V02 Max Challenge

[Lemur]

@theanimal

Peter Attia’s recent appearances on podcasts and talking about Vo2 max is what prompted me to find this thread actually! His talks with Rich Roll is pretty interesting as well. I’ve a bunch of videos saved to watch later. I’ll get his book into my lineup.

[IlliniDave]

Haven't dug through this thread yet, but want to note I've come across a common theme lately in my readings of fitness and nutrition that Vo2 max is strongly associated with longevity. So worth improving on outside of looking at diet/nutrition through a bodyweight lens only which I've had a tendency to do in the past...

I've noticed the same although it seems to be in the context of, "...in addition to maintaining healthy diet and weight."

Increasing/maintaining muscle mass is also implicated in longevity. So far there is a larger body of evidence supporting VO2 max in longevity (specifically elite/top 2%), but the muscle mass connection is just starting to be researched in detail. Probably some debate over which/whether one is better than the other. I of course, as is my tendency, have both/and goals, but pending future research I'm thinking over the long haul I'll be giving VO2 max the priority.

This thread depresses me though, haha. The numbers reported here seem stratospheric compared to where I'm at. I've always been a little weak in the realm of endurance; and despite having doubled my estimated VO2 max over the last 4 months I'm still too embarrassed to report any actual numbers. I also have somewhat of an ectomorphic body type which makes adding lean mass challenging (even before my age began working decidedly against me). Big uphill battle in both regards for me. Best to attend to those things when you are young.

[Scott 2]

Only 3 days until I have post-surgery clearance for activity. Not that I'm counting. I have used the down time to invest in my rebuild:

1. I learned to use the Garmin watch I got free, via my insurance wellness program. I think the data will be a powerful motivator. There is temptation to have an "even better" watch, but the entry level model is light years beyond my old fitbit.

2. I started taking preventative steps around blisters, instead of reacting when they occur. Step one has been to introduce a foot cream and callous file. If I continue getting hot spots, I am going to try Engo patches in my shoes. I may also try a pair of XO toe socks.

I worked through the book Fixing Your Feet and have a variety of ideas. The common theme is reducing shear. My old strategy was to toughen my feet through abuse. A year ago, I was literally cutting the roof off blisters, then coating the problem spots in nu skin. I have high hopes for improvement.

3. Now that the UV index is starting to creep up, I'm reigning my bed time back in. I got up at 6 this morning, walking 4 miles before 8am. I struggled with sleep hygiene following surgery. This is the perfect reason to get it under control.

I've come across a common theme lately in my readings of fitness and nutrition that Vo2 max is strongly associated with longevity. So worth improving on outside of looking at diet/nutrition through a bodyweight lens only which I've had a tendency to do in the past.

What's your current v02 max? This is a challenge thread. Set a public baseline and improve with us.

After two years of playing the game - absent extremes, I find v02 max boosting behaviors correlate strongly with longevity boosting behaviors. It makes sense they would be associated, though I'd be skeptical towards claims of a causal relationship.

I've noticed longevity enthusiasts tend to favor endurance over strength. It's unusual to find them holding any substantial muscle mass. My own increases in v02 max directly correlate with a loss of strength, despite continuously weight training.

With the endurance training, I frequently find myself favoring carb heavy foods and running a calorie deficit. My entire system will slow down - skin cool to the touch, resting heart rate in the 40's. It's not conducive to adding muscle. If I were to imagine what aging slower probably feels like though, that's it.

Despite having doubled my estimated VO2 max over the last 4 months I'm still too embarrassed to report any actual numbers.

Personally, I'm motivated by someone showing up, to overcome whatever obstacles present, at their current level. While high scores are impressive, this is a competition against one's personal challenges. In some respects, I think the path from say 10 to 20, is more difficult than 40 to 50.

I encourage you to post numbers and join the challenge. Take advantage of a public goal with group support. The focusing effect is powerful. Especially when life forces temporary setbacks. It's harder to give up, when others are waiting to see you succeed. Absent public goals, my post surgery actions might look very different.

[IlliniDave]

... I encourage you to post numbers and join the challenge. Take advantage of a public goal with group support. The focusing effect is powerful. Especially when life forces temporary setbacks. It's harder to give up, when others are waiting to see you succeed. Absent public goals, my post surgery actions might look very different.

I'm tracking it to a degree over in my journal, but in percentages of my 1/10/23 baseline. Last test was 199% of baseline iirc. Maybe when I crack 35 or so I'll cave in and enter the challenge proper. For now I'm focusing on improvement and deliberately downplaying the absolute number so I don't get hung up on having a crappy number. I'm pretty good about manipulating myself in that way, ha!

[Lemur]

@Scott 2

I like the challenge and I can give a rough estimate only because I’ve never tested this hooked up to a mask and a treadmill in a lab… but if I use this calculator https://exrx.net/Calculators/MinuteRun and I put my run times (I can run 1.5 miles in about 12 minutes), I get 42.669.

The 1.5 mile run test was the U.S Air Force standard when I was enlisted. My best time was 10:32. Worst was 11:57. I’m probably in the 40-45 range today if I had to guess as I still jog 2-3x during the week and do longer 1 hour slow paced runs on the weekend. Which is about what I did when I was enlisted.

I’ll find some time and get to a track to find out for sure where I stand today. Now I’m very curious.

[C40]

I was bicycling a ton back in 2009-2012, and in really good shape. I've ridden less and less since then, and basically none over the last couple years. My fitness has felt quite bad lately. I Bought a bicycle out where I live now and started riding quite a lot. I will use a couple hills for fitness testing. One is fairly short and one is longer.

I got some quick improvements from getting used to riding again and getting my bike position and pedals set up. I started two weeks ago. Here are my times so far on the short climb (the times I rode about as fast as I could)

8:12
7:48
6:48
6:35

I'll update with new times every now and then

I use an online calculator to estimate the average watts, and compare them to my power tests from back in 2011. I probably won't share those here because I don't think it's useful for you guys to compare to.

At my best fitness back then, I probably would've finished that climb in under 4 minutes. I don't care about getting to that exact level again but I want and expect to improve a lot. If I'm able to do 4:30 within this calendar year, I'd be really happy.

[Scott 2]

@C40 - That'd be a dramatic improvement on the bike over the next 8 months. It'll be interesting to see if the cardio rebounds like strength does.

One of the reasons I've been minimally considered about my strength drop off with v02 max training, is a hope that it will bounce back once my cardio fitness plateaus. I don't know if I'll ever get back to peak strength from my mid-30's, but maybe I can be close.


@IlliniDave - 35 looks to be a good goal. The concept 2 charts show it as high average for your age group. Turn 60, and a score of 36 puts you in the Good range:

https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/ ... calculator

For what it's worth - those ranges do not match what I observe in real life. Maybe it's the company I keep, but I think most people I know would fall in the Poor or Fair ranges. Someone is doing very well in the mid 30's, especially if they are taking active steps to maintain that score.

This forum draws a certain type, who likes to push things to the extreme. So we see scores from lifetime athletes, reaching well beyond the excellent mark. I like knowing what's feasible, but remain aware of the sampling bias. I feel pretty good about breaking 45, after 2 years of focused work. I'd be stoked to eventually cross 50.

[C40]

One of the reasons I've been minimally considered about my strength drop off with v02 max training, is a hope that it will bounce back once my cardio fitness plateaus. I don't know if I'll ever get back to peak strength from my mid-30's, but maybe I can be close.

IMO if you want to have the strength in the future, you should definitely try to maintain it rather than let it slip.

[Scott 2]

Agreed. I lift 4x a week. I've never been able to increase strength and cardio concurrently, but I've been fighting the slow decline. Prior to my recent surgery, lifts were at 65-80% of peak strength. Braces make eating enough hard, so I'm leaning into what can improve.

[C40]

Oh, 4x is a lot

[Scott 2]

First 2000m row since surgery 3.5 weeks ago. My new v02 max baseline is 27.8. This was maybe a 70% effort. I'd love to offer a 100% effort by the end of May. Hopefully recovery cooperates.

If my body feels ok, I'll try a slow jog tomorrow. The surgeon said there's no risk of my hernia mesh ripping lose. But I'm going to err on the side of rebuilding slowly. The impact forces of running warrant caution.

[Scott 2]

Posted a 41.78 on the 2000m row today. Maybe not the smartest choice. Everything feels ok though.

I intended to approach a 100% effort over the next month. But recovery from surgery seemed to hit an inflection point. The effort felt good, so I went with it.

Average heart rate was 168bpm. I see this as a solid post surgery baseline. I won't attempt another 2000m row until June. It's obvious I need more volume, not intensity.

Notable that while within 10% of my prior PR, the average heart rate is 8bpm higher. What could have been? Hopefully now that I'm patched up, I'll find out.


Debating on a 5k in 3 weeks. I originally planned to post a substantial PR then. Participating would be a nod to my recovery. Though I hesitate to eat the entry fee, knowing I might be closer to 40 minutes than 30.

[Lemur]

Peter Attia went on Rich Roll’s podcast and they had a segment describing zone 2 training and how important it is. I’d recommend listening. The segment starts at about 1:50 in. They said that Zone 2 max is the most important marker for metabolic health. A high zone 2 max leads to increased mitochondrial efficiency and mitochondrial density or in simpler words an inexhaustible source of energy to power you through long endurance events. When Rich started training for ultra marathons he trained exclusively zone 2 for 1 year, never doing any threshold (aka VO2 max) or tempo work. He says he went from someone who could never run faster than 10 min/mi without going into zone 3, to 2 years later being able to run 7:15 min/mi in zone 2. They called near zone 3-4 crossover garbage time or “no man’s land” in terms of training. You are not low enough for zone 2 to develop mitochondrial system but not high enough for strength and power benefits. Peter says if you're training for health 90% of endurance training should be in zone 2 and 5-10% is zone 5 (unless training for specific sport). He does only one VO2 max workout a week.

Adding to this…Zone 2 really is quite compatible with strength training as well because the intensity on the former is not high enough to impede normal muscle recovery from a strength training routine. Interesting to note that for beginner runners is that one of the mistakes they make is actually is trying too hard and accidentally putting themselves in higher zones…which just causes lactate buildup and eventual burnout and will take longer to recover without the metabolic adaptations as well. This is important to track - crazy as it sounds someone who is really out of shape might be surprised how slow they need to run (nearly dragging feet) to stay in Zone 2. Some could even obtain Zone 2 from a brisk walk.

I’d say the only real downside of zone 2 is the amount of time required. Minimum 45 minute sessions for adaptations and must be done 2-3x a week. The good news - you can get zone 2 from a variety of machines and exercises. Swimming would be excellent to mix in every now and then to give joints a break from running (my preferred method). I’d like to get into cycling at some point.

A zone 2 101 video I came across: https://youtu.be/s8J18xOil7U

I have not tested myself but now wondering if I could get my zone 2 primarily from rucking…would be far more sustainable for my joints. I’d imagine you’d just have to maintain a fixed pace to keep your zone 2 heart rate and as you get fitter, either add more weight or walk faster. Former seems to be an easier variable to control.
https://terminatortraining.com/blogs/tt ... ew-running

[Scott 2]

I found reaching zone 2 with a weight vest difficult. Using around 20% of body weight, my heart rate lands at 90-100bpm. My ankles and postural muscles are the primary constraint, keeping my pace a little under 3mph. The exception is going uphill, but I can only do that continuously on a treadmill.

I suppose rucking requires specific training, and I haven't developed sufficient skill. Similar to my experience with swimming.

I found it easiest to cross train Zone 2 on the elliptical. The rower and stationary bike are ok too, but more prone to repetitive use issues. Between hills and traffic, I found cycling outdoors makes holding a stable zone 2 heart rate difficult.


I can't argue with the results Zone 2 training gave me, but I also found some limitations.

1. The practical cross training is boring.
2. Friction becomes annoying. Chafing. Blisters.
3. Eating enough gets tedious. I had so much cereal.

All solvable, but less fun. I also wonder:

1. How well do proponents account for underfeeding? Someone doing 5 hours of zone 2 a week might burn an extra 500 calories per day. Calorie restriction is a big lever.

2. Would 2h per week at zone 2 give better results than 2h per week at zone 3? Holding duration constant, provided someone doesn't exceed their recovery capacity, It's hard to believe less intensity is better.

3. Does extended endurance exercise lower testosterone? This is a trade I don't see discussed much. It's also hard to separate from the calorie restriction question.

4. How durable is the zone 2 base? Can one keep it playing their sport? Or are they choosing a lifetime of elliptical sessions?


After building up to 5h of weekly zone 2 work this Winter, I started to resent the demands. Looking towards late Spring and early Summer, I'm likely to put fun first. Less volume based goals, more varied intensity, and more varied activity.

Of course, watch what happens when my progress plateaus. I might decide results are the most fun.

[OutOfTheBlue]

At least for (distance) running training, I think the Maffetone method gives a lower (more conservative) ceiling heart rate to stay under and does not rely on oxygen/V02Max metrics. The pace is slower in the beginning, but it soon improves and you gradually get farther under the same heart rate within the same time period (IOW faster).

Get Faster with Better Running Economy - https://philmaffetone.com/running-economy/

"Today, scientists agree that better Running Economy is associated with a more balanced body that results in reduced needs for oxygen. In other words, one could run the same speed with less oxygen, or run faster with the same amount."

The MAF 180 Formula: Determining your MAF HR

1. Subtract your age from 180.
2. Modify this number by choosing one category below that best applies to you:
a. If you have or are recovering from a major illness (including any operation or hospital stay), are in rehabilitation, have been prescribed any regular medication, or are chronically overtrained, subtract an additional 10.
b. If you are injured, have regressed or not improved in training (such as poor MAF Tests) or competition, get more than two colds, flu or other infections per year, have seasonal allergies or asthma, are overfat, are acutely overtraining, or if you have been inconsistent, just beginning or returning to exercise, subtract an additional 5.
c. If you have been training consistently (at least four times weekly) for up to two years without any of the problems mentioned in a) or b), no modification is necessary (use 180 minus age as your MAF HR).
d. If you have been training for more than two years without any of the problems listed above, have made progress in your MAF Tests, and have improved competitively, add 5.

The resulting HR is the high end of the HR range with the low being 10 beats below. For example, a 40-year old in category b) would have an exercise range of 125-135 bpm. Users can self-select any intensity within this range.

More here and https://philmaffetone.com/method/ and in "The Big Book of Endurance Training and Racing" or other related books by Dr. Philip Maffetone.

[Scott 2]

I've been setting my zones using the heat rate drift test, posted by MountainFrugal upthread:

https://uphillathlete.com/aerobic-train ... ate-drift/

Simple in concept, this test uses the principle that when you hold an aerobic pace (<AeT), your heart rate will remain nearly constant for as long as an hour. If your heart rate rises more than 5 percent at that steady pace, your starting heart rate was higher than AeT. If the heart rate drift is less than 5 percent, your starting heart rate was below AeT. 

What I like about it, is once you understand the concept, any workout with heart rate data can be eyeballed. If a given pace is substantially harder over 40-60 minutes, there's no denying you've left zone 2. As someone who struggles with going by feel, it's very reliable feedback.

[mountainFrugal]

I am glad there is all this other interest in this challenge! One clarification on zones for the new thread participants... Uphill Athlete defines them slightly different. Zone 1 in Uphill Athlete is the same as Zone 2 for most of these other classifications. Another way to tell if you are still under your threshold for training purposes and make sure are not going too hard is to breath through your nose for several breaths (not freestyle swimming!). Nose breathing ensures you are at or below this threshold and is a good check-in. As you build a base your zones move up for the same heart rate.

Clipped from a sketchnote on Training for the Uphill Athlete. (note: using uphill athlete HR zones that correspond to physiology)

Example blood lactate concentration vs. heart rate in an untrained individual (top) vs. trained individual (bottom). This shows the effect of training at your Aerobic threshold (~nose breathing, AeT) and lactate threshold (LT, lactate accumulation in blood 2-20). With 80% training at AeT (Top of Zone 1) and 20% at LT (top of zone 3) your thresholds for each of these will increase by shifting to the right. So if you are well trained you can *maintain* a greater output for a lower heart rate because your blood lactate level will maintain a ~2 mMol/L over a much larger range of heart rates. Training this along with higher end HIIT type workouts (Z3/4) will allow for a large dynamic range of relatively fast moderate effort and longer duration hard effort. So the trained person can maintain the same pace for hours that the untrained person might have struggled to maintain for an hour.

[Lemur]

@Scott 2.

I can try to answer some of these.

1. How well do proponents account for underfeeding? Someone doing 5 hours of zone 2 a week might burn an extra 500 calories per day. Calorie restriction is a big lever.

Elite athletes surely account for this. Your average person probably overestimates carbohydrates and underestimates protein intake. Don Layman's work shows for about an hour of cardio, one needs to up protein intake roughly 10 grams. That isn't much but can add up over-time if someone is already not hitting adequate protein intake even without training. Adequate intake is defined as 0.7-1.0 gram of protein per pound of bodyweight. This is well above the RDA. Another note is that this isn't a problem for some people who get into a state of primal hunger after training but this is individual. Some find that training blunts hunger. Adjust to your individual psychology...a protein shake of whey, liquid of choice I prefer 2% milk, peanut butter, banana, and some oats is enough to make up for the calorie loss and very nutritionally adequate.

2. Would 2h per week at zone 2 give better results than 2h per week at zone 3? Holding duration constant, provided someone doesn't exceed their recovery capacity, It's hard to believe less intensity is better.

Yes! It is counterintuitive but zone 2 will actually give better results. Zone 3-5 is considered a "no mans land" / garbage training in endurance / distance running circles. At these higher intensities above zone 2 (usually 3-5), a person is not moving slow enough to develop their aerobic capacity, their mitochondrial efficiency and density, and at the same time they're not going hard enough to reap the benefits of anaerobic strength and power. I know you stated "provided someone doesn't exceed their recovery capacity" but remember this is relative. My zone 3, for instance, might be higher than your zone 3. So regardless, if I were to train in zone 3 as much as in zone 2, surely I would not get the adequate recovery and I would likely get injured or overtrain eventually.

Remember its maintaining lactate threshold just under 2 mmol/L that is responsible for building a cardio base and creating the right adaptations. Exceed that, and now you're training for something completely different.

Consider this analogy. One might say "Its hard to believe that lifting more weight does not result in more muscular gains" but lifting for strength and lifting for hypertrophy (muscle building) are two different training approaches that target different systems. Strength is more geared toward CNS output while hypertrophy deals more with muscular fiber building and what have you. The former has more intensity but is not responsible for adequate hypertrophy that a lower intensity + more reps might give you. In reality we know its a continuum (mixing up rep ranges and intensities) but I'm just highlighting a point that the goals have to fit the training and more intensity is not always better.

3. Does extended endurance exercise lower testosterone? This is a trade I don't see discussed much. It's also hard to separate from the calorie restriction question.

It does but usually not enough to cause most people concerns. Most reductions in T-levels are due to overtraining (getting above zone 2 for instance), inadequate protein and mineral intake (zincs a big one), and lack of sleep for necessary recovery. One such long-distance runner named Ryan Hall was famous for retiring from long distance running and focusing on building muscle and he noted a drop in T-levels was one of the main reasons why he had quit. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ryan_Hall_(runner) ; however, he was also setting world records...most people aren't setting world records and a slight drop in T-levels shouldn't be much of a concern.

In retrospect, if someone is dropping body fat and getting in better shape (after coming off non-training / couch potato status for instance...or just below average fitness), I would actually expect testosterone to even increase slightly.

In the end, as far as I know, no one here is training for world records or ultramarathon running....so if we're doing this zone 2 stuff for health, longevity, and metabolic benefits then there should be no great reason to want to exceed 2-3x a week cardio workouts unless you want to. I think a holistic approach and best of both worlds approach (which I'm attending to) of strength training and cardio training is best. One does not necessarily have to hurt the other. They can be mutually benefitting.

4. How durable is the zone 2 base? Can one keep it playing their sport? Or are they choosing a lifetime of elliptical sessions?

Depends on your sport and training should match the sport. Consider that even 800 meter sprinters, do 70% of their training in zone 2. It seems counterintuitive but its true; training at low intensities for long durations can increase top speed. Typically sprinters will time their higher zone workouts closer to race day to peak at the right times. I suppose a lifetime of elliptical sessions will be appreciated when one gets into their senior ages which makes it a pretty resilient training method.

After building up to 5h of weekly zone 2 work this Winter, I started to resent the demands. Looking towards late Spring and early Summer, I'm likely to put fun first. Less volume based goals, more varied intensity, and more varied activity.

Of course, watch what happens when my progress plateaus. I might decide results are the most fun.

At the end of the day, most here are not elite athletes or trying to set records. So truly the best approach is one that you can stick to and build a habit out of over the long-term. We need not optimize. For instance, for weight training I'm doing a body-part split because that is what I want to do and I think I can stick with consistently despite the optimal thing to do would be a full-body routine.

@OutOfTheBlue

Thanks for sharing this. It has come to my attention recently that the wrist watches for heart rate are notoriously inaccurate...so I've been trying to figure out the frugal methods of getting my max heart rate and estimating my own zone 2 heart rate. At the moment, I do no measuring but just go by the zone 2 feeling of "I can talk and hold a conversation while running with only the occasional need to suck air." And even on that latter point, may have to slow down just ever so slightly.

@MountainFrugal

Now that is a frugal method…I’ll call it the nose test. Thanks for sharing that one!

[Scott 2]

@Lemur - I appreciate your perspective. I'm sold on high volume zone 2 as optimal. My thoughts are tied to considerations around minimum effective dosing and diminishing returns. Maybe the sub-optimal path is more enjoyable and gets far enough.


I've found the hand sensors on commercial gym equipment track my heart rate strap pretty well. If you don't want to drop the $100 for a strap, testing on a treadmill or elliptical might be enough.

[OutOfTheBlue]

@lemur, I too rely on the breathing from the nose method as I am going without a tracker (had a smart watch before, but decided to not replace it for now). Only tracking pace and distance (and location) with RunnerUp via my smartphone, that I put on my waist belt.

Breathing from the nose tracks well to a highly aerobic run, and it's hard to run too hard with your mouth closed!