>Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.racing >From: af084@FreeNet.Carleton.CA (Neil Redding) >Subject: Re: **VO2 MAX*** How important is it? >Date: Fri, 4 Nov 1994 13:48:28 GMT In a previous article, V887CF11@VM.TEMPLE.EDU () says: >>I was just reading in a cycling mag that the U.S. team will not even >>consider someone who has less than 70mg/kg/min VO2. Is this true? If >>so, how much of a role does the VO2 really play in the assestment of >>someone's capabilities? > In "Lore of Running" Tim Noakes compares the VO2 max of elite runners with their best performances. The runners had VO2 maxes between 69.7 and 85.0. However, their was no correlation between VO2 Max and performance, even for sub 2:12 marathoners. For example, Frank Shorter VO2 Max 71.3 Marathon PR 2:10:30 Willie Mtolo 70.3 2:08:30 Craig Virgin 81.1 2:10:26 Derek Clayton 69.7 WR 1969 (time unavailable) Elsewhere, Noakes observes that runners with lower VO2 Max were more "efficient" runners and at a given speed, required less oxygen than runners with a higher VO2 Max. He cited studies which showed that Clayton was 15% to 20% more efficient than Virgin, thus negating any advantage of Virgin's higher VO2 Max. Presumably, something similar hold for cyclists. As an example, when Greg Lemond did wind tunnel tests of his position, he was found to have a very low drag even when using standard handlebars, which would be a good example of cycling efficiency. I highly recommend Noakes book, although it is mainly about running, it has a lot of interesting exercise physiology and he supplies scientific references to back up his statements. -- Neil Redding 31 Renfrew Ave, Ottawa, Ontario Return to Coaching Classics