Last
week I did my first set of VO2max testing in a while, 7 years to be
precise.
The
results and the comparison with my last test were great news, not
just for me but for all those like me that do not believe that
getting older means getting slower or weaker.
Before
diving into the data a quick refresher about why VO2max is so
important and what it represents.
In
a nutshell VO2max is most important number that represents an
endurance athletes capability.
That
is because it is the result of two factors:
- How much oxygen they can use when going all out doing "aerobic" work (measured in litres (i.e. Volume) per minute– this is important because oxygen is needed to create the energy that moves our bike. The more oxygen the more energy and the more energy the more speed. This rule is true for all events that last minutes or hours rather than seconds. All athletes already are aware of this since the harder they try the more they need to breathe. At some point you can breathe no harder and this is your "max" VO2 (volume of oxygen)
- Their weight (in kg)- this is important because while bigger muscles produce more energy they also mean a bigger body. This is a factor in endurance sports, which basically involve moving the body so the heavier it is the more energy is needed. So what you gain on the swings of having big muscles you lose on the roundabout of having to cart a bigger body around. Cycling is in fact a slight exception to this. The rule does apply to climbing but less so for riding on the flat especially on a time trial bike. (in the latter case it is not the weight of the body that matters but its size and aerodynamic properties. Technology has played a bit part in reducing the effect of these so the best time triallists can concentrate more on increasing their power rather than decreasing their weight.)
Divide
volume of oxygen by weight and you end up with "VO2max".
The rule for this is straightforward, the bigger the better. For top
pro cyclists it will be in the 80s, the highest numbers ever recorded
have been in the 90s. For untrained adults it will most likely be
somewhere in the 30s.
With
that in mind here are my numbers, now and back in 2013
Maximum
Oxygen
2013
4.21 L/Minute
2020
4.54 L/Minute (+8%)
Weight
2013
67.1 kg
2020
68,0 kg
VO2max
2013
62.7
2020
66.7 (+6%)
A
very positive picture. My maximum oxygen has gone up so even though I
weighed a little more at the time of the test so has my VO2max.,
And
not a surprise if I am honest. I don't need a VO2max test to tell me
I am fitter and faster, my Garmin does that already. But still it is
rewarding and I'm proud of what I have managed.
Great
for me. But also great for all those who do not subscribe to the view
that getting older means you have to get slower.
I'll
try to explain why.
Because
VO2max is so important in sport there have been a lot of studies into
it. Obviously these generate a lot of data but the overall
conclusion is usually expressed as follows
"In
the general population, VO2max tends to decline by about 10% per
decade after the age of 30. Athletes who continue to compete and
train hard can reduce the drop by about half, to 5% per decade after
the age of 30."
This is pretty depressing. After 30 that's it, downhill all the way. Even training hard won't stop the rot, it just means getting worse a bit less quickly.
Actually
for me it's not all bad news. I can do a bit of reverse calculation.
I
am 3 decades older than 30. So by the above, taking the athlete view,
my VO2max at 30 should have been 66.7 + 5% + 5% + 5%.
So
for bragging rights I could claim my VO2max at 30 would have been
77.2 not bad for a man and up with the highest levels for women.
But
it gets better. I'm 1.7m tall, which makes my BMI 23.5, nicely in the
healthy range. But the healthy range is quite a big one and I'm on
the higher end. Say I was 30 and really focused on cycling, what
would be a reasonable weight for me? Easy enough, Simon Yates is a
couple of cm taller and he weighs 59kg (so his BMI is 19.9 still in
the healthy range but towards the lower end)
So
if I weighed 59kg today my VO2max would be 76.9, near elite level.
And
my VO2max at 30 would have been 76.9 +5% +5% +5%.
Which
is 89. Compared to Chris Froome's of 88.
So,
I could have won the Tour de France if I had been riding at 30 as
opposed to have just ridden the route at 47.
Ah
dream on, what would I have said on the Champs Elysses???
Nothing
actually, it is just a dream for a few reasons.
Firstly
the 1989 tour was the greatest ever finish and there is no way I
could hurt myself like either Greg Lemonde or Laurant Fignon. And
Greg Lemonde had an even higher real VO2max than my dream, up at 92.
Secondly as I mentioned above and as the 1989 race so excitingly showed power trumps VO2max when it comes to time trials and time trials decide most Grand Tours.
So no yellow jersey for me. But, maybe, to quote Marlon Brando "I could have been a contender..???
Sadly I couldn't. Because lastly and far more importantly
The
science about the decline of VO2max is not wrong but is widely
misquoted and misunderstood.
I
explained this in considerable detail in my other recent post so will
not go this all over again.
In a nutshell.
- The science about VO2max deals with what is easy to measure but not what is important. Its conclusions are valid in terms of absolute peaks, assuming you have the luxury of training dedicating 100% of your resources towards getting better and are extremely lucky to boot. This does not apply to most people. That is why the average actual VO2max is closer to 40 than 80. Athletes don't have to care about what their peak VO2max might be until they have spent many years training full time.
- It is summarised as an average. An average is meaningless in terms of telling us anything useful about any individual. That is a basic fact of statistics but one that is frequently misunderstood. If the average person lives to be 70 you cannot use this information to know if you will live to be 100. If the average person earns 25,000 you cannot know if the shabbily dressed person sitting next to you on the bus is a pauper or an eccentric billionaire.
- It is extrememly difficult to attribute something as complex as VO2max to one specific cause like aging. It is next to impossible to conduct a study that lasts long enough with enough participants while controlling for all the other reasons VO2max will change like: diet, motivation, lifestyle, family stess, training, resources etc etc.
The
very studies that produced the statistics I quoted about VO2max
"decline" actually acknowledge this. This was pointed out
in this article from which I have taken two quotes
In
1987, a year after Dill’s death, Dr Michael Pollock and
co-investigators at the Mt Sinai Medical Center in Milwaukee,
Wisconsin, reported an astonishing finding which lent further
credence to the idea that very strenuous exercise was a VO2max
preserver: well-trained, competitive endurance athletes with an
average initial age of 52 were able to totally maintain VO2max values
over a 10-year period
At
the fairly inactive end of Rogers’ athletic group, the losses in
VO2max were greater. Two athletes who cut training volume by 30% or
more experienced VO2max losses of about 1% per year. By contrast, a
55-year-old, national-class athlete, who completely maintained the
quantity and quality of his training, preserved all of his VO2max –
and actually improved his competitive performances – over the
entire study period!
So,
sadly, my extrapolations back in time are fallacious because the 5%
decline is wrong when applied to me as an individual.
I
cannot add all the 5%s. There is a question of whether I can add
anything at all. The answer to that will, in the absence of someone
inventing a time machine, never be known.
I
will just have to content myself with improving.
And
that is the single most important message of my story. The statistics
about VO2max do not lie but they do mislead.
There
is every reason why a person of any age who trains purposefully with
motivation should be able to maintain or even improve their VO2max.
And
just about any other physical and mental capability as well, be it
strength, mobility or just being able to complete the daily crossword
puzzle.
The
only exceptions to this are
- life long athletes (and even some of them come close as the best 60 and 70 year old ex pros on Zwift demonstrate)
- those unlucky enough to suffer injury or illness. On which subject, while any training program has to take potential health risk into account there is overwhelming evidence, far far more reliable than that on VO2max "decline", that staying fit is one of if not the single best way to stay healthy with a sense of well being for your full natural life.
So
do not let the pessimistic message that you so often hear about aging
get you down.
You
do not have to train hard all your life it's a choice.
But don't let that choice be swayed by the view that things can only get worse. Be optimistic, keep motivated and if you enjoy your training it will more than likely pay off, now and in the many years to come.
But don't let that choice be swayed by the view that things can only get worse. Be optimistic, keep motivated and if you enjoy your training it will more than likely pay off, now and in the many years to come.
No comments:
Post a Comment