Originally Posted by
Seattle Forrest
I don't think it's accurate to say that VO2max is mostly genetic. You can say your genes set a limit on what your VO2max can be. (Good genes for this is why Vistrus is such an accomplished climber.)
Gain 100 pounds at your current fitness level. What's gonna happen to your VO2max? By definition it's going to fall drastically because it's a measure per kilogram. Nothing genetic about that. For cycling, you can calculate a person's VO2max with 95 % accuracy by measuring power output and heart rate. It's performance more than it's genetics.
Most people never reach their genetic potential, because of lifestyle and how they train.
The fact is the highest VO2max scores are consistently achieved by cross country skiers. And the 80/20 rule is almost universal in competitive Nordic ski training. We're talking about racing at the highest levels, these people are trying to win.
Now obviously that's not proof (nothing outside of math can really be proven) but it's evidence. How convincing it is is up to you.
Mind you, I'm not saying no intensity. I'm saying high volume, a lot of it moderate, and being fresh enough to really kill it on the hard days.
If it isn't mostly genetic then why would athletes on similar training plans at similar peaks of fitness have wildly different vo2max values? Or how world class athletes have double the v02max of similar athletes with little no training when identified in their youth? I'm not going to bother rehashing an argument that not even the experts can come to a consensus on because v02max for the average athlete is a useless and almost never measured quantity.
http://www.trainingpeaks.com/blog/fi...x-in-training/
Focusing on the efficiency of the work done and the actual power output matters more than the mg of oxygen you can consume, but not actually use.