Talk:VO2 max

message: Could someone please tell me how to request an assessment, and perhaps the sponsorship of an appropriate wikiproject? My hope is that this will result in a clean-up and perhaps some more citations.
--Zegoma beach (talk) 17:41, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Request Assessment, General Cleanup, and the Sponsorship of an Appropriate [[WikiProject]]

message: Could somebody clarify what it means to measure oxygen in liters (as opposed to moles or grams) in this context? When we say "one liter of oxygen" in this context, do we mean "moles contained in one liter of pure O2 at 1 bar (14.7 psi) of pressure"? At what temperature? Volume is a bizarre unit to use here especially for a gas, but if that is the (unfortunate) convention then a brief translation for the rest of us seems in order. If nobody else clarifies, then I might follow up. Bmord (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification of units in VO2Max

message: Have the references been re-aligned since the editing together? My recollection is that the correlation was from the 'Sports Coach/Brian Mac site - ref 3.(ie Not ref 1) Please check. Linuxlad 19:07, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Training effect - still think Cooper investigated it in detail rather than identified it! And using the Cooper test to estimate VO2 max is pretty rough and ready I read. I think respectfully Mr S, I had it right :-) Linuxlad 19:24, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm still waiting on materials from the Cooper Center, but my understanding from the book I read (which I should and will get a copy of) is that Dr. Cooper discovered that at a certain level of consistent exercise the body suddenly "shifted up" its metabolism.  I just want to be accurate.  I'll try to get a source for this promptly. Simesa 00:08, 25 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference alignment

message: This was added by  into the article.  it belongs on the discussion page:
:Can someone whos good at editing this stuff a)get rid of this line, and b)fix up my edit to somewhat like what it looks in source. Thanks (feel free to mess w the arrangement of info as well sry for offtopic) johnSLADE (talk) 08:31, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Moved from article

message: Is everyone okay with my adding the phrase "maximal oxygen carrying capacity" to the article? It's basically the same thing and I read it used as a technical term here:  in reference to VO2 max. Tyciol 13:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Alternate reference

message: Whose bright idea was it to remove LeMond's? For one notable reason Greg LeMond's is the highest recorded of ANY professional
cyclist INCLUDING Lance Armstrong. Its notable in that regard. And 5-time Tour winner Miguel's is good to keep because it serves
to be one way to compare and contrast these physiological parameters between two notable athletes. Greg LeMond still has the fastest time trial ever recorded in the Tour De France ... just slightly faster than Lance's fastest.
Please put Greg LeMond's VO2 Max back into the article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.37.188 (talk) 05:24, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, please put it back 99.153.64.179 (talk) 17:49, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greg LeMond's AND Lance Armstrong's would add perspective to the article 

message: Everything is genetically determined for the most part, but unless it's something that can't be changed very easily or by very much through nurture, then I don't think it is proper to say something is genetically determined for the most part. VO2max can change pretty dramatically in some individuals through training. So I'm removing that sentence in the first paragraph. You can revert if you strongly feel it should be kept. Jamesters 17:20, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One interesting thing is that the degree to which it improves is also genetically determined: some people can hugely improve their VO2 max with conditioning, and others can never increase it at all no matter how much they train. Collabi (talk) 21:23, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics

message: Could somebody please revert the definition to the previous one as at 2:28, January 4, 2007? I am not sure how to do it, but I believe the current definition to be erroneous and the previous one better, although not perfect. The definition of VO2 max does not need a measurement unit, ie. millilitres. Furthermore, the "per kilogram per minute" version is not the only way of measuring it. The true definition should just be "volume of oxygen". The common measurement unit is handled further down the first paragraph anyway, so the information is doubled up. The definition should probably also include "by the working cells/muscle cells". If nobody reverts the article in a few days I'll try a manual edit myself, thanks. MattVickers 07:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Definition

message: I corrected the definition and cleared-up some problems with the section on measuring VO2max. This page needs some major work. I will tinker at it here and there. Thanks to those who have come before. A few specifics....VO2 max is always in reference to incremental or graded exercise...it is possible to work far harder than the intensity at which VO2 max occurs...Of all the research and clinical labs I have ever had involvement with, I have never seen a multi-day protocol used.--Phairphysiology 20:15, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Corrections 

message: The "Uth—Sørensen—Overgaard—Pedersen" test seems to be in the wrong place - It may use estimation of VO2max, but it is still a maximal test, since it requires the subject to find their maximal heartrate. --Ozhiker (talk) 12:00, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Uth—Sørensen—Overgaard—Pedersen  

message: According to the cited article in New Science, VO2 max in normal persons is a range between 40 and 50 ml/kg/min. Nevertheless, in our Wiki article it is given as a single value, approximately 45 ml/kg/min. Although this difference might seem minor, I believe it is critical in Sports Medicine to cite ranges as ranges, because human physiology is indeed "normal" within approximate levels. Giving a single value makes every single person that's even 1 ml/kg/min above or below that 45 deviate from this supposed normality, although in reality s/he isn't. So if I have as a result a 42 VO2 max, I might believe it might be normal but low, although it might be perfectly normal for my current physical conditions. I believe we shall revert the said entry to a range, as in the original article we cite. What do you think? --Kensai (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, according to other sources (e.g here: McKinley Health Center, University of Illionois at Urbana-Champain) 45 ml/kg/min would be in 60-70 percentile for young males (20-29). That is above the median. The only situation when both of them is correct, if there are more exceptionally high values than exceptionally low. This may be case, but I think we should check more than one source to verify it. Other ideas: quote the median, not the average, or meybe both. Define what "young" means. Many people at age 35 consider themselves young. Csab (talk) 17:05, 28 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  VO2 max: let's use a range, not a single value 

message: There are some sentences that read:
"Male rowers typically score VO2 maximums over 6 litres/minute, and some exceptional individuals have exceeded 8 l/min.
To put this into perspective, thoroughbred horses have a VO2 max of around 180 ml/kg/min. Siberian dogs running in the Iditarod Trail Sled Dog Race have VO2 values as high as 240 ml/kg/min"
I don't understand the "perspective". You can't compare l/min to ml/kg/min.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.58.167.253 (talk) 07:27, 12 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perspective? 

message: I recently removed a claim that one should instead scale by the 2/3 power of mass. Apart from being a completely different measure than what is intended, this was supported by the statement that the surface of the lungs scales like the square of the height.  This would be true if, say, the lungs were spherical sacks.  But in reality, the Hausdorff dimension of the lungs is 2.97 (see List of fractals by Hausdorff dimension), so it is probably the case that lung area actually scales about like total body volume.  This makes sense if you consider that a given mass of tissue needs about the same amount of O2 regardless of body size. Sławomir Biały (talk) 14:36, 9 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of removal 

message: Surely it should be \dot{V}_{\mathrm{O}_{2_{\mathrm{max}}}}  not \mathrm{VO_2\; max} ? Qwfp (talk) 11:07, 4 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe, but Wikipedia should reflect actual usage. In sports, "chemistry isn't an exact science" scnr. I've seen  \dot{V}{\mathrm{O}_2} {\mathrm{max}} and \dot{V}{\mathrm{O}2} {\mathrm{max}} in literature. The dot makes sense and should be mentioned in the article.--92.213.88.82 (talk) 10:18, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typesetting 

message: VO2, i.e., VO2 currently redirects here. When I tried to go to that article, and it came here, I found very little (if any) discussion of VO2 in itself, just VO2 max. I am inclined to think that VO2 maybe should have its own article. What do others think? Is is sufficiently different to have an article itself, or should it just be expanded within this article? --jjron (talk) 03:54, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  VO2 as separate article? 

message: This article displays equations that contain variables unconventionally written VO2 & CaO2, which are already commonly in use (IUPAC & IUPAP) as the chemical formulae of Vanadium(IV) oxide & Calcium peroxide...
I think we can suitably represent the minutely ...Warmest Regards, :)—thecurran Speak your mind my past 06:29, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, it's supposed to have a dot over it, since it's a rate, not a volume (mL/min), and 3 levels of subscript (V subscript O sub-subscript 2 subscript max).  However, the "dotless" current form seems to have become more common over time, possibly because of typesetting issues in scientific journal articles. Mokele (talk) 16:07, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-standard notation 

message: Timmons (2010) is an interesting study that claims a genetic basis for about half of the VO2 response to exercise, and finds 11 SNPs that account for 23% of the total response (ie about half the genetic component), some of the genes they identify include a TGFβ1 involved in angiogenesis and RNAs involved in genomic imprinting. There's some interesting papers in the references too. I'm not sure how best to incorporate this kind of material but it's interesting to read if nothing else - they found about 20% of people do not show VO2 responses to the exercise regime they studied, whereas 20% were "high responders".Le Deluge (talk) 21:15, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Genetics of VO2 responses 

message: Hello, 
I found some information on the aerobic capacity article that I think would fit better here. Th information is located on this sandbox, Uniquajanae/sandbox. aerobicexercise, in case someone thinks it may be useful here or somewhere else. Uniquajanae (talk) 16:41, 8 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Aerobic Capacity