Originally Posted by MIN
Considering the substantial
range of V02 max readings for the population at large, and the fact that elite athletes are in the 70 to 80's, I think most of us who aren't in the pro peloton have a ways to go in improving our personal VO2 max reading.
To imply that that we are bound by genetics is to imply that we are all at our peak physical condition.
For my idiosyncratic case, I believe I have more room for improvement having recently quit smoking. (relative to you guys that have never smoked.)
Well, it doesn't work that way. We mere mortals can only hope to train our VO2Max to 70 ml/kg/m or higher, but the fact is we're probably not going to get much further than approximately 50 +/- 10 ml/kg/m due to our genetics no matter how hard we train. That's why it is more important for us to work on LT and efficiency.
Here's an example of how LT -can- be better than a high VO2Max:
Cyclist A - relative VO2Max is 80 ml/kg/m, but LT is 50% of VO2Max
Cyclist B - relative VO2Max is 55 ml/kg/m, but LT is 85% of VO2Max
Both cyclists are the same weight and have the same efficiency.
So, who can work the longest without fatigue from lactic acid/hyrdrogen ion build-up?
Of course this is oversimplified, but if you do the math:
Cyclist A - 50% of 80 ml/kg/m = an LT of 40 ml/kg/m
Cyclist B - 85% of 55 ml/kg/m = an LT of ~47 ml/kg/m (better than 40 ml/kg/m and likely would win the race between the two cyclists -
if- the race is of the proper duration, because the shorter the duration, the better the chances are for Cyclist A.)
Taking this a little further, if Cyclist A & B have to ride at 80% of there VO2Max to sustain a speed of 30 MPH, which athlete will fatigue first if they're doing a TT over 1 hour long? Well, Cyclist A will be working 30% above his LT, but Cyclist B will be under his LT of 85% of VO2Max. My money is on Cyclist B.