|
The Science of Performance |
|||||
|
|
Do Increases in
VO2max Cause Improved Performance?
If you are an experienced runner then you have likely
heard it many times - VO2max limits performance and increasing VO2max
causes improvements in performance. This belief is both widely held and
commonly promoted within the running community and has led to runners and
coaches devising workouts specifically designed to increase VO2max.
For example, Pfitzinger & Douglas, in their
book Road Racing for Serious Runners, devote an entire chapter to
training methods for improving VO2max and speed.(1)
In the introduction to the chapter titled
Training to Improve VO2max and
Speed they write "Many serious runners know that improving VO2max, or
aerobic capacity, is key to racing better.” and “In this chapter, we’ll
show you why and how to improve the two main components of racing fitness
that runners try to develop with hard workouts – VO2max and basic speed.”
In their view VO2max isn’t just important, it is
key to racing well.
They spend much of the chapter explaining what
VO2max is and prescribing workouts specifically designed to increase it.
Another example comes from Dr Jack
Daniels in his book, Daniels Running Formula.
He writes "To optimize VO2max, the runner must
stress the oxygen delivery and processing system to its limit while
performing the act of running.
I assign a phase of interval training...to
accomplish this goal."(2)
Dr. Daniels thinks VO2max is important enough
to assign an entire phase of training to optimizing VO2max. Runners and coaches aren’t alone in
this belief; exercise scientists believe it too.
The link between VO2max and performance is
strong enough that physiologists have conducted research studies designed
to identify training techniques that will maximize VO2max.(3) Which, of course, brings us to an
obvious question; what does the research have to say on the subject?
After all, any physiological belief this
strongly-held and generally taught must be supported by the research,
right? Actually, no, it isn’t supported by the research. A review of the research (4) on this topic actually
reveals that:
·
“…in well trained athletes
VO2max remains stable even when performance is shown to increase.”
·
“…in these athletes the
correlation between VO2max and aerobic performance can be poor.”
·
“…although rarely
acknowledged, in the small longitudinal studies that have linked changes
in VO2max with changes in aerobic performance, the data have been
unconvincing.”
·
“…studies using chronic
obstructive pulmonary disease patients, recreationally active subjects,
and endurance-trained athletes did not observe a correlation between the
magnitude of training-induced improvements in VO2max and aerobic
performance.” All of these quotes indicate that
the link between VO2max and performance is not what many have long
believed and promoted.
The fact is that changes in VO2max and
performance are not cause/effect as runners have been taught for so many
years.
The data does
not prove that improving VO2max is what causes improvement in
performance; in actuality, the data in support of that belief is slim at
best. In 2009 a group of scientists who
knew and acknowledged that the data was equivocal decided to revisit this
topic.
They designed a study to settle the issue by having a
relatively large cohort of previously untrained subjects undergo a
supervised six week cycling program.
By monitoring changes in performance and
various physiological parameters, such as VO2max, they were able to
provide definitive insights about the link between changes in performance
and aerobic capacity.
The basic finding was this - “This study demonstrates
that improvements in high-intensity aerobic performance in humans are not
related to altered maximal oxygen transport capacity.” In other words, changes in VO2max
did not cause improvements in
performance.
Yes, VO2max improved in the
subjects.
And, yes, performance improved too.
But the changes are not related to each other.
“The change in VO2max was not related to the
change in time trial performance.”
Training does improve both VO2max
and performance but these researchers “…demonstrated that these
adaptations do not occur in proportion to each other and do not appear to
be determined by the same physiological or biochemical parameters.”
In others words, the physiological factors
within the body that cause performance to improve are not the same factors
that cause VO2max to improve.
The things within the body responsible for
VO2max improvements are not the same things within the body that cause
performance to improve. The practical implication of this
research is this – training specifically designed to optimize VO2max may
or may not be the best training to maximize performance.
Since different factors are responsible for
changes in VO2max and performance, then training to optimize VO2max may
not fully train those factors responsible for maximizing performance. Does this mean you should abandon
training designed to maximize VO2max?
No, it doesn’t.
It means that coaches and runners should not
have a goal to maximize VO2max.
Instead the goal should be to maximize
performance.
They should ignore VO2max and focus on
performance.
There is no need to ever measure VO2max in an
effort to evaluate the effectiveness of a workout or a program.
The only standard by which to judge training
effectiveness is performance. References: 1.
Pfitzinger P, Douglass S, Road Racing for
Serious Runners, 1999, Chapter 2 2.
Daniels, Jack, Daniels Running Formula, 1st
edition, 1998, page 39 3.
Midgley A, McNaughton L, Wilkinson M., Is
there an optimal training intensity for enhancing the maximum oxygen
uptake of distance runners?
Empirical research findings, current opinions,
physiological rationale and practical recommendations.
Sports
Med, 35: 117-132, 2006 4.
Vollard N, Constantin-Teodosiu D, Fredriksson
K, Rooyackers O, Jansson E, greenhaff P, Timmons J, Sundberg C.,
Systematic analysis of adaptations in aerobic capacity and submaximal
energy metabolism provides a unique insight into determinants of human
aerobic performance, J. Appl.
Physiol., 106: 1279-1286, 2009
|
||||