Recently though in discussions in various sports science spaces, VO2max – and attending to it in training – has started to be questioned – a bit in terms of its *specific* role in one’s training practice.
The best discussion i’ve seen around some of this has been posted at a blog called On and Off the Track, by Steve Magnus, a long time runner, and someone who’s doing his exercise science masters, so keen to cut teeth on latest research backed up by personal practice and coaching.
In case you don’t want to read the whole thing, here’s the main ta da:
|
Vollaard et al. may have put it best when they came to the conclusion that “Moreover, we demonstrate that VO2max and aerobic performance associate with distinct and separate physiological and biochemical endpoints, suggesting that proposed models for the determinants of endurance performance may need to be revisited (2009, pg. 1483)”. There recognition that aerobic performance and VO2max are not direct equals or even well linked is a step in the right direction and needs to be acknowledged to a much greater degree. Combining these findings with Noakes’ CGM creates a situation where VO2max may not be measuring what we think it is. Adding the facts that using %VO2 to classify training results in a wide range of adaptations and changes in VO2max do not occur in trained athletes, one has to question basing entire training programs on VO2max. The bottom line question that needs to be asked is why is so much of training focused on a variable that does not change in well trained athletes, barely changes in moderately trained, levels off after a short period of time, and does not even correlate well with performance? Does this sound like a variable that we should be basing all of our training off of?] |
The point of this post is not to say "VWC bad" (credentials on why i’m not saying that above, right?) but to say the more we learn the more our models of practice evolve.
We may be evolving the role of vo2max training, too, and why not?
food for thought anyway,
best
mc
