MoAlpha

Presumably, a plot of age 50 VO2max predicted at birth would look similar, wouldn't it?

Those mis-matched y-axes are a crime.

RChung

Not sure. AFAIK, we don't have a lot of longitudinal cross-national measurements of VO2Max. But, as I mentioned in the other post, you have to be among the richest decile in the US to get the average LE of the UK.

Yeah. I originally did that for both sexes combined but when my wife gave that presentation she split into males and females and used my code without showing me the resultant figures. But she has more publications and a higher profile and more influence than I because she doesn't sweat the stuff I sweat. I can say that because she's not going to read this.

[Edited to add] I think lots of people think that we have more agency and control over our lifespans and our lives than we do, that there are good things and bad things that happen to us that are determined by our individual behavior. But there are broadbrush country-level (and, in the US, state-level) differences in life trajectories and outcomes, and unless you think that the top income decile in the US has VO2Maxes like the bottom income quartile in Japan or France, maybe there are some structural differences to consider.

Trakhak

Your wife's choices were good. The point was to show longevity/morality trends in different geographical regions, not to highlight the differences in the statistics for men and women. If the y-axis labels were adjusted to be identical while maintaining the scale, either the male or female data literally would have been off the charts.

MoAlpha

Yeah, the US is not one country. Zip code (although a categorical variable) is probably as good a predictor of all-cause mortality as VO2max here.

I agree with you on the contribution of behavior. I have heard that lifespan is a more matter of being lucky enough not getting the bad stuff, much of which is genetic, rather than doing anything to stay "healthy." Incidentally, I just heard an amazing lecture on non-inherited mutations, which occur during life and cause an amazing array of bad diseases. We knew this was the basis for malignancies, but it also causes things like autoimmune diseases.

What's your wife's area of interest?

That's when change the scale to accommodate both plots.

Jughed

and weight lifting without eating/feeding the effort is kinda pointless.

Anyhow - my point was weight lifting and VO2 max and how it relates to me. I gain muscle in a hurry. I'm already at the minimal essential fuel just for my riding - and I hold muscle weight. If I was to add weigh lifting into the mix - I would have to add more fuel, and I would gain weight. My VO2 power wouldn't really increase - but my weight would. Resulting in a lower VO2 max - or at least a lower cycling VO2 max. And that was the basis of my response.

With these calories in, calories out - weight gain, weight lifting discussion - we tend to make some broad strokes about what will work for everyone.

I'm gonna attach a picture for reference. I've not lifted a weight in some 20+ years. I eat 2x per day ultra low carb - whole foods diet. 8-10++ per week on the bike. Zero weight lifting, zero strength work of any type - and I carry this much muscle around for no apparent reason. If I add anything into the mix, any extra food, any extra carbs, any weight lifting - I pack on pounds in a hurry.




The guys around me eat 2x the food, drink (I dont drink) ride 1/2 the amount - and are skinny rails.

Jughed

and weight lifting without eating/feeding the effort is kinda pointless.

Anyhow - my point was weight lifting and VO2 max and how it relates to me. I gain muscle in a hurry. I'm already at the minimal essential fuel just for my riding - and I hold muscle weight. If I was to add weigh lifting into the mix - I would have to add more fuel, and I would gain weight. My VO2 power wouldn't really increase - but my weight would. Resulting in a lower VO2 max - or at least a lower cycling VO2 max. And that was the basis of my response.

With these calories in, calories out - weight gain, weight lifting discussion - we tend to make some broad strokes about what will work for everyone.

I'm gonna attach a picture for reference. I've not lifted a weight in some 20+ years. I eat 2x per day ultra low carb - whole foods diet. 8-10++ per week on the bike. Zero weight lifting, zero strength work of any type - and I carry this much muscle around for no apparent reason. If I add anything into the mix, any extra food, any extra carbs, any weight lifting - I pack on pounds in a hurry.




The guys around me eat 2x the food, drink (I dont drink) ride 1/2 the amount - and are skinny rails.

So when people make broad statements about calorie burn, fat storage, eating this or that - well, it just doesn't always fit everyone.

RChung

We think so, but we're mostly doing age-specific sex-specific cause-specific mortality, and you can't get that by zip code (or even many counties: some counties in the US are really small). That said, I occasionally fiddle on a robust algorithm to form clusters of adjacent counties which are "similar" for which we can get those data (it's vaguely related in spirit to redistricting algorithms, but not nearly so political).

We're both in the same field (we met in grad school decades ago) but I'm more on the mathematical theoretical end and she's more on the practical consequences end, which is why she has more publications and reputation and influence than I. No one pays much attention to theoretical mathematical demographers, especially other theoretical mathematical demographers. But it leaves me time to ride a bike.

Carbonfiberboy 

I'm also a member of the full white beard crowd. My build is very similar to your photo.

You misunderstand the purpose of lifting as an endurance athlete. The reason one does not increase calories when one is lifting consistently is that, if anything, you want to get smaller, which is possible if you're increasing your burn by adding lifting. What you are trying to do is to increase muscle fiber recruitment. The thing is, our bodies are really smart. They want to reduce energy expenditure which will help with the main goal, surviving the yearly famine, the "starving time." One of the ways they do this is by activating as few muscle fibers as it feels is reasonable to move the limb as directed. Thus bigger muscles is not the only way to get stronger, using more fibers also makes a stronger contraction using the same muscle size. Thus the purpose of lifting to exhaustion is to briefly train our muscles to fire more fibers. This increases endurance because the load is more spread out among our Type 1 fibers, which is more efficient than firing the Type 2 fibers. You will get stronger and be able to lift heavier weights with no increase in muscle size - as long as you don't increase caloric intake. You betcha those skinny legged pros lift. Nordic ski racers lift. Everybody lifts.

This may not be all technically correct, but it's the general idea. More fibers contracting, not larger fibers.

PeteHski

That’s what I was wondering too.

The income vs longevity is interesting. Is that just a reflection of your access to medical resources which may extend your life? Would VO2 Max predict the longevity of individuals within the same income band?

MoAlpha

Health care is a factor, but time, education, and culture, are far more important at the population level. Presumably, biomarkers such as VO2max are independent predictors, but are also correlated with socioeconomic determinants to some degree. That might be in some of the studies.

PeteHski

So maybe VO2 max could actually be a predictor of your income level within a population and vice-versa.

On a personal level I just try to maintain my VO2 max as best I can and hope that it helps to keep me active in old age. I see people my age (mid 50s) who are out of breath just climbing a staircase. How are they going to cope in old age when their aerobic capacity declines even further? My own estimated VO2 Max has been stable for the last 5 years (hovering around 50 by various estimates) so at least I have some reserve capacity to function normally as my VO2 Max inevitably declines at some future point. I think this is the point Peter Attia was making ie we want to be as far up the VO2 Max curve as possible to stay above the minimum functional level in old age for as long as possible.

Even if VO2 Max ultimately has little or no effect on longevity (maybe I will die of cancer or in an accident anyway), I’m sure it would have a positive effect on quality of life, which I think is more important anyway. Even now I certainly feel the benefits of maintaining a reasonably high VO2 Max.