The Flawed V02 Max Craze
5 hours ago
- #cardiorespiratory fitness
- #VO2 max
- #longevity
- VO2 max and cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) are different metrics with distinct measurement methods and outcomes.
- CRF is measured in METs (metabolic equivalent of task) and reflects real-world physical activity, integrating cardiovascular, lung, and musculoskeletal function.
- VO2 max is accurately measured only in lab settings with gas exchange analysis, while wearables estimate it with significant error (7-16%).
- CRF has strong data linking higher METs to reduced all-cause and cardiovascular mortality, with studies involving hundreds of thousands of participants.
- VO2 max has limited outcome data, with most longevity studies actually referencing CRF, not VO2 max.
- Peter Attia and others conflate CRF studies with VO2 max, promoting it as a key longevity marker without direct evidence.
- Smartwatch VO2 max data is unreliable due to factors like heart rate accuracy, device positioning, and environmental conditions.
- Focusing on METs (via treadmill or cycling) is more practical and evidence-based for health outcomes than VO2 max.
- AI platforms like ChatGPT Health overemphasize unreliable wearable VO2 max data, worsening confusion.
- Physical activity diversity (strength, balance, and aerobic training) is more important than fixating on VO2 max.