I liked this article which adds some context around absolute VO2 Max (irrespective of weight) and relative VO2 Max (using weight as a denominator). Xcuntry skiers end up higher on relative. Rowers higher on absolute.
your VO2 max when kayaking will be smaller than when you’re running, for example, because you’re using smaller muscles that can’t gobble up as much oxygen.
Hence why the C2 is the single more useful fitness machine ever invented. Nothing else can touch it for getting all the muscle groups (except chest) to start gobbling up oxygen.
I used to get weird sciatic nerve flares just above my hip that would literally make my legs collapse from the pain. Was an issue that would randomly occur a couple times a year from about 18 to 30. I've not had that happen one time in the 13 years since I started lifting weights.
Been thinking a bit more about VO2 max and cardio exercise as I go forward in 2025. Want to be more "intentional" with my cardio this year as while I did plenty last year there was too much just doing it to do it instead of trying to build to better. Doing cardio just to do it is fine, blood sugar management, something is better than nothing etc., but doesn't really move you forward past a certain point. It made me remember that VO2 max is an outcome of exercise and you actually have to push with various workout structures (fartlek, HiiT, other interval training, harder steady state) to really benefit beyond that baseline.
Something is still better than nothing, but that is loss prevention, not improvement.
I too lost a couple pounds when I upped the volume and intensity on the C2 after Thanksgiving. Keeping it going this month so far.
Seems like the top Tour De France riders are doing massive amount of zone 2 training these days and the results are showing up in their vo2 max scores.
I'm going to experiment with upping the zone 2 hours per week (80%) and then 20% max effort type work and see if I notice any gains.
I haven't wore a heart rate monitor in a decade but might try to get that going again, but I did try to capture my heart rate coming off the rower for a couple of pieces in the past week. After finishing jump up and get on a treadmill to walk, holding on to the HR sensors. Was pleased to have it show above the "age predicted max rate" today and for it to show in the 160s while doing a zone 2 consistent piece. And for it to drop down to the 120s within 3 minutes.
I'd be shocked is 160s is Zone 2 (i.e., 60 to 70% of max HR) for you. I wouldn't have been the case even in college.
So when I do some 1000 meter pieces at max effort on the C2 these days, when I take a 10 sec pulse and multiply by 10 my HR is something like 189 to 193 so I think low 190s is close to my max HR. All the age based formulas say it is should be somewhere around 173 to 175 which I know is not accurate for me.
I have a HR monitor with the peleton and have been doing a ton of longer stuff in zone 2 which is about 130 HR and feels on the mark for zone 2 in terms of perceived effort. I did 30 mins this AM at 150 which should be 80% and zone 3 and that feels accurate in terms of perceived effort at well.
Hmmmmm. My understanding was the zones weren't unilateral percentages but can shrink as you are better trained so its not that 10% spread all the time. Shrinking the zones is good - you want zone 2 to be as high as possible - and back in the day I am pretty sure I was Zone 2 in the 160s before hitting Z3 in the 170s, 4 in the 180s and 5 in the 190s. I could still carry on a convo there - it was close but doable. I had kind of assumed 165ish was the place where I'd cross from 2 to 3 now.
I think the percentages are derived assumptions the same way a max heart rate per age is an assumption. They are in the ball park but everyone is different.
I don't ever remember taking a HR test at UW, but definitely had the step measurements with S/M constraints.
Seen comments on this study in my twatters feed. It’s basically the same thing as all the VO2 max discussion. You have to MOVE first. Otherwise all other risk factors increase.
Couldn't decide which thread to put this in but thought it was a nice display of exercise benefits plus glycemic index reactions for certain types of food.
Me yesterday:
Woken up by low blood sugar alert, ate a banana, can see how it rockets up but then quits. No insulin taken.
Eggs slowly raise, along with the creamer, but then stays there cause fat/protein. No insulin taken.
At like 1pm, its lunch time with a big ole Italian sub. Order a footlong and split with the wife, thank goodness she only needs 4 inches (huh?) and I get to enjoy 8. NTAWWT. White bread. For nutrition estimation I would say it was similar to the Jersey Mike's regular #13 Italian which is published.
910 cal
54g fat
62 carb
45g protein
Need to add 10% to that roughly since the nutrition info was based on a 7 inch sub and I enjoyed an extra inch.
Normally I would approximate 16u of fast acting insulin to eat something like that, and in many cases would need more. But instead I went straight to the gym and got on the rower for an hour. Zone 2 work, kept the heart rate in line, but knocked it down. And as soon as I stopped, took off like a rocketship. All that fat and protein digesting starts to hit. I took 6 units on the way up, so as the blood sugar was taking off the insulin worked its way into my system and then finally counteracted to bring back down.
Its good for your heart and preventing any type of insulin resistance. It's so good to move and to do so after eating less than healthy stuff.
Zone 2 work (ignore the early variability as the monitor figured it’s shit out)
Those zones are defaults and there is no way I leave Z2 until at least the high 150s. I feel great today so had to have been Z2.
Vo2max, High Intensity Interval Training, Norwegian Method, Tabata Sprints, & on & on.
There's a lot of fancy sounding advice in the social media fitness world. And a lot of it is misguided. Let's correct.
This is my Fitness Influencer Survival Guide:
When they say "sprint"...
Ignore it unless it's something that takes less than ~8 seconds and has long recovery.
Usually what they mean to say is run hard, or about 800 to mile pace , especially if the interval is from 20-90sec in length.
When they say "all out"...
Unless we're talking about a race, ignore it. What they really mean to say is your best average over the workout...but still leave one rep in the tank. So try to run 4x1mile where every mile is within +/- 5 seconds of each. A dramatic slow down is not good.
When they say HIIT...
They mean something kind of hard. There's a wide variation in interval training. And the specific matter.
HIIT is just a catch all that means everything from 200s at 800 pace to 3k repeats at critical velocity and everything in between.
It's a fancy word for "hard workout"
When they say Sprint Interval Training (SIT)...
They mean a hard and fast workout...but not actual sprinting.
We'd call this work speed endurance in track. Something like 4x150m at 400m pace with a couple minutes rest.
When they Tabata sprints are great...
They're not. They are the Pert Plus of intervals. Mediocre at two things. There are many better options.
First, the original intenisty (170% Vo2max) is too hard for most. People just practice falling apart.
Instead, if you need a short fast workout, do 8 to 10 x 30sec at mile pace with 60 sec recovery. As you adapt, decrease rest or increase reps.
Or if you want short rest, do a few sets of 8x100m with 20-30sec rest at 800-mile pace.
When they say the Norwegian 4x4 protocol is the best for raising Vo2max...
It's not. It takes one study that compared a few intervals. Guess what, Seiler's research found 4x8min better than 4x4, while Billat found 30sec on/off better than 3min reps, and any other number of other studies found different workouts increase VO2max more.
And guess what? None of that maters. Because research sucks at studying workouts. Why? It's artificial. It takes people and makes them do the same workout 2-3x a week for 6-8 weeks. No one does that in the real world. It's not generalizable.
So what? There is NO best workout. Your best workout if you care about VO2max is to mix it up...
-do some short and fast (10x200m w/ 200m jog @ 3k-1mile pace)
-medium- 6x800 @ 5k-3k pace w/ 2min rest
-longer and a bit slower- 4x2k @ 15k-10k pace w/ 2min rest
-Tempo/Threshold- 2x10min at half-marathon pace
-And lots of easy slow running
And adjust the workouts as you go. You want to manipulate rest length, speed, rep distance, sets, rep number, and more as you go. That's how you adapt.
Repeating the same exact workout over and over is what we did in the 1950s.
So what? Vary it up.
When they say Vo2max is the best indicator for health and longevity...
What they really mean is aerobic performance!
That's right, nearly all the research on longevity uses PERFORMANCE, not actual VO2max.
They either use the speed you reach at the end of a treadmill test, what your heart rate is during a standardized submax test, or some other performance metric.
In other words: You are better off seeing what you can run in a mile or 5k (or equivalent test in rowing, cycling) than a Vo2max test.
Why? Because performance encompasses more than just VO2max, which is generally more centrally limited. A 5k time trial give you a decent idea on both peripheral and central contributors to aerobic performance.
What's this mean? Stop trying to improve VO2max (it levels off much earlier than performance). If you care about health and want a decent indicator, just try and get a bit faster over 5k. Or make your standard hard workout feel a bit easier.
When they say Zone 2 is the best...
They really mean easy or slow running. That's it. There is no magic in zone 2.
In fact, all the training zones are just markers to help classify training. You do not actually enter a different 'zone' where the adaptation is completely different.
It's a rough guess to say, most of the work in this area kinda helps at Y. But that's it.
The reason elite runners spend a lot of time in zones 1,2, and 3 is that they need to accumulate a lot of volume in easy to kind of easy paces to get long term aerobic adaptations.
Life isn't going to end if you do some of those runs in zone 1, or venture into zone 3 on a typical run.
In fact, varying it up is the point. It's why you'll see elite runners do some runs at 7min pace, and then other days they're feeling good and clicking off sub 6 for a standard day.
So when it comes to zone 2, think: accumulate a lot of easy to steady mileage. That's it.
Focus on Zone 2 and 5. That's your biggest bang for your buck.
Nope. All zones matter. If you care about performance you need to span the gamut from jogging to nearly sprinting.
If you care about health....guess what? Same thing just to a reduced load.
If all you do is zone 2 and 5...you're missing out on stimulus for important adaptations. You need all of them.
And guess what...you can blend and mix them in the same workout as well. Do 15 minutes at threshold followed by 6x400 at 3k pace. Or whatever combo you want.
So what?
Follow the training poem:
Mostly Easy
Some moderate
Occasionally hard and out of breath
A bit of fast and smooth
Vary it up.
And very rarely...Go see God
Comments
I liked this article which adds some context around absolute VO2 Max (irrespective of weight) and relative VO2 Max (using weight as a denominator). Xcuntry skiers end up higher on relative. Rowers higher on absolute.
https://www.outsideonline.com/health/training-performance/vo2-max-just-turned-100-heres-what-it-means/
Hence why the C2 is the single more useful fitness machine ever invented. Nothing else can touch it for getting all the muscle groups (except chest) to start gobbling up oxygen.
Mrs. Feces is trying to get me to drop $2k on a peloton. I’m sure I’d use it, but that’s a lot of coin, and I have a lot of mouths to feed.
Just get the Peloton app (monthly subscription) and buy a cheap ass exercise bike or treadmill.
It's a useful tool but spendy as Throbber points out. It will take care of increasing your vo2 max, but it's not helpful for strength.
The only machine that will do both vo2 max and add some strength is a C2 rowing machine.
My shitty back would probably benefit greatly from a rowing machine.
I used to get weird sciatic nerve flares just above my hip that would literally make my legs collapse from the pain. Was an issue that would randomly occur a couple times a year from about 18 to 30. I've not had that happen one time in the 13 years since I started lifting weights.
vo2 max + strength trumps all the other shit we talk about on this forum and it's not close.
I lost 4 to5 lbs during the 100,000 Concept 2 Holiday Challenge.
Been thinking a bit more about VO2 max and cardio exercise as I go forward in 2025. Want to be more "intentional" with my cardio this year as while I did plenty last year there was too much just doing it to do it instead of trying to build to better. Doing cardio just to do it is fine, blood sugar management, something is better than nothing etc., but doesn't really move you forward past a certain point. It made me remember that VO2 max is an outcome of exercise and you actually have to push with various workout structures (fartlek, HiiT, other interval training, harder steady state) to really benefit beyond that baseline.
Something is still better than nothing, but that is loss prevention, not improvement.
I too lost a couple pounds when I upped the volume and intensity on the C2 after Thanksgiving. Keeping it going this month so far.
Seems like the top Tour De France riders are doing massive amount of zone 2 training these days and the results are showing up in their vo2 max scores.
I'm going to experiment with upping the zone 2 hours per week (80%) and then 20% max effort type work and see if I notice any gains.
Was actually reading about that with heart rate zone training for running today. https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/training/motivation/a27718661/what-is-80-20-running/
I haven't wore a heart rate monitor in a decade but might try to get that going again, but I did try to capture my heart rate coming off the rower for a couple of pieces in the past week. After finishing jump up and get on a treadmill to walk, holding on to the HR sensors. Was pleased to have it show above the "age predicted max rate" today and for it to show in the 160s while doing a zone 2 consistent piece. And for it to drop down to the 120s within 3 minutes.
I'd be shocked is 160s is Zone 2 (i.e., 60 to 70% of max HR) for you. I wouldn't have been the case even in college.
So when I do some 1000 meter pieces at max effort on the C2 these days, when I take a 10 sec pulse and multiply by 10 my HR is something like 189 to 193 so I think low 190s is close to my max HR. All the age based formulas say it is should be somewhere around 173 to 175 which I know is not accurate for me.
I have a HR monitor with the peleton and have been doing a ton of longer stuff in zone 2 which is about 130 HR and feels on the mark for zone 2 in terms of perceived effort. I did 30 mins this AM at 150 which should be 80% and zone 3 and that feels accurate in terms of perceived effort at well.
Hmmmmm. My understanding was the zones weren't unilateral percentages but can shrink as you are better trained so its not that 10% spread all the time. Shrinking the zones is good - you want zone 2 to be as high as possible - and back in the day I am pretty sure I was Zone 2 in the 160s before hitting Z3 in the 170s, 4 in the 180s and 5 in the 190s. I could still carry on a convo there - it was close but doable. I had kind of assumed 165ish was the place where I'd cross from 2 to 3 now.
Might try to ease off and see what it feels like.
Yeah, I don't know. I've always understood them as percentages of max HR.
I will be going some max effort Peleton Stuff soon and will report back on what my HR gets too. Don't have HR monitor for my C2.
Do you recall doing any "step" tests at UW?
We used to do them a few times per season.
8 Mins at max HR of 150 at 20 S/M
8 Min at max HR of 165 at 24 S/M
4 Mins at max HR of 180 at 26 S/M
See how many meters you can go at set heart rates and see how much you improve over the season.
I think the percentages are derived assumptions the same way a max heart rate per age is an assumption. They are in the ball park but everyone is different.
I don't ever remember taking a HR test at UW, but definitely had the step measurements with S/M constraints.
Bumpitty
Seen comments on this study in my twatters feed. It’s basically the same thing as all the VO2 max discussion. You have to MOVE first. Otherwise all other risk factors increase.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25236519/
Post college I've never been a couch potato and always been fit. I just wish I had been more consistent with 210 mins of zone 2 year in year out.
I'm sure my heart of pretty damn strong still given what I can do on Mt Bikes, Peleton, C2 etc relative to peers.
Couldn't decide which thread to put this in but thought it was a nice display of exercise benefits plus glycemic index reactions for certain types of food.
Me yesterday:
Woken up by low blood sugar alert, ate a banana, can see how it rockets up but then quits. No insulin taken.
Eggs slowly raise, along with the creamer, but then stays there cause fat/protein. No insulin taken.
At like 1pm, its lunch time with a big ole Italian sub. Order a footlong and split with the wife, thank goodness she only needs 4 inches (huh?) and I get to enjoy 8. NTAWWT. White bread. For nutrition estimation I would say it was similar to the Jersey Mike's regular #13 Italian which is published.
910 cal
54g fat
62 carb
45g protein
Need to add 10% to that roughly since the nutrition info was based on a 7 inch sub and I enjoyed an extra inch.
Normally I would approximate 16u of fast acting insulin to eat something like that, and in many cases would need more. But instead I went straight to the gym and got on the rower for an hour. Zone 2 work, kept the heart rate in line, but knocked it down. And as soon as I stopped, took off like a rocketship. All that fat and protein digesting starts to hit. I took 6 units on the way up, so as the blood sugar was taking off the insulin worked its way into my system and then finally counteracted to bring back down.
Its good for your heart and preventing any type of insulin resistance. It's so good to move and to do so after eating less than healthy stuff.
Zone 2 work (ignore the early variability as the monitor figured it’s shit out)
Those zones are defaults and there is no way I leave Z2 until at least the high 150s. I feel great today so had to have been Z2.
Vo2max, High Intensity Interval Training, Norwegian Method, Tabata Sprints, & on & on.
There's a lot of fancy sounding advice in the social media fitness world. And a lot of it is misguided. Let's correct.
This is my Fitness Influencer Survival Guide:
When they say "sprint"...
Ignore it unless it's something that takes less than ~8 seconds and has long recovery.
Usually what they mean to say is run hard, or about 800 to mile pace , especially if the interval is from 20-90sec in length.
When they say "all out"...
Unless we're talking about a race, ignore it. What they really mean to say is your best average over the workout...but still leave one rep in the tank. So try to run 4x1mile where every mile is within +/- 5 seconds of each. A dramatic slow down is not good.
When they say HIIT...
They mean something kind of hard. There's a wide variation in interval training. And the specific matter.
HIIT is just a catch all that means everything from 200s at 800 pace to 3k repeats at critical velocity and everything in between.
It's a fancy word for "hard workout"
When they say Sprint Interval Training (SIT)...
They mean a hard and fast workout...but not actual sprinting.
We'd call this work speed endurance in track. Something like 4x150m at 400m pace with a couple minutes rest.
When they Tabata sprints are great...
They're not. They are the Pert Plus of intervals. Mediocre at two things. There are many better options.
First, the original intenisty (170% Vo2max) is too hard for most. People just practice falling apart.
Instead, if you need a short fast workout, do 8 to 10 x 30sec at mile pace with 60 sec recovery. As you adapt, decrease rest or increase reps.
Or if you want short rest, do a few sets of 8x100m with 20-30sec rest at 800-mile pace.
When they say the Norwegian 4x4 protocol is the best for raising Vo2max...
It's not. It takes one study that compared a few intervals. Guess what, Seiler's research found 4x8min better than 4x4, while Billat found 30sec on/off better than 3min reps, and any other number of other studies found different workouts increase VO2max more.
And guess what? None of that maters. Because research sucks at studying workouts. Why? It's artificial. It takes people and makes them do the same workout 2-3x a week for 6-8 weeks. No one does that in the real world. It's not generalizable.
So what? There is NO best workout. Your best workout if you care about VO2max is to mix it up...
-do some short and fast (10x200m w/ 200m jog @ 3k-1mile pace)
-medium- 6x800 @ 5k-3k pace w/ 2min rest
-longer and a bit slower- 4x2k @ 15k-10k pace w/ 2min rest
-Tempo/Threshold- 2x10min at half-marathon pace
-And lots of easy slow running
And adjust the workouts as you go. You want to manipulate rest length, speed, rep distance, sets, rep number, and more as you go. That's how you adapt.
Repeating the same exact workout over and over is what we did in the 1950s.
So what? Vary it up.
When they say Vo2max is the best indicator for health and longevity...
What they really mean is aerobic performance!
That's right, nearly all the research on longevity uses PERFORMANCE, not actual VO2max.
They either use the speed you reach at the end of a treadmill test, what your heart rate is during a standardized submax test, or some other performance metric.
In other words: You are better off seeing what you can run in a mile or 5k (or equivalent test in rowing, cycling) than a Vo2max test.
Why? Because performance encompasses more than just VO2max, which is generally more centrally limited. A 5k time trial give you a decent idea on both peripheral and central contributors to aerobic performance.
What's this mean? Stop trying to improve VO2max (it levels off much earlier than performance). If you care about health and want a decent indicator, just try and get a bit faster over 5k. Or make your standard hard workout feel a bit easier.
When they say Zone 2 is the best...
They really mean easy or slow running. That's it. There is no magic in zone 2.
In fact, all the training zones are just markers to help classify training. You do not actually enter a different 'zone' where the adaptation is completely different.
It's a rough guess to say, most of the work in this area kinda helps at Y. But that's it.
The reason elite runners spend a lot of time in zones 1,2, and 3 is that they need to accumulate a lot of volume in easy to kind of easy paces to get long term aerobic adaptations.
Life isn't going to end if you do some of those runs in zone 1, or venture into zone 3 on a typical run.
In fact, varying it up is the point. It's why you'll see elite runners do some runs at 7min pace, and then other days they're feeling good and clicking off sub 6 for a standard day.
So when it comes to zone 2, think: accumulate a lot of easy to steady mileage. That's it.
Focus on Zone 2 and 5. That's your biggest bang for your buck.
Nope. All zones matter. If you care about performance you need to span the gamut from jogging to nearly sprinting.
If you care about health....guess what? Same thing just to a reduced load.
If all you do is zone 2 and 5...you're missing out on stimulus for important adaptations. You need all of them.
And guess what...you can blend and mix them in the same workout as well. Do 15 minutes at threshold followed by 6x400 at 3k pace. Or whatever combo you want.
So what?
Follow the training poem:
Mostly Easy
Some moderate
Occasionally hard and out of breath
A bit of fast and smooth
Vary it up.
And very rarely...Go see God
Do that for months and years, and you'll be fine.