The biggest problem with using Vo2max as a marker of our fitness is that it is both expensive and inconvenient. You can get a lung capacity measurement using a spirometer available for less than $100 and use it to keep track of your training. Lung exercise apparatuses are also available for less than 100$.
“Lung capacity can provide a rough estimate of VO2max potential.
Direct measurement of VO2max via maximal exercise testing is the gold standard.”
I see no evidence of any 100-year-old claiming that intense exercise and a great Vo2max were responsible for his good health and longevity.
Some of the longest-lived people are Indian yogis. They are not running, bicycling, etc. Instead, they eat little, meditate, and do yoga exercises, none of which raises their heart rate very much
There is evidence that they can increase telomere length or at least slow down its age-related shortening. They do this despite not living in a “Blue Zone”
“Mindfulness, meditation, and yoga have garnered growing attention for their potential influence on cellular aging and longevity through their impact on telomeres and telomerase”
There are many different forms of yoga with some having odd beliefs. I remember reading about a yogi who said you are allotted a certain amount of breaths and heartbeats.
I’m not a yoga practitioner myself and it is not for everyone. I tried it for a while as a teenager but didn’t stick with it as an adult. As for meditation, I have tried it many times including in a guided class. It may be great but I just fall asleep.
Vo2max:
For Men
18-25 years old: >45 mL/kg/min
25-35 years old: >40 mL/kg/min
35-45 years old: >35 mL/kg/min
45-55 years old: >30 mL/kg/min
55-65 years old: >25 mL/kg/min
For Women
18-25 years old: >38 mL/kg/min
25-35 years old: >35 mL/kg/min
35-45 years old: >32 mL/kg/min
45-55 years old: >28 mL/kg/min
55-65 years old: >23 mL/kg/min
This is certainly not cost-effective or convenient for the average person.
The contest for advocating an ideal Vo2max is more like bragging. “See what I can do!”
6 Likes
I don’t even take rapa (yet), even if I believe that you do. (Which btw, is an example of how you appear to agree that longevity based decisions can be made even in contexts without strong human data of the totally of data and risk/reward is reasonable).
I made it very clear my role for rapamycin is off-label use of a prescription medication for a medical condition where rapamycin is being investigated NOT for longevity.
At the same time, I don’t think there is any normative reason to think that hard vs easy matters for human health though - some good things are hard, others are easy (eg lowering Apo B is very easy, but will have a meaningful impact on mortality and probably longevity). Modulating total calories to be in a slight deficit and doing occasional full multi-day fasts are not as easy for me as just working out a bit more than my approx 6 hours a week, but I think doing both types of longevity practices is better than just maximizing exercise.
I enjoy exercising but believe me I’m free of confirmation bias because I wouldn’t mind just staying home playing my guitar or xbox. The evidence for maximizing benefits of exercise is strong and from the research I have done 10-12 hours or so a week puts me on top of the logarithmic curve, going beyond that it’s just diminishing returns in terms of limiting my time for work, family, etc.
Exercise gives me a caloric deficit of 500-700 calories on average per day, so that keeps me in a calorie restriction. I have done keto and IF and abandoned the practice due complexity, poor evidence and some personal side effects.
Every other low hanging fruit like ApoB is managed by my very deliberate dietary choices to maximize nutrient variety and density without excess calorie intake and of course, various exercise regimen.
1 Like
Lost
#75
I was specifically talking about the one paper, which is interesting to me due to the cohort size and follow-up time involved. You posted that paper so presumably you think it supports some conclusion.
From a naive reading that specific paper does not seem to support the claim that very high levels of activity now are protective 30 years later, and worryingly leaves open the conclusion that high activity now could actually be detrimental 30 years later. Apparently you disagree (or aren’t making related claims in the first pace), since you posted it.
I didn’t pick through carefully, so I surely missed a lot. I’m literally asking for what evidence is in that paper that supports heavy exercise for benefit decades down the road.
1 Like
The biggest problem with using Vo2max as a marker of our fitness is that it is both expensive and inconvenient.
There are tons of way to estimate Vo2 max, I personally use my Garmin watch to estimate it for me. Who cares if it’s off by 5-8 points, it’s the trends that matter.
Some of the longest-lived people are Indian yogis.
Sorry but that’ anecdotal evidence. However I did reluctantly add one hour yoga weekly and it’s great for stretching, balance and core. I do practice mindfulness throughout the day, especially during zone 2 running.
The contest for advocating an ideal Vo2max is more like bragging. “See what I can do!”
So is longevity itself and people bragging on these forums how healthy they are for their age. I say good for you !
The evidence for Vo2 max correlation to longevity is very strong.
2 Likes
This paper studied former athletes, so that should give you some clue.
Not really… easily estimated via one of the newer sports watches that tracks Vo2Max (Garmin, Apple, Coros, etc.), or via the Cooper running test as talked about here: Vo2 max reference values - #21 by JuanDaw
1 Like
Neo
#79
Hi Lost, Thx for this synthesis. Can you point me to where I can see that / which paper and part of that paper?
I don’t know anything personally one way or another but in the video at the top of the thread, they discuss how all these secondary measurements are widely inaccurate compared to the official method.
1 Like
Neo
#81
Any sense for how accurate the VO2 max predictors are?
(I remember there being a massive delta between my Garmin and Apple Watch before the pandemic just writing them off as not accurate)
I watched a few YouTube comparisons of the watches vs. lab Vo2Max analysis which suggested around 7% variation between the two, which would be good enough for me to get a rough idea of how I’m doing relative to my goals. But I have not seen any scientific papers comparing the watches vs. lab analyses. Would be interesting to see.
See this post: Exercise, VO2 max, and longevity | Mike Joyner, M.D - #191 by RapAdmin
2 Likes
Lost
#83
Cited in the post I was replying to:
(https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.121.058162)
Note, again, that my comments are in reference to these results, and one needs to consider the full breadth of research.
1 Like
Neo
#84
Just please do take into account that also in this case many of the controls are not healthy and def not representative optimizers of health and longevity - with a lot of the studies in the meta analysis being
compared to age- and sex-matched controls from the [mostly US it seems?] general population
I think you are making a big mistake in the automatic assumption that most people engaging in high level of exercise are otherwise living a healthy life style. There is no study that I know that proves this. From my own experience over the years, attendings hundreds of MTB races, interacting with several hundreds of amateur athletes and having my biker friends I can tell you that is absolutely not the case. Great majority in fact uses their exercise to justify eating junk food and abusing alcohol. They couldn’t care less about eating healthy. Some of them are actually obese. Ever heard the term the donut ride ? So if there is a healthy user bias I have not seen it, but if you have some studies or evidence of it, I would be curious to see it.
1 Like
The accuracy is not really that relevant, as long as it is consistent and allows you to track the delta, that is most important.
1 Like
I have a Comcept 2 rowing machine used as the high standard for land based Olympic and amateur rowers. They have a nicely designed web-page VO2max Calculator for Indoor Rowing | Concept2 with an FAQ and rationales for their readings.
Anyways, I jumped on the dusty rower. (I haven’t used it in a while as it has been my mild winter and I run instead). And low and behold - as predicted by @desertshores, excessive bragging results!
If I choose the highly trained training level (which I am not) - then my VO2 max declines. That was counter-intuitive but the FAQ on the page explains this as …“an athlete with a high anaerobic threshold may perform better than another, despite having a lower VO2max. It’s possible that this comes into play with untrained individuals: since they lack training, they may depend more heavily on their natural anaerobic capability.”
So where does that put me in terms of a 69 year old male sort of healthy guy with a VO2 max of 47.35? (thanks for asking!)
Given the responses and range of views expressed in this topic, my personal view is that VO2 max is a distraction and irrelevant to the health and promotion of vibrant aging. Peter Attia is distilling a vague output measure and because he has such a broad influence, his view is not helpful for the majority of folks who need minor adjustments to their environments to have powerful gains in health.
In my own case, I have not seen a decline in strength or VO2 max primarily because I am a shlubby active not elite guy. Haven’t over-trained and not elite. All the “elites” are disappearing from my age group category - just gone. And I’ll be gone too - just don’t know when.
3 Likes
Lost
#88
Thanks.
Again, I was asking about the interpretation of a single paper – such a question obviously can not be answered by linking to a completely different paper. That’s OK since it was minor point – I was only curious whether I had missed something in my reading.
I don’t know how to interpret the athlete review at all, at least in any way that’s useful to me. Selection bias is a real bear. But the bottom line that elite athletes live longer than average isn’t too surprising, because elite anythings live longer than average. So high level athletes get a small boost, but they’re still outlived by high level chess players. (To be fair, the difference is not significant by that paper’s tests.) I’m not aware of direct comparisons, but I’d bet that the athletes’ longevity is similar or less than that of national legislators (elite politicians) or nobel laureates (elite academics).
6 Likes
no statistically significant difference in the RS of GMs (RS [95% CI]: 1.14 [1.08–1.20]) compared to OMs
Interesting but not the greatest study when you have 10x the amount of OM vs GMs, data is obtained from various public sources and survival is measured at 30 and 60 years since getting a title ?
Perhaps GM’s have protection against dementia or maybe they are more athletic that we all ASSUME.
But yes, brain training is part of the longevity plan.
1 Like
Bicep
#90
I have no medical training at all, so this is an actual question. Is it possible to improve lung capacity with any kind of training at all?
1 Like
well said. Myself I’m in the upper range of average (for 60-69 age group) per your table. VO2 max comes from the fitness app on my apple watch. I suspect my VO2 max was throughout my life either average or even a bit below average as a teenager. That said, I have not met a person in the last ten years in my age group who is as quick ( can move as quickly and with such quick reflexes) as healthy and as flexible as myself. Further, I very rarely see people of any age who can match me in these respects. In conclusion, maybe some of us are not made to be top tier fitness performers and trying to obsessively focus on max VO2 performance vs the balance - CR+ rapa+ daily moderate exercise is just counterproductive?
1 Like
I agree that max performance, like dosage of a drug, has to be applied astutely to the individual over decades to see how it plays out for long-term health. For myself - being non-elite, I would train for a marathon and when my weekly miles hit 39 - on the button - I would get an overuse injury. So I seem to be built more for comfort, and not athletic excellence. An example of an elite performer who seems to have done well is Tom Brady. Professional football is all about physical abuse and training - he beat that normality through some unique insights to pliability etc.
But the examples of elite athletes who seem to have overdone it seems to be a long list: Bill Rodgers dropped off a cliff - he was a phenomenal runner and also master level runner. But he hit a wall. Hal Higdon, an elite runner and well known for his marathon training programs ran 7 marathons in 7 weeks @ 70 years old for charity, and he fell off a cliff. And in my own age group for runners, the drop of participants is staggering. If you think about it, folks now retired with the time and wealth to pursue an athletic pursuit they have coveted all their life, and they disappeared from these events.
What I am trying to pass on to athletic folks in their 50, what they perceive as longevity benefits via their training methods and load, may not work out for them as expected.
5 Likes
