Talk:VO2 max

Request Assessment, General Cleanup, and the Sponsorship of an Appropriate WikiProject

Could someone please tell me how to request an assessment, and perhaps the sponsorship of an appropriate wikiproject? My hope is that this will result in a clean-up and perhaps some more citations. --Zegoma beach (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)

Maybe someone should add that Bjørn Dæhlie not only has the highest recorded vo2max, but also is the most winning winter athlete of all time with 29 medals? Stressing that Vo2 max also has a practical consequence and does influence actual performace. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.165.75.134 (talk) 14:25, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Clarification of units in VO2Max

Could somebody clarify what it means to measure oxygen in liters (as opposed to moles or grams) in this context? When we say "one liter of oxygen" in this context, do we mean "moles contained in one liter of pure O2 at 1 bar (14.7 psi) of pressure"? At what temperature? Volume is a bizarre unit to use here especially for a gas, but if that is the (unfortunate) convention then a brief translation for the rest of us seems in order. If nobody else clarifies, then I might follow up. Bmord (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oxygen uptake is expressed as a rate -- volume per unit time (hence the dot over the V when it is written correctly). Expired gas is typically collected using open circuit spirometry and analyzed for O2 and CO2 concentrations; using Haldane's principle, the volumes of O2 taken up and CO2 produced can be estimated. These data must be corrected to STPD. Today's automated computer systems do all this for you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.58.197.210 (talk) 03:01, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that the core of the posed question was not addressed; neither here nor in the article. It is understood that oxygen consumption research uses the convention "(V-dot)O2 max" for measurements. An explanation on why the convention is instead not "(n-dot)O2 max" or "(m-dot)O2 max" would be a valuable inclusion. Many of us not in this field would naturally assume n or m to be better dimensions for this type of measurement. 67.66.139.22 (talk) 23:05, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Vo2Max also applies does not only applies to persons

In the first paragraph it is said that VO2 max is defined as the highest rate at which oxygen can be taken up and utilized during exercise by a person. but in the same article it is given, by example, the VO2 max of an horse.

Reference alignment

Have the references been re-aligned since the editing together? My recollection is that the correlation was from the 'Sports Coach/Brian Mac site - ref 3.(ie Not ref 1) Please check. Linuxlad 19:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Training effect - still think Cooper investigated it in detail rather than identified it! And using the Cooper test to estimate VO2 max is pretty rough and ready I read. I think respectfully Mr S, I had it right :-) Linuxlad 19:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC) aka 80.177.213.144

I'm still waiting on materials from the Cooper Center, but my understanding from the book I read (which I should and will get a copy of) is that Dr. Cooper discovered that at a certain level of consistent exercise the body suddenly "shifted up" its metabolism. I just want to be accurate. I'll try to get a source for this promptly. Simesa 00:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Tidying of references

Two changes:

• moved "see also" to before "external links" as per style guide
• removed comment "identified by Dr Cooper" on a "see also" link, since that assertion belongs in the article itself, not in the link to the article. (Otherwise Wikipedia would become inconsistent when people edited articles - the statements made in the article might not match the statements made in comments to the links.)

Making comments more neutral

I'm making changes to make this more neutral. Firstly I'm removing the statement that "expensive" equipment is required to measure VO2 max. Expensive is not really neutral - expensive to whom? The equipment is affordable by a sports club, for example. I'm also removing the reference to "truck mounted", since many types of equipment can be truck mounted. I'm also removing the term "huge" from the Cooper study, since this does not really add any information. How big was the study, 100 people? 1000 people? 10,000 people? The word huge doesn't inform the reader of the actual order of magnitude size of the study. -Unknown User

A fair comment - the Air Force study involved, as I recall, 15,000 subjects, but I'm waiting on materials so I can properly reference that. The reason I included "truck mounted" was that not just ramps are usable. I'll try to get a picture of the truck. Simesa 14:30, 25 September 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps I should clarify "ramp test". A ramp test is a test where the exercise intensity is progressively increased (if you draw a graph of exercise intensity against time, it resembles a ramp). The rate of increase of intensity is called the "ramp rate" (typically it is around 20-30 Watts/min). A ramp test can be done on a treadmill, but also on a cycling or rowing ergometer. User:Martin.Budden

By the way I think the 15,000 subject study was a later study performed by Cooper in the late seventies and 1980s (after Cooper left the Air Force). I don't know how big the Air Force study was, though. User:Martin.Budden

Moved from article

This was added by 128.119.144.191 (talk · contribs) into the article. it belongs on the discussion page:

Can someone whos good at editing this stuff a)get rid of this line, and b)fix up my edit to somewhat like what it looks in source. Thanks (feel free to mess w the arrangement of info as well sry for offtopic) johnSLADE (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Alternate reference

Is everyone okay with my adding the phrase "maximal oxygen carrying capacity" to the article? It's basically the same thing and I read it used as a technical term here: [1] in reference to VO2 max. Tyciol 13:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing Greg LeMond from the article?

Since the addition of Daehlie and Indurain effectively gives readers a sense of proportion, is LeMond's result still necessary?

Greg LeMond's AND Lance Armstrong's would add perspective to the article

Whose bright idea was it to remove LeMond's? For one notable reason Greg LeMond's is the highest recorded of ANY professional cyclist INCLUDING Lance Armstrong. Its notable in that regard. And 5-time Tour winner Miguel's is good to keep because it serves to be one way to compare and contrast these physiological parameters between two notable athletes. Greg LeMond still has the fastest time trial ever recorded in the Tour De France ... just slightly faster than Lance's fastest.

Please put Greg LeMond's VO2 Max back into the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.37.188 (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, please put it back 99.153.64.179 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Genetics

Everything is genetically determined for the most part, but unless it's something that can't be changed very easily or by very much through nurture, then I don't think it is proper to say something is genetically determined for the most part. VO2max can change pretty dramatically in some individuals through training. So I'm removing that sentence in the first paragraph. You can revert if you strongly feel it should be kept. Jamesters 17:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

One interesting thing is that the degree to which it improves is also genetically determined: some people can hugely improve their VO₂ max with conditioning, and others can never increase it at all no matter how much they train. Collabi (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Definition

Could somebody please revert the definition to the previous one as at 2:28, January 4, 2007? I am not sure how to do it, but I believe the current definition to be erroneous and the previous one better, although not perfect. The definition of VO2 max does not need a measurement unit, ie. millilitres. Furthermore, the "per kilogram per minute" version is not the only way of measuring it. The true definition should just be "volume of oxygen". The common measurement unit is handled further down the first paragraph anyway, so the information is doubled up. The definition should probably also include "by the working cells/muscle cells". If nobody reverts the article in a few days I'll try a manual edit myself, thanks. MattVickers 07:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Corrections

I corrected the definition and cleared-up some problems with the section on measuring VO2max. This page needs some major work. I will tinker at it here and there. Thanks to those who have come before. A few specifics....VO2 max is always in reference to incremental or graded exercise...it is possible to work far harder than the intensity at which VO2 max occurs...Of all the research and clinical labs I have ever had involvement with, I have never seen a multi-day protocol used.--Phairphysiology 20:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Uth—Sørensen—Overgaard—Pedersen

The "Uth—Sørensen—Overgaard—Pedersen" test seems to be in the wrong place - It may use estimation of VO2max, but it is still a maximal test, since it requires the subject to find their maximal heartrate. --Ozhiker (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I see that in the abstract of the paper written by Uth-Sørensen-Overgaard-Pedersen the authors actually say the factor was found to be 15.3, not 15. Did anyone read the full paper? Is there any reason to use 15 instead of 15.3? ToK (talk) 19:39, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

True the abstract does say 15.3. It is also important to note that the test was done on only men and well trained men at that. This creates doubt as to the accuracy of the test applied to those that fall outside of this group (ie. non-athletes and women). This point is also brought up in the abstract by the authors. It is a note that is important enough to put underneath the equation as individuals will use this equation thinking it is accurate. The equation needs further evaluation on other test groups. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Elexsor (talk • contribs) 22:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

VO2 max: let's use a range, not a single value

According to the cited article in New Science, VO2 max in normal persons is a range between 40 and 50 ml/kg/min. Nevertheless, in our Wiki article it is given as a single value, approximately 45 ml/kg/min. Although this difference might seem minor, I believe it is critical in Sports Medicine to cite ranges as ranges, because human physiology is indeed "normal" within approximate levels. Giving a single value makes every single person that's even 1 ml/kg/min above or below that 45 deviate from this supposed normality, although in reality s/he isn't. So if I have as a result a 42 VO2 max, I might believe it might be normal but low, although it might be perfectly normal for my current physical conditions. I believe we shall revert the said entry to a range, as in the original article we cite. What do you think? --Kensai (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Also, according to other sources (e.g here: McKinley Health Center, University of Illionois at Urbana-Champain) 45 ml/kg/min would be in 60-70 percentile for young males (20-29). That is above the median. The only situation when both of them is correct, if there are more exceptionally high values than exceptionally low. This may be case, but I think we should check more than one source to verify it. Other ideas: quote the median, not the average, or meybe both. Define what "young" means. Many people at age 35 consider themselves young. Csab (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

"New Scientist" is a popular science magazine, and I think it should not be used as a reference in an encyclopedia. According to "HEYWOOD, V (1998) Advance Fitness Assessment & Exercise Prescription, 3rd Ed" and "Guyton and Hall (2011), Textbook of Medical Physiology, 12th Ed" the average VO2 max in a healthy man (age 30-39) is between 35.5 and 40.9 ml/kg/min. Small difference for the age range 20-29: 36.5-42.4 ml/kg/min. The values reported in this article should be changed according to more reliable bibliographical sources (like the ones I cited here). --AL458 (talk) 17:23, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Perspective?

There are some sentences that read:

"Male rowers typically score VO2 maximums over 6 litres/minute, and some exceptional individuals have exceeded 8 l/min.

To put this into perspective, thoroughbred horses have a VO2 max of around 180 ml/kg/min. Siberian dogs running in the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race have VO2 values as high as 240 ml/kg/min"

I don't understand the "perspective". You can't compare l/min to ml/kg/min. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.58.167.253 (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I think that the references to rowers are out of line with the rest of the article, and will be confusing to many readers. Everywhere else in the article (whether referring to animals or humans), VO2 max is expressed as ml/kg/min. The values for elite rowers are defined in l/min, which makes it impossible to compare such values with the values for cyclists, runners, etc. Can someone translate the claimed values for rowers into ml/kg/min? (If not, I would suggest removing these particular claims from the article altogether.) AlanD1956 (talk) 16:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)

Explanation of removal

I recently removed a claim that one should instead scale by the 2/3 power of mass. Apart from being a completely different measure than what is intended, this was supported by the statement that the surface of the lungs scales like the square of the height. This would be true if, say, the lungs were spherical sacks. But in reality, the Hausdorff dimension of the lungs is 2.97 (see List of fractals by Hausdorff dimension), so it is probably the case that lung area actually scales about like total body volume. This makes sense if you consider that a given mass of tissue needs about the same amount of O2 regardless of body size. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Typesetting

Surely it should be ${\dot {V}}_{\mathrm {O} _{2_{\mathrm {max} }}}$ not $\mathrm {VO_{2}\;max}$ ? Qwfp (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Maybe, but Wikipedia should reflect actual usage. In sports, "chemistry isn't an exact science"[2] scnr. I've seen ${\dot {V}}{\mathrm {O} _{2}}{\mathrm {max} }$ and ${\dot {V}}{\mathrm {O} 2}{\mathrm {max} }$ in literature. The dot makes sense and should be mentioned in the article.--92.213.88.82 (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

VO2 as separate article?

VO2, i.e., VO₂ currently redirects here. When I tried to go to that article, and it came here, I found very little (if any) discussion of VO₂ in itself, just VO₂ max. I am inclined to think that VO₂ maybe should have its own article. What do others think? Is is sufficiently different to have an article itself, or should it just be expanded within this article? --jjron (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

Why measure VO2 max?

Article should indicate why it might be useful to measure or to know one's VO2 max. What is the practical value of knowing this number? Why would an athlete care? What could they do with it? Would knowing this somehow alter training plans? How? What about an M.D.? Under what circumstances would an MD care about measuring this?linas (talk) 17:55, 21 May 2011 (UTC)

Also, is vo2 max really the best incidator of cardiovascular and peak performance, or has more recent knowledge made us use OBLA instead? My Vo2 max is the same as any elite athlete's, but OBLA scores are not.— Preceding unsigned comment added by [[User:{{{1}}}|{{{1}}}]] ([[User talk:{{{1}}}|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/{{{1}}}|contribs]])

Non-standard notation

This article displays equations that contain variables unconventionally written VO₂ & CaO₂, which are already commonly in use (IUPAC & IUPAP) as the chemical formulae of Vanadium(IV) oxide & Calcium peroxide... I think we can suitably represent the minutely ...Warmest Regards, :)—_thecurran Speak your mind ^{my past} 06:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Technically, it's supposed to have a dot over it, since it's a rate, not a volume (mL/min), and 3 levels of subscript (V subscript O sub-subscript 2 subscript max). However, the "dotless" current form seems to have become more common over time, possibly because of typesetting issues in scientific journal articles. Mokele (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

Genetics of VO2 responses

Timmons (2010) is an interesting study that claims a genetic basis for about half of the VO2 response to exercise, and finds 11 SNPs that account for 23% of the total response (ie about half the genetic component), some of the genes they identify include a TGFβ1 involved in angiogenesis and RNAs involved in genomic imprinting. There's some interesting papers in the references too. I'm not sure how best to incorporate this kind of material but it's interesting to read if nothing else - they found about 20% of people do not show VO2 responses to the exercise regime they studied, whereas 20% were "high responders".Le Deluge (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Aerobic Capacity

Hello,

I found some information on the aerobic capacity article that I think would fit better here. Th information is located on this sandbox, Uniquajanae/sandbox. aerobicexercise, in case someone thinks it may be useful here or somewhere else. Uniquajanae (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

See: https://watermark.silverchair.com/milmed-d-12-00369.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAAlIwggJOBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggI_MIICOwIBADCCAjQGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMkzuY0oWnh4X3flhtAgEQgIICBf-O7yvRVQblcK2Fb9FMF3-S0f0HqqFuW9Kfm2SZZAIlbE2b1TZERpfPmMtwmbUKNMhmctiFAX_qoOQabgP7S_tfKNbNSK3ZrGnhzWlEPYKiIDYuu98ELqWrQithduRF7GUF9SLP-ENAOTleM858-6xUEsxXhI87qyzilf9SSmz5XjmyKDJubrI6r0kVl_HPw2lSq_X-nfOOqG9eW0IQNBKa71SqI2ABDLP_Ut389QE0UVMe2WAAu-Z5zizigZkwj9K4t4KMTraM_jr-iIIkbWlgTmgI2aoyLTKhF37SOQusboCtjJs-3lHkZFHxnV-mk-E4om738wnegAc5p7-Q6kMAw9xBQjj90iiVeV09J6OevET_3IGovEGg5z8wPGCe-e64VV4Eb6nKQtWmvvGL1YU7-7LFmt_boC26ZxzfgvPHfp-dZ01tUGq0Aig-K4mpw7XlQoKPEryOenCC9qTwhHoqLSRhw5S08DVooxwg-nceG94iXDVj01BzebXMXjNJ-rDiFbOz9h4kVUIO0jYbt5u-b-X_0DH_C4-dRZu4QIiin3wKGGTt9Eqgo2ne5xj_R3JLACziE8svyZSxrC3lvv7AfvBkIdTFntMSdbegFILEp6nr1Afm3UifcddhSzhFivsRRf1OWSnf2xTLGZt2Blwi70Q1JwxpTRIo6JNNKFivMlfxeq4

URL is weird; you might have to search for the article in Google:Search term = rockport accuracy; go to:

"Validation of One-Mile Walk Equations for the Estimation of Aerobic Fitness in British Military Personnel Under the Age of 40 Years" Military Medicine, 178, 7:753, 2013

They re-did the equations.

2600:1700:4CA1:3C80:A100:A009:63DC:597A (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC)