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.

goose70

Of course this thread got me Googling who the oldest living people are currently. I was not surprised to see 3 of the 10 are Japanese, but was surprised to see another 3 are American. Teachers and nurses seem to represent well. Whenever folks like that are interviewed about the key to their longevity, they always give stupid answers like drinking a bottle of wine a day, or smoking a hand rolled cigar, being "happy" or having friends. Such b.s. --- I want hard, sober, depressing metrics. We need to get these folks on the treadmill for a VO2 Max test.

bruce19

https://www.google.com/search?client...CkJs6DKCw,st:0

https://www.google.com/search?client...fBAQOzzjU,st:0

DanXBoon

”suggesting a plateau in relative risk” (see below)

RChung

Yep. When looking at the oldest individuals, we use official birth records to verify date of birth (and thus current age), so the oldest old always come from countries with good vital statistics registration systems.

Yep. Attia is (in)famous for making the claim that VO2Max is the "best" predictor of longevity, which is why this thread started. Many people have been paying for expensive VO2Max testing but, as we'll see from the next post, the marker usually cited is "cardiorespiratory fitness," not VO2Max per se -- and we have lots of ways to measure cardiorespiratory fitness without paying for a lab test.

Yep, though once again, this identifies a link with cardiac risk, although it doesn't prove that VO2Max is the sole way to measure CRF, nor that it is the "best" predictor of longevity.

DanXBoon

there are other studies examining the association between CRF with overall mortality (see first study below) - other studies examine correlations between exercise capacity (measured as metabolic equivalents, or METs) and the same - interestingly, exercise capacity helps even when the subjects have comorbidities or risk factors (see the second study cited below) - overall, there is sufficient evidence to stimulate one to improve in this direction

Mandsager, K., Harb, S., Cremer, P., Phelan, D., Nissen, S. E., & Jaber, W. (2018). Association of cardiorespiratory fitness with long-term mortality among adults undergoing exercise treadmill testing. JAMA Network Open, 1(6), e183605-e183605.

Myers, J., Prakash, M., Froelicher, V., Do, D., Partington, S., & Atwood, J. E. (2002). Exercise capacity and mortality among men referred for exercise testing. New England journal of medicine, 346(11), 793-801.

Jughed

I'm going to list a single case point to the mix - myself. And if you think about it - it's really simple common sense. If you are in shape, if you exercise and move your body - you are probably going to live longer, and live better.

5 years ago, the doc gave me 2+/- years to exist without a having a stroke, heart attack or death. 340#'s, blood sugars 500++, blood pressure off the charts, cholesterol off the charts - she wanted me in the ER that day.

Simple exercise and a reasonable diet - those 2 years turned into 5, and I expect them to turn into 20++.

My Vo2 at the start was probably sub 15, maybe sub 10. That correlated with a bad outcome in a short window of time.

Now its pushing 50+. And there are zero signs of a bad outcome. Not saying that my past won't come back and smack me in the face - but it may not. And if it does, it will be greatly delayed.

MoAlpha

These findings, in patients referred for exercise testing to evaluate cardiovascular disease, make sense almost to the point of logical circularity, clinically important as they may be.

PeteHski

That is a remarkable turnaround! I knew you had diabetes from previous posts, but never realised you were in that bad of a shape!

RChung

BTW, this isn't the point of this particular thread, but VO2Max isn't the greatest predictor of performance, either.

PeteHski

There are obviously many other factors affecting performance, but I would have thought VO2 max would be at least a good predictor of potential performance. Like I’m not surprised to read that Pogacar is said to have a VO2 Max of 89. My own mediocre V02 Max of around 50 is also in line with my mediocre performance.

RChung

Here's the classic Coyle paper on elite cyclists. Notice that the correlation between 40K time and watts is strong, but the correlation between 40K time and VO2Max isn't. The correlation between 40K time and VO2@LT is stronger than between 40K time and VO2Max. Cycling economy is correlated with VO2Max but since VO2Max isn't that closely related to performance, cycling economy isn't either.

terrymorse 

What about the correlation between W/kg and VO2max?

I would guess they are pretty closely related.

RChung