>coaching Dec '95: Re: my first VO2 max test....
>Thu Dec  7 23:06:50 1995 PST

Lokey Kroenstaff (jnugent@is.dal.ca) wrote:
>capacity.  I don't know if what the tester found was right, because the
>number seems a bit discouraging....

This is one of the drawbacks to VO2 testing, and Conconi testing, and
to some degree heart rate monitoring.  What matters is how well you do
in races, not what a single and often inaccurate physiological
measurement says.

There are so many factors that go into a good ride, psychology, diet,
experience... that a single data point like V02 is virtually
meaningless.  What the advocates of testing so often forget is that the
results of these tests are not an accurate predictor of racing
success.  For example there are many casual runners with VO2s over
80ml/kg and there are also many national team members with VO2s under
70.

Riders who have been around for 10 or 20 years might remember the
ergometer tests Eddie B (one of America's great coaches BTW) used to
conduct at the OTC winter training camps.  Many a good erg rider would
get preference for later team selections and once even a paid trip to
the Tour of Texas.  It never surprised anyone when these ergometer
masters didn't place well.

On the other hand there are those highly successful riders who become
very discouraged when they see the results of their first V02 test.
Take Paul Deem for example.  Here was a multiple national champion and
clearly professional material.  Even in those days (mid 70s) Paul was
world class.  One day he took a V02 test at the OTC and was so
discouraged by the low numbers that he dropped out of the sport shortly
thereafter.  I'm sure the "coaches" like Ed Burke had played up the V02
test in Paul's mind.  Why do some physiologists continue to tout these
measurements when the data clearly indicates the results bear no good
relationship to fitness?

Can anyone show me even one rider who has become a better cyclist from
a max V02 test?

Roger Marquis

Return to Coaching Classics