Max?<\/strong><\/h2>\nFirst, it helps you understand the difference between the two common ways physiologists report VO2 max.<\/p>\n\n\n- Absolute VO2 max<\/strong> It measures your maximum oxygen uptake per minute and is usually expressed in liters per minute.<\/li>\n
- relative VO2 max<\/strong> Divide that number by your total weight. Usually expressed in milliliters\/kilograms\/minute.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n
Relative VO2 max is the most frequently displayed measurement. Kate Baird, CSCS, Running and Metabolic Testing Coordinator and Exercise Physiologist at New York City Hospital for Special Surgery, says that heavier people typically consume more oxygen and have higher absolute measurements of VO2 max than smaller people, so the idea is to level the playing field and provide a comparative measurement.<\/p>\n
\nWeight calculation problems<\/strong><\/h2>\nTraditional relative VO2 max scores treat all body weights the same, whether lean muscle or fat. Why does it matter? According to Baird, muscle accounts for the majority of the body’s oxygen consumption during exercise, but fat, also known as adipose tissue, does not contribute to oxygen utilization at all.<\/p>\n
As far back as 2015, researchers investigated the relationship between VO2 max and body composition and size. After performing a series of exercise tests on young subjects, researchers found no linear relationship between total body weight and VO2 max, but a linear relationship between lean body mass (muscle) and VO2 max. They concluded that it is more reasonable to consider lean body mass rather than total body weight.<\/p>\n\nA 2021 review supports these findings and states that the common relative VO2 max formula (in milligrams per kg of body weight\/min) assumes that VO2 max is directly proportional to total body weight, when evidence shows that the relationship is not linear. (It’s also worth noting that recent studies have shown an association between lean muscle mass and higher VO2 max, which may be especially important to keep in mind for older adults.)<\/p>\n
Essentially, research agrees that the current formula for relative VO2 max (absolute VO2 max divided by total body weight) is not as accurate a measure of fitness as it appears.<\/p>\n
\nWhat does this mean for runners?<\/strong><\/h2>\nAlthough these findings were first revealed more than a decade ago, the discussion around this metric is now more important than ever. As Baird points out, wearable technology displays VO2 max estimates directly on the wrist and alerts runners to any noticeable changes, making it easier for runners to treat that number as the ultimate measure of their overall fitness.<\/p>\n
That is why it is important to know the nuances included in this indicator.<\/p>\n
First, your weight can affect how your VO2 max is displayed on your watch, Baird says. “If you gain some form of weight, but your fitness doesn’t change, your relative VO2 max will decrease,” she explains. “If you lose weight and there’s no change in your fitness, your weight will go up. That’s how the math works.”<\/p>\n
However, this does not necessarily mean that your aerobic capacity has worsened or improved. This means the calculation changes based on your weight.<\/p>\n
This helps explain why athletes in different sports look so different in terms of relative VO2 max, Baird continues. Elite marathoners tend to have higher relative VO2 max values \u200b\u200bbecause they are smaller and lighter. On the other hand, athletes who typically have more muscle mass, such as rowers, often have lower relative VO2 max values \u200b\u200bthan marathoners, even if the absolute values \u200b\u200bare large.<\/p>\n
This limitation is why the researchers mentioned above suggested using lean body mass instead of total body weight, or more complex scaling models, to calculate relative VO2 max.<\/p>\n
“If the question is how much oxygen they can use per kilogram of muscle mass or lean body mass, I think that’s a good way to compare athletes,” Baird says. “I don’t know if it’s all that insightful for me personally on a day-to-day level.” In theory, these approaches provide physiologically more accurate relative measurements. In reality, it doesn’t change how runners should think about fitness, weight, and training strategy, she explains.<\/p>\n
Regardless of whether the relative measurement is calculated using total body weight or muscle mass, VO2 max is just one piece of the performance puzzle. Long-distance runners also need to focus on lactate threshold, running economy, and endurance to achieve their best times. <\/p>\n
When it comes to overall health and aging, VO2 max is strongly associated with long-term health outcomes, including a lower risk of cardiovascular disease and a longer lifespan.<\/p>\n
But Baird still cautions against getting hung up on numbers. \u201cThe aerobic engine is not the only consideration,\u201d she says. \u201cSleep, mental health, musculoskeletal health \u2013 there are so many other things to do.\u201d [a healthy lifestyle] VO2 max exceeded.<\/p>\n
In other words, pursuing a higher relative VO2 max score, whether by losing weight or completely changing your calculations, does not automatically lead to improved health.<\/p>\n
\n