I don’t think that you are completely following the debate.
The saying “max is max” alludes to the fact that VO2max is a true physiological characteristic of any given individual, akin to, e g., body mass. Like body mass, it is subject to both small day-to-day variability as well as long term changes in response to intervention (dieting, training). Also like body mass, you can’t just will it to be immediately lower (body mass) or higher (VO2max), as it is not determined by your motivation/psychology (as demonstrated by the classic study by Jack Wilmore that I posted previously).
Finally, with respect to your comments about prior/posterior knowledge, true VO2max is defined by a plateau in VO2 with respect to demand, and can be elicited various ways (e.g., running uphill on a treadmill, combined leg and arm cycling). Neither of these would be necessarily true if VO2max were defined simply on the basis of logic as the highest VO2 observed under any conditions. Importantly, it is observations such as these that provide insight into the physiological determinants of VO2max.
IOW, this is not simply a case of semantics, and the argument can’t be settled simply on the basis of logic.
ETA: WKO4/5 already provides estimates of maximal neuromuscular power (Pmax), “anaerobic” capacity (FRC), maximal metabolic steady state power (mFTP), VO2max (as we’ve been discussing), and muscle fiber type. Is there something else in particular that you are interested in?
What I’m hearing is a person may be externally motivated to keep going longer and push harder but once their oxygen uptake levels off, all the extra work they can muster through new motivation isn’t going to move this one, specific internal physiological needle.
At least, not within this one VO2 test session.
Keep training with motivation, and maybe your VO2max will be higher next time, but not over the course of a single test.
That’s what I’m hearing, am I getting it right or am I off?
I’ve read several places (not scientific papers) that vo2 max is observed to be highest in cross country skiing, followed by running, biking and finally swimming. Was this referring to vo2peak all along? And vo2 max would be the same in all modalities given the athlete is fit enough to elicit that max output?
Also, could psychology play a part in measuring anaerobic capacity/ frc because of simply how it’s measured and how much discomfort the athlete can endure?
I skipped out on this thread as it didn’t seem like the conversation was productive. Went back to it today to remove some personal info and see what became of it.
You should know that the perspective that “VO2peak is not VO2max” is not one that is shared by most people in exercise physiology land. I’d avoided pointing this out before as the convo was already going off the rails.
VO2peak is used in the literature because many (~20-60%) people never actually reach a plateau value during a VO2max test. Whether someone does or not is highly correlated with their anaerobic capacity. In order to actually “see” a plateau in oxygen consumption, the subject needs to continue doing extremely hard work for a period of time after VO2max is reached… if you don’t have much anaerobic capacity, they can’t do this, and you’ll never see a plateau.
Current VO2max testing protocols typically use VO2peak as the measure of VO2max when the subject never reaches a measurable plateau. This value is “checked” by correlating it with other measures as well (what I was referring to when talking about surrogate markers earlier) and often by including a separate verification phase during testing.
For further details you can read this, which I think does a good job of generally describing “expert consensus” on the matter:
The commenter you were originally talking to often doesn’t identify when the opinion they are stating as an expert differs from more general expert consensus on a topic.
I think from your perspective, you should trust nothing that’s written by any random person on the internet, and stick to peer-reviewed literature as a better indication of what truth is.
An estimation based on peak because some subjects aren’t physiologically capable of holding/plateauing (20-60% is a massive range) doesn’t change the fact that max is max.
Day 1 Test an athlete with a met cart, find plateau.
Day 2 - 10 Destroy them with intervals making them as fatigued as they’ve ever been.
Day 11 Test vo2 again. Can’t plateue and vo2 peaks below test on day 1.
Did their vo2 max go down? Did their maximum potential cardiac output shrink? Definitely not. They’re tired. They lost the ability to express their maximum potential.
You’re right. You can motivate someone to show improvement their vo2 peak. But that does not mean you motivated them to the point their heart is capable of doing more. It either can or cant at any given time. They were simply better able to express their potential.
I think you might be misunderstanding why VO2 peak is used and accepted in the scientific literature as a measure of VO2max, instead of just plateau values.
The people who can’t reach a plateau… typically never will no matter how many times or when you test them. Again, it’s mostly a function of anaerobic ability (and individual VO2 kinetics). As mentioned in that article, this seems to be independent of endurance training experience or fatigue.
For these people, they typically physically can’t consume a higher volume of oxygen beyond the peak measured value. This is their VO2max (or like within 5% of it). And this is why VO2peak is widely used and accepted as a measurement of VO2max in the literature.
This obviously raises potential issues with poor effort artificially lowering measurements of VO2max. But that’s why there are established protocols for VO2max testing that address this. This includes things like secondary exhaustion criteria (blood lactate, respiratory exchange coefficient, etc), as well as potentially a secondary verification test.
Again though, I would encourage you to not take my word for it, nor any other random commenters word on the internet.
That recent invited narrative review on this matter in a (the?) leading sports medicine journal that I just gave is a good place to start to inform you on what recent expert consensus on this matter is, but you’re welcome to look elsewhere as well if you wish. I don’t really have anything that I’m hiding. I have my own opinions that may differ on some finer points, but I am not presenting those here.
I think from your perspective, you should trust nothing that’s written by any random person on the internet, and stick to peer-reviewed literature as a better indication of what truth is.