Looks like you need to update you list of the highest recorded VO2’s.
I’m not saying physiology was vastly different before the study was published 
No? Pardon moi, my French is not so bueno.
I’ll go out on a limb and say that the trend existed before the study was published. Let’s call the trend
Schrodinger’s cat though.
Maybe, maybe not.
• Steve Prefontaine,US runner, 84.4
• Frank Shorter, US Olympic Marathon winner, 71.3
Who remembers or read about the 3-mile race Pre and Shorter had at Hayward Field in 1974? Pre nipped Shorter at the finish in a new American record of 12:51.4.
Now look again at the difference in their Vo2max.
That http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12471319 is the one I was thinking about.
Will people in Europe have better answers on this?
Whether they have better answers or not is to be seen. I haven’t asked them yet so I do not have an answer. Maybe they will not know anything different. But I offered up two ideas that were not offered before, one is the mixture of different types of fuels which could affect economy or maybe not and the other is what is behind the threshold which addresses the original question. Both concepts are about metabolic differences due to differences in VO2 max. These ideas come from people I know in Europe and are rarely discussed by anyone in the US.
Does socialism lead to more informed answers regarding the relationship between VO2max and endurance? If so, won’t Canadians suffice?
That is an interesting comment. One of the people I will ask, runs his own business. There is intense competition there amongst the people who train and advise the athletes. Most get little money from the state though some do especially in the run up to the Olympics.
I should not have said Europe because it certainly led to a different discussion. I should just have said sports scientists. So I apologize
That http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12471319 is the one I was thinking about.
OK, I agree that cycling is a better tool to get at the truth of the matter, but whenever you have a homogenous group from one end of the bell curve (or the other), the question becomes, “is the effect nature or nurture?”. By looking at average pre-menopausal women we are likely removing the selection bias from the experiment. By looking at walking as well as isometric contractions and using NMR, we are still looking at efficiency as opposed to economy.
I like the thought that it’s the latter (nurture), but my citation argues it’s the former (nature). Of course, it could be a combination of both.
I’m going to go with both: nature and nurture. And the recent epigenetics studies in various areas suggest that most likely, it is both, for pretty much
everything.
Will people in Europe have better answers on this?
Whether they have better answers or not is to be seen. I haven’t asked them yet so I do not have an answer. Maybe they will not know anything different. But I offered up two ideas that were not offered before, one is the mixture of different types of fuels which could affect economy or maybe not and the other is what is behind the threshold which addresses the original question. Both concepts are about metabolic differences due to differences in VO2 max. These ideas come from people I know in Europe and are rarely discussed by anyone in the US.
OK, I’ll grant you the point about substrate utilization vs economy/efficiency. I would argue the point has been ignored equally on both sides of the Atlantic for some time and surprisingly, just becoming noticed
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19833811
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19806216
Interestingly, both of these works were performed by Canadians, despite their socialist influences.
Does socialism lead to more informed answers regarding the relationship between VO2max and endurance? If so, won’t Canadians suffice?
That is an interesting comment. One of the people I will ask, runs his own business. There is intense competition there amongst the people who train and advise the athletes. Most get little money from the state though some do especially in the run up to the Olympics.
I should not have said Europe because it certainly led to a different discussion. I should just have said sports scientists. So I apologize
Again, I will grant you there is much more performance oriented research being performed outside of the US. That being said, there are a few smart people over here that can comment on the topic.
Please don’t apologize. It seems like you’re apologizing for America, and that just won’t stand.
I’m going to go with both: nature and nurture. And the recent epigenetics studies in various areas suggest that most likely, it is both, for pretty much
everything.
Ha… takin’ the easy way out. Everything’s epigenetics these days.
You look at data for a living, more or less? Well, that’s really the bottom line then. Hardly the easy way out though. Looking at these data sets isn’t easy one bit 
There’s a lot more to VO2 max than lungs. But VO2 max doesn’t determine endurance performance. It might be good indicator for poorly trained athletes but not professional athletes. It needs to be decent but it’s not near as important as ftp and measurements that look at performance on a longer time scale.
There’s a lot more to VO2 max than lungs. But VO2 max doesn’t determine endurance performance.
You are correct, except in cases with severe underlying lung disease, including exertional bronchospasm. Breathing capacity does not limit VO2max in the usual laboratory test. You can achieve about the same VO2max in a cycling test with SCUBA gear. But try prolonged cycling with some restricted breathing then test for VO2max. Ventilatory fatigue then becomes a limiting factor.
I would argue the point has been ignored equally on both sides of the Atlantic for some time and surprisingly, just becoming noticed
It certainly has been ignored but it has been around for over 25 years in the literature. These articles by Mader discussed the fuel mixture among other things as a function of VO2 max first in 1986 which means it was understood at least a couple years before that by some.
Mader, A. and H. Heck (1986). “A theory of the metabolic origin of “anaerobic threshold”.” International Journal of Sports Medicine 7(Sup): S45-S65.
Mader, A. (1991). “Evaluation of the endurance performance of marathon runners and theoretical analysis of test results.” Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 31(1): 1-19.
Mader, A. (2003). “Glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation as a function of cytosolic phosphorylation state and power output of the muscle cell.” European Journal of Applied Physiology 88(4-5): 317-38.
The ideas in these very technical articles were the basis for the training of Luc van Lierde. And this has been available in the popular literature and on the internet for over 14 years and few have picked up on it. So I agree the ideas have been ignored.
There’s a lot more to VO2 max than lungs. But VO2 max doesn’t determine endurance performance. It might be good indicator for poorly trained athletes but not professional athletes. It needs to be decent but it’s not near as important as ftp and measurements that look at performance on a longer time scale.
I have a high v02 but my 5k pr is 26:59 and I cant quite break 2:00 in half mary. How long you have been running and whether or not you are gifted has a lot to do with it. I can run faster but I’m still overweight so I don’t run as hard as I’m capable because I can “feel” when I am gonna get hurt. Running economy is more important I bet.
There’s a lot more to VO2 max than lungs. But VO2 max doesn’t determine endurance performance. It might be good indicator for poorly trained athletes but not professional athletes. It needs to be decent but it’s not near as important as ftp and measurements that look at performance on a longer time scale.
I have a high v02 but my 5k pr is 26:59 and I cant quite break 2:00 in half mary. How long you have been running and whether or not you are gifted has a lot to do with it. I can run faster but I’m still overweight so I don’t run as hard as I’m capable because I can “feel” when I am gonna get hurt. Running economy is more important I bet.
Just curious… but what is your Vo2?
Did you remember to express VO2 max as ml/min/kg?
Not sure of the exact number but my resting HR is 38-40 which puts me @ around 72. I took a stress test a few years back and stopped just a couple mins before it was over (I was 230lbs). And doctor commented that I almost finished and practically nobody finishes. I do know my lung capacity is 112% of normal when I was 20lbs heavier. It’s fairly high I bet
I would argue the point has been ignored equally on both sides of the Atlantic for some time and surprisingly, just becoming noticed
It certainly has been ignored but it has been around for over 25 years in the literature. These articles by Mader discussed the fuel mixture among other things as a function of VO2 max first in 1986 which means it was understood at least a couple years before that by some.
Mader, A. and H. Heck (1986). “A theory of the metabolic origin of “anaerobic threshold”.” International Journal of Sports Medicine 7(Sup): S45-S65.
Mader, A. (1991). “Evaluation of the endurance performance of marathon runners and theoretical analysis of test results.” Journal of Sports Medicine and Physical Fitness 31(1): 1-19.
Mader, A. (2003). “Glycolysis and oxidative phosphorylation as a function of cytosolic phosphorylation state and power output of the muscle cell.” European Journal of Applied Physiology 88(4-5): 317-38.
The ideas in these very technical articles were the basis for the training of Luc van Lierde. And this has been available in the popular literature and on the internet for over 14 years and few have picked up on it. So I agree the ideas have been ignored.
I believe you took my statement out of context
"OK, I’ll grant you the point about substrate utilization vs economy/efficiency. I would argue the point has been ignored equally on both sides of the Atlantic for some time and surprisingly, just becoming noticed "
The general notions of metabolism as a function of maximal aerobic capacity and their relation to lactate metabolism have been around much longer, as evidenced by this very technical paper
A.V. Hill, C.N.H. Long and H. Lupton. Muscular Exercise, Lactic Acid and the Supply and Utilization of Oxygen. Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. (1924)
One could even cite back to something as simplistic as Brooks’ original “Crossover Concept” paper. The concept is not terribly complex or obscure.
My point was, the issue of substrate utilization and its impact on economy has been ignored for the most part. If that’s what you were getting at, then I guess we agree. In contrast, I think that the ideas expressed in Mader’s papers that you cite have certainly not been ignored and possibly overemphasized. I doubt that was your point though.
Yes it matters. It matters most if your VO2 max is either high or low though. But it is not the complete picture. The biggest VO2 max does not always win. If two guys have a similar VO2 max, the one who can race at a higher percentage of his VO2 max is going to have an advantage. Generally, power or pace at lactate threshold is a better predictor of race performance.
What you are describing is vVO2, or velocity at VO2max. VO2 max is an indicator of potential, and not much more. tlimVO2 and vVO2 are better gauges.
John
Exactly, and potential matters, especially if you have little or a lot, as I stated.
Not sure of the exact number but my resting HR is 38-40 which puts me @ around 72. I took a stress test a few years back and stopped just a couple mins before it was over (I was 230lbs). And doctor commented that I almost finished and practically nobody finishes. I do know my lung capacity is 112% of normal when I was 20lbs heavier. It’s fairly high I bet
This forum has been taken over by the theorists on metabolism and running economy, and now is about WTFoxtrot’s VO2max. Sorry, Cake, I guess there isn’t an adult in the room anymore to address your question.