Watts Doc #18: Why Everything You Know About VO2max Power Is Probably Wrong

4/25/2020

Empirical Cycling Podcast · Watts Doc #18: Why Everything You Know About VO2max Power Is Probably Wrong

In the first episode in a VO2max series, we take a deep dive into why VO2max power, or maximal aerobic power (MAP), is not a simple number that can be found in a simple test. We discuss the history, physiological, and methodological underpinnings of ramp tests and what makes them flawed, and what some people have done to try and account for these. Additional methods of MAP testing and tracking and their drawbacks are discussed. We conclude with some practical advice for ways to monitor improvements your own VO2max.

Podcast Notes
Adami study on ramp rates
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs00421-013-2705-9

Second study on longer ramp rates
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6066218/

Coggan blog post on estimating VO2max power
http://www.trainingandracingwithapowermeter.com/2010/06/how-to-estimate-vo2max-using-power.html

Pinot & Grappe VO2max model
https://www.fredericgrappe.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/MAP.pdf

9 Comments

Sebastian Weber link

4/27/2020 04:25:41 am

Your assumption on how INSCYD derives VO2max you mention in this podcast is not correct.

It is not wise talk about a technology and or method and trying you make a judgement without even knowing it. Makes you highly dubios when you do this.

Kolie

4/27/2020 08:55:17 am

When you came to Boston, someone asked how vo2max was calculated with the 4 minute test, and that's what you showed us. Even if I'm incorrect in this, your software is dubious in many other ways.

4/27/2020 10:13:36 am

Yes, we use(d) a 4min test as part of the whole testing protocol - in case there is no lactate and/or VO2 measured . which then was and is part of the logic to retrieve an accurate VO2max value. But because it is part of the puzzle, doesn't mean that VO2max is retrieved as you state here. It is much more complicated than this - as you indicated. Never good to jump to conclusions without doing the diligence.
Oh, and as it seems you didn't notice yet: since some time there is a new and improved version for testing using only power data, which is currently used by many World Tour Teams and coaches during lockdown as full substitute for the previous lab and field testing. You might want to check it out.

INSCYD appearing dubios to you - I take this as a compliment :-) We had many - and still have - exercise scientists who have initially been sceptical about it and had also difficulties to wrap their mind around how it works. But once they dive into it they get it and are convinced by it.

4/27/2020 10:33:48 am

Your endorsement by WT teams doesn't mean your model is any better or valid, but I'm fine being wrong if you've improved your methods since then.

When I say it's dubious, I mean there are very simple physiological things you've gotten wrong in the model because the models you base it on are incorrect. It shows in every test result you publish for most athletes, I don't even need to look at the methodology of the model itself. Very few exercise scientists and even fewer coaches are also decent biochemists, so I understand why these misconceptions have come about.

4/27/2020 11:01:11 am

OK, so to get this straight, what you are saying is:

You judge a technology you have very limited knowledge about and no access to of being wrong or faulty or whatsoever.

And on the other hand, there are armies of well renown scientists, physiologists and coaches, who are working for national sporting organisations, universities, national teams, etc. many of those with a track record way better than yours and mine combined, who investigate and test the technology, then decide it is legit and actual spent money to use it.
And you are saying all these experts are wrong and unable to spot all these faults in the technology.

But only you spotted from the outside all the flaws - low probability for this being the case here.
In the case above it is more likely that the experts who checked the technology themselves are right.

4/27/2020 11:14:09 am

Yes, that is exactly what I'm saying, because results do not correlate with understanding. Every time one of those national or world tour teams, athletes, or coaches consults with me, they are no longer interested in your software. One doesn't need to know how you calculate things to see that the output is incorrect. We're getting nowhere here, so if you would like to discuss this further please send me an email and we can discuss my consultation fee.

4/27/2020 12:01:44 pm

So why are all those WT team asking you about a technology you don't know really?

Seems logical

4/27/2020 12:03:09 pm

oh and what is about all those PhDs and scientists ...they don't contact you I guess.
Like Stanford most likely didn't right?

Dave Krenik

7/29/2020 02:41:22 pm

Bandwagon fallacy?

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.

Watts Doc #18: Why Everything You Know About VO2max Power Is Probably Wrong

Leave a Reply.

Archives

Categories