>coaching Dec '95: Re: my first VO2 max test.... >Thu Dec 7 23:06:50 1995 PST Lokey Kroenstaff (jnugent@is.dal.ca) wrote: >capacity. I don't know if what the tester found was right, because the >number seems a bit discouraging.... This is one of the drawbacks to VO2 testing, and Conconi testing, and to some degree heart rate monitoring. What matters is how well you do in races, not what a single and often inaccurate physiological measurement says. There are so many factors that go into a good ride, psychology, diet, experience... that a single data point like V02 is virtually meaningless. What the advocates of testing so often forget is that the results of these tests are not an accurate predictor of racing success. For example there are many casual runners with VO2s over 80ml/kg and there are also many national team members with VO2s under 70. Riders who have been around for 10 or 20 years might remember the ergometer tests Eddie B (one of America's great coaches BTW) used to conduct at the OTC winter training camps. Many a good erg rider would get preference for later team selections and once even a paid trip to the Tour of Texas. It never surprised anyone when these ergometer masters didn't place well. On the other hand there are those highly successful riders who become very discouraged when they see the results of their first V02 test. Take Paul Deem for example. Here was a multiple national champion and clearly professional material. Even in those days (mid 70s) Paul was world class. One day he took a V02 test at the OTC and was so discouraged by the low numbers that he dropped out of the sport shortly thereafter. I'm sure the "coaches" like Ed Burke had played up the V02 test in Paul's mind. Why do some physiologists continue to tout these measurements when the data clearly indicates the results bear no good relationship to fitness? Can anyone show me even one rider who has become a better cyclist from a max V02 test? Roger Marquis Return to Coaching Classics