I've read plenty about stroke volume in the 40-60% range, but never heard the (very important) bit about it decreasing above 60%--great point for us exercise enthusiasts to keep in mind.
For sure. My takeaway is to not let the zones' intensity creep up when the objective is maximizing that low stroke volume, which I think a lot of type-A athletes are inclined to do. Tell a competitive college rower to keep the intensity low on a steady state session, and over time she'll push that intensity up and up, a little bit at a time to "beat" the previous week's splits...if Coach doesn't properly emphasize what the objective is and why. End result is getting less value from that "low intensity" training than if we had stayed in that optimal range, if I'm understanding the concept correctly.
It's always tempting for an athlete to push and zone training can feel very counter intuitive. In data we trust. We look at the inputs and then assess the outputs.
My Apple Watch claims that my VO2 max is 60.1 and I’m skeptical. Cooper test would put me closer to 54. I’m fit and run 200 miles/month but I hardly an elite athlete at age 50.
VO2 max has become a talking point on health/life span. This is along the lines of Peter Attia's stuff. I wrote about VO2 max myself recently too. It's a fine goal. I felt that rather than people obsessing about some new number itself, getting some regular cardiovascular exercise along these lines and seeking to build more subjective fitness is a big start for many. Trying to convert "average" people into athletes effectively, at least in some form to get the benefits of this is the tricky bit.
Why is everyone so fixated on longevity and trying to find scientific ways to increase lifespan? I'm happy to do everything in moderation, including fitness, without trying to endlessly measure outcomes and just enjoy the journey without getting fixated. Nothing will give a guarantee that I don't die early of an infectious disease, cancer or some autoimmune problem and there are no guarantees that I won't get dementia either. The world is "going to hell in a handcart" and you're worrying about VO2 max!? I'm not.
True. I believe the point of longevity studies is to learn ways of living a well and good life — whether it brings you to older age may be a bonus. The point is to maintain your health and wellness until you die. No one wants to live a diseased life.
Really interesting post! Question though: my understanding is that V02 max level for individuals is largely genetic, and that training can create improvements of only 5-10% in most cases. Not true?
(I’m a runner and did a proper V02 assessment at a sports clinic a couple years ago. Big fan of interval running.)
They are ok as long as you are a very regular athlete and can give a rough approximation. Better to do a Cooper Test or ideally a formal V02 max metabolic cart.
Great article. I have also written about V02 max. Most people believe that walking is sufficient to improve cardiovascular fitness but your heart rate is not that high when walking.
I've read plenty about stroke volume in the 40-60% range, but never heard the (very important) bit about it decreasing above 60%--great point for us exercise enthusiasts to keep in mind.
It's all about training different zones. Big emphasis on lower zones but does not mean we should ignore the others either. All about proportion.
For sure. My takeaway is to not let the zones' intensity creep up when the objective is maximizing that low stroke volume, which I think a lot of type-A athletes are inclined to do. Tell a competitive college rower to keep the intensity low on a steady state session, and over time she'll push that intensity up and up, a little bit at a time to "beat" the previous week's splits...if Coach doesn't properly emphasize what the objective is and why. End result is getting less value from that "low intensity" training than if we had stayed in that optimal range, if I'm understanding the concept correctly.
It's always tempting for an athlete to push and zone training can feel very counter intuitive. In data we trust. We look at the inputs and then assess the outputs.
Super!
Been guilty of neglecting Zone 2 for years. Old school training ethos hadn’t served me well !
Such a good article! Very informative and also practical. Thank you!
What do you think about the accuracy of devices like Apple Watch?
Not convinced. For best results I think a functional test is best.
My Apple Watch claims that my VO2 max is 60.1 and I’m skeptical. Cooper test would put me closer to 54. I’m fit and run 200 miles/month but I hardly an elite athlete at age 50.
If the Cooper test was done well I would tend to go with that.
VO2 max has become a talking point on health/life span. This is along the lines of Peter Attia's stuff. I wrote about VO2 max myself recently too. It's a fine goal. I felt that rather than people obsessing about some new number itself, getting some regular cardiovascular exercise along these lines and seeking to build more subjective fitness is a big start for many. Trying to convert "average" people into athletes effectively, at least in some form to get the benefits of this is the tricky bit.
For me it's all about goals. Some people want to get very serious about it, others just want to enjoy the ride. It's all about what each person wants.
Interesting article.
Why is everyone so fixated on longevity and trying to find scientific ways to increase lifespan? I'm happy to do everything in moderation, including fitness, without trying to endlessly measure outcomes and just enjoy the journey without getting fixated. Nothing will give a guarantee that I don't die early of an infectious disease, cancer or some autoimmune problem and there are no guarantees that I won't get dementia either. The world is "going to hell in a handcart" and you're worrying about VO2 max!? I'm not.
True. I believe the point of longevity studies is to learn ways of living a well and good life — whether it brings you to older age may be a bonus. The point is to maintain your health and wellness until you die. No one wants to live a diseased life.
Really interesting post! Question though: my understanding is that V02 max level for individuals is largely genetic, and that training can create improvements of only 5-10% in most cases. Not true?
(I’m a runner and did a proper V02 assessment at a sports clinic a couple years ago. Big fan of interval running.)
Hi, thanks for your article.
When you say 40 to 60 % of Vo2max, is it the same that 40 to 60 % of maximum heart rate?
Thanks
No.
It would be interesting to learn the VO2 of Blue Zone citizens. Given all their walking up and down hilly terrain everyday it’s probably up there.
I’m not aware of any VO2 max data but I suspect for anyone with lots of daily activity it’s unlikely in the low ranges.
Nice post. Do we have any idea how reliable the Health app or apple watch are at estimating VO2?
They are ok as long as you are a very regular athlete and can give a rough approximation. Better to do a Cooper Test or ideally a formal V02 max metabolic cart.
Great article. I have also written about V02 max. Most people believe that walking is sufficient to improve cardiovascular fitness but your heart rate is not that high when walking.