Originally Posted by
ToddTheBod
This is true, but it's true for almost every physiological metric. What's more complex is that your metrics are going to be both driven and limited by your genetics when it comes to your baseline, your epigenetics when it comes to your environment/history, and then also your genetics AGAIN when it comes to how well you respond to different modalities of training. Perhaps you just do not respond well to the VO2max training you've been doing.
I think the problem is that you're comparing the rate of naturally occuring mid-to-upper-60s VO2maxes in the general population and extrapolating that to the rate that they'd occur in well trained populations.
Upper 70s and low 80s is far and away ahead of "mid to upper 60s".
Perhaps, but I've also done a few different training methodologies over the years. After 13 years of "elitish" training and racing, I'm pretty confident in my numbers.
I mean, maybe. But there's also the problem of you just saying it and producing no data to back it up. You've quoted an internet article that chose an arbitrary number to try and illustrate something completely different than what you're talking about and then a piece of paper that any middle schooler could come up with (with the corresponding ambiguity and apparent errors).
Yes, it is far and away. But mid to high 60s is also far and away ahead of what seems to be general physiological abilities in bike racing. Again, where would a cat 3 stack up relative to all bike racers? Top 20%? 30%? Higher? Eh.