I feel like influencers take things too literally. Like, grip strength is associated with greater longevity, so here’s how to train your grip strength. I’ve always interpreted these types of finding like, a lifestyle that results in greater grip strength (or VO2 max) tends toward greater longevity, and these are just convenient metrics to measure that. So instead of focussing on the metrics we should be asking, what do those lifestyles include, and aim to incorporate those larger choices. I am glad for people like yourself pointing out that the metrics are just that and often contribute little when considering the fullness of a human and their life.
agreed that the proxy measure of grip strength cannot be hacked.
Peter Attia, in his book Outlive, differentiates Vo2Max however as the large base and high peak training required in order to dial up the numbers will have a direct impact systemically. Arguably if you were to amputate your legs, your weight would drop and therefore, momentarily your vo2max would rise (given the formula takes /kg into account), but the glide path to reducing Vo2max over time would become steeper.
I stopped 'running' about 5 years ago after doing what you suggested for many, many years (I'm 56 now). I do sprints (40m-50m) once a week, plus my hill- walking. I've never considered myself a 'runner'.
I think there is something to be said for switching to more resistance training exercises as you get older (you have a way to go so may not see that far ahead). Strength and range and balance are things that older people struggle with: they are frail, still and fall over a lot. My body feels much better now, and I move well enough, am mobile, and strong.
That 1996 Cooper Institute study has the surprising (to me) finding that, among women, self-reported physical activity was not significantly related to risk of death from all causes, nor to cancer mortality
Personally I have had my VO2Max tested every 3 or so years, and in the past aligned it with my garmin data. My run coach has said that it is a waste of time and you can just deduct your vo2max from a run time.
It wasnt a waste, last time, it was required for a study I was a participant in (and was rejected as I was at 53, and they needed 55+). I got great data from it, and it confirmed my garmin numbers.
Anyway, I have seen VO2max as a proxy measure for my entiire CV system, and like you say is a good predictor of longevity. (I read about it from Peter Attia). My Garmin data tends to track volume, and while it is close to the lab tests, I have doubts at how much it can move around. If i take a week off, it can drop a few points.
I have been doing parkrun as a measure of my fitness, (around 21 minutes), but I see it might be worthwhile running just for 1 mile to really blow my jets. then measure trends over the months and years.
My concern with the mile test is that hip mobility will have an influence on the numbers, my hips are woeful and I am desperately trying to fix that for my Karate Shodan exam coming up.
This article got me thinking, so thank you for that.
VO2 max is the best and truest measure of oxygen transport is the most important indicator of health - more than anything else. VO2 Max is first and Physical Activity is second as the best predictors of longevity, for runners and non-runners alike. Maintaining VO2 Max at 35 or greater confers a veritable immunity to the scourge of NCDs. What you do with your VO2 Max brings you into the realm of performance and there are many other determining factors. But for just living healthily and adding life to your years, exercising aerobically to expand or maintain your VO2 Max, is where it is at. Also, I would think that former great milers who find themselves with a VO2 Max of 30 and CVD at 60 years old, would have lost any advantage they once had. Thanks for the thought provoking article
Steve, could you share the link to the 5K study so we could see what's on either side of that 30-40yr old / 20-22 min 5K baseline? (I'm 51, and curious where my 5K time falls for my age group.)
It's one of the studies above. They didn't measure 5k time. I'm translating that from the performance metric they used to give folks an idea of fitness. The best thing you can do is put 20min 5k into an age graded calculator for 51, and it'll give you an idea of what the "top fitness" group was capable of approximately.
I hear ya. But the good thing about the tables is letting you know how your older self compares against your younger self. The best I ever did was around 72% about 6 years ago. I’m never gonna be a 100% person. But I wouldn’t mind getting back to my 72%!
When I hear an influencer, especially of the longevity variant, saying that since higher VO2max correlates with a higher degree of fitness, so we should then do a lot of VO2max type stuff in order to live long, run faster, whatever, they may be missing the point. I feel that they may just want us to ”teach to the test”.
Wouldn’t doing very easy (recovery), easy long, moderate, sub-threshold, threshold and absolutely no VO2max also raise your VO2max? And personally I’d rather go through all 9 circles of Hell than get another VO2max test. And I’m assuming that what it says on my Garmin is probably trash.
Is VO2max as a metric even worth it? Is training for it?
I feel like influencers take things too literally. Like, grip strength is associated with greater longevity, so here’s how to train your grip strength. I’ve always interpreted these types of finding like, a lifestyle that results in greater grip strength (or VO2 max) tends toward greater longevity, and these are just convenient metrics to measure that. So instead of focussing on the metrics we should be asking, what do those lifestyles include, and aim to incorporate those larger choices. I am glad for people like yourself pointing out that the metrics are just that and often contribute little when considering the fullness of a human and their life.
agreed that the proxy measure of grip strength cannot be hacked.
Peter Attia, in his book Outlive, differentiates Vo2Max however as the large base and high peak training required in order to dial up the numbers will have a direct impact systemically. Arguably if you were to amputate your legs, your weight would drop and therefore, momentarily your vo2max would rise (given the formula takes /kg into account), but the glide path to reducing Vo2max over time would become steeper.
Yes.
Always the voice of reason
I stopped 'running' about 5 years ago after doing what you suggested for many, many years (I'm 56 now). I do sprints (40m-50m) once a week, plus my hill- walking. I've never considered myself a 'runner'.
I think there is something to be said for switching to more resistance training exercises as you get older (you have a way to go so may not see that far ahead). Strength and range and balance are things that older people struggle with: they are frail, still and fall over a lot. My body feels much better now, and I move well enough, am mobile, and strong.
I forgot I made this video about ageing and resistance training and sprints: https://youtu.be/gZxYtOEadfs?si=RjsBRBguHeTjm_5z
That 1996 Cooper Institute study has the surprising (to me) finding that, among women, self-reported physical activity was not significantly related to risk of death from all causes, nor to cancer mortality
Thanks for this post. Really Interesting.
Personally I have had my VO2Max tested every 3 or so years, and in the past aligned it with my garmin data. My run coach has said that it is a waste of time and you can just deduct your vo2max from a run time.
It wasnt a waste, last time, it was required for a study I was a participant in (and was rejected as I was at 53, and they needed 55+). I got great data from it, and it confirmed my garmin numbers.
Anyway, I have seen VO2max as a proxy measure for my entiire CV system, and like you say is a good predictor of longevity. (I read about it from Peter Attia). My Garmin data tends to track volume, and while it is close to the lab tests, I have doubts at how much it can move around. If i take a week off, it can drop a few points.
I have been doing parkrun as a measure of my fitness, (around 21 minutes), but I see it might be worthwhile running just for 1 mile to really blow my jets. then measure trends over the months and years.
My concern with the mile test is that hip mobility will have an influence on the numbers, my hips are woeful and I am desperately trying to fix that for my Karate Shodan exam coming up.
This article got me thinking, so thank you for that.
VO2 max is the best and truest measure of oxygen transport is the most important indicator of health - more than anything else. VO2 Max is first and Physical Activity is second as the best predictors of longevity, for runners and non-runners alike. Maintaining VO2 Max at 35 or greater confers a veritable immunity to the scourge of NCDs. What you do with your VO2 Max brings you into the realm of performance and there are many other determining factors. But for just living healthily and adding life to your years, exercising aerobically to expand or maintain your VO2 Max, is where it is at. Also, I would think that former great milers who find themselves with a VO2 Max of 30 and CVD at 60 years old, would have lost any advantage they once had. Thanks for the thought provoking article
Steve, could you share the link to the 5K study so we could see what's on either side of that 30-40yr old / 20-22 min 5K baseline? (I'm 51, and curious where my 5K time falls for my age group.)
It's one of the studies above. They didn't measure 5k time. I'm translating that from the performance metric they used to give folks an idea of fitness. The best thing you can do is put 20min 5k into an age graded calculator for 51, and it'll give you an idea of what the "top fitness" group was capable of approximately.
From James Clear's newsletter yesterday:
"You have to run your own race. Problems begin the moment you start comparing your results to someone who is playing under different conditions.
The 40-year-old entrepreneur with three kids has different constraints than the single 27-year-old.
A painter with 20 years of practice shouldn't be the benchmark for someone in year two.
Someone caring for aging parents is not in the same position as someone with no obligations outside work.
Play your own game. Emphasize gradual progress and keep the comparison internal. Are you getting a little better today?"
Got it. Thank you!
http://www.howardgrubb.co.uk/athletics/mldrroad25.html
Thanks Donald! Welp, looks like I have some work to do. Tip of the hat to whatever 51 year olds are out there running a 5K in 14:43.
I hear ya. But the good thing about the tables is letting you know how your older self compares against your younger self. The best I ever did was around 72% about 6 years ago. I’m never gonna be a 100% person. But I wouldn’t mind getting back to my 72%!
Me too. I’m 69 years old, and still running ultras, but I don’t know how fast I am.
When I hear an influencer, especially of the longevity variant, saying that since higher VO2max correlates with a higher degree of fitness, so we should then do a lot of VO2max type stuff in order to live long, run faster, whatever, they may be missing the point. I feel that they may just want us to ”teach to the test”.
Wouldn’t doing very easy (recovery), easy long, moderate, sub-threshold, threshold and absolutely no VO2max also raise your VO2max? And personally I’d rather go through all 9 circles of Hell than get another VO2max test. And I’m assuming that what it says on my Garmin is probably trash.
Is VO2max as a metric even worth it? Is training for it?