General Discussion Triathlon Talk » The Fallacy of VO2max - mainly in swimming, but running too Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2010-05-29 8:02 AM

User image

Veteran
126
10025
New Paltz NY
Subject: The Fallacy of VO2max - mainly in swimming, but running too
The HTFU swim question thread devolved into a fair bit of lively discussion of whether fitness or training are more impactful on swim performance. I emphatically believe both are, but that swim training sets should be designed to improve and imprint technique, and that physiology will follow. Some technique-oriented sets are designed to "perfect" your stroke. Those are physically easier so the conditioning effect would be more aerobic. Other sets are designed to "tune" an efficient stroke to higher rates -- and thus to produce faster paces. Those place greater demands on the body's metabolic systems and could put one into the "threshold" or "anaerobic" zones.

Another philosophy advocates that it's essential to swim "hard" -- and sacrifice form if needed -- in order to get fitter or perhaps simply to HTFU.

Much of the argument for prioritizing conditioning is based on the premise that it's scientific. I related that in discussions on "energy system training" with Mike Joyner, one of the most respected human performance researchers in the country (and a high performing athlete himself - 2:25 marathon in med school and 21-min 1650-yd swim as a 40+ Masters swimmer) he had referred to that as "pseudo-science, at best."

As I noted in that thread, it's been an unquestioned article of faith in swimming that "energy systems" are the "scientific" way to train. Hundreds of pages in the "bibles" of swim coaching - Science of Swimming by Counsilman and Swimming Fastest by Maglischo are devoted to abstruse explanations of how these systems work at the molecular and cellular level - plus dozens of pages presenting complicated formulas for planning training sets (how long, how fast, how much rest) to produce these effects. Yet none of the research establishing them studied what happens with them while swimming.

Yesterday, as a followup, Mike Joyner sent me a link to the Science of Running web site, in particular a lengthy piece "The Fallacy of VO2max", which concludes: "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?"

Here's the link if you'd like to read it yourself. Much of it is highly technical but there's still plenty that's thought-provoking. http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2ma...


2010-05-29 8:46 AM
in reply to: #2889937

User image

Champion
9600
500020002000500100
Fountain Hills, AZ
Subject: RE: The Fallacy of VO2max - mainly in swimming, but running too
Good article. For what it's worth, I agree that VO2 max training in swim/bike/run isn't very important or meaningful. We just had a running thread where someone asked what he needed to raise his VO2 max and we explained that wasn't what he should be concentrating on. I never do VO2 Max swim/bike/run training. I do tempo, threshold, and pace based work. In the pool, threshold work is work right at LT, not VO2 Max.
2010-05-29 9:33 AM
in reply to: #2889937

User image

Champion
8936
50002000100050010010010010025
Subject: RE: The Fallacy of VO2max - mainly in swimming, but running too
The point about VO2 max is spot on, but let's not confuse all hard training with "VO2 max training".
2010-05-29 1:26 PM
in reply to: #2889995

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
2010-05-29 1:27 PM
in reply to: #2889995

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.

Edited by PennState 2010-05-29 1:29 PM
2010-05-29 1:30 PM
in reply to: #2889937

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.


2010-05-29 4:04 PM
in reply to: #2890183

Veteran
126
10025
New Paltz NY
Subject: RE: The Fallacy of VO2max - mainly in swimming, but running too
PennState
Do you live in State College? Or just expressing an affection for the school?
2010-05-29 4:27 PM
in reply to: #2889937

over a barrier
Subject: RE: The Fallacy of VO2max - mainly in swimming, but running too
Vo2max does not move much, and is not the great of a predictor of performance. However, vVo2max is an excellent predictor of performance. You can dig around for all of Billat's studies at pubmed

vVo2Max is trainable and working @ vVo2max pulls up vLT similar to how LT work pushes vorpLT up.

I generally include a 6 week block of vVo2 max several times a year especially in the case of an athlete that doesn't have a large difference between their FTP and pVo2max (<120%) or an athlete that is stuck and having trouble raising FTP (roof vs ceiling analogy). I took part in a study winter 08-09 where I lifted my FTP 10% doing two vVo2max sessions a week with a smaller FTP set. Raising FTP 10% in six weeks is huge. However, It also takes more time to recovery both physically and mentally and wouldn't be able to be maintained over the course of an entire year but can be dropped into a yearly training plan for great results a couple of times a year

2010-05-29 4:52 PM
in reply to: #2890301

Subject: ...
This user's post has been ignored.
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » The Fallacy of VO2max - mainly in swimming, but running too Rss Feed