver enough power to sufficiently tax the cardiovascular system to get anywhere near their running VO2Max.

As the heart has reached its full potential and can't beat faster or increase stroke volume, the lungs are unable to increase their capacity and the blood is unable to increase volume or red blood cells, the only place any increase in power can come from is the muscles and improved neuromuscular ability.

Obviously if an unfit person takes up cycling their improvement in power output will be due to the cardiovascular system and the muscles and improved neuromuscular ability.

I recently went back to rowing after doing nothing but cycling for 16 years. My rowing power was only 64% of my cycling power.

When I took up cycling when fit from running, squash and rowing I wasn't able to get my heart rate up to normal levels of even get breathless. My legs were unable to deliver enough power to get my heart rate up to 85% of my running or rowing max. But once trained my cycling max heart rate was the same as my running max heart rate. Cycling power output soon exceeded my Concept2 power.

Is improved VO2max a consequence of improved performance or is improved performance a consequence of improved VO2Max?

Isn't it established that VO2Max is a poor predictor of performance? Two athletes may have the same VO2Max but very different performance.

Two athletes may have the same performance but very different blood lactate levels for the same performance.

If my sustainable power improves and my power / heart rate ratio improves, is that improvememt down to increased cardiac output or are my muscles using less oxygen for a given power? Or sucking more oxygen out of the same number of red blood cells for a given power?

Seeing as few of us have access to a lab and the necessary equipment and even if we did it doesn't seem cut and dried what is actually going on and the experts can't agree with each other anyway, it's all rather academic. Interesting yes but is it of practical use for training purposes?

So, be improvements down to improved cardiovascular system or changes in the muscles or changes in what the brain allows, for training purposes does it matter?