A
Here’s a concise 5-bullet TL;DR of the article “The Flawed VO2 Max Craze” by Eric Topol:
VO2 max vs Cardiorespiratory Fitness (CRF): VO2 max requires lab testing for accurate measurement, while CRF (measured in METs via treadmill/bike or heart rate formulas) reflects real-world functional capacity and is strongly linked to health outcomes.
Wearable VO2 max data are unreliable: Smartwatches estimate VO2 max via heart rate and movement, often underestimating fit individuals and overestimating unfit ones; factors like skin tone, device positioning, and environment further reduce accuracy.
CRF datasets drive health insights, not VO2 max: Large studies (hundreds of thousands of participants) show higher MET-based CRF is strongly associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular mortality; only a tiny fraction of evidence comes from directly measured VO2 max.
Conflation hype: Popular figures (e.g., Peter Attia) often overstate VO2 max as a longevity marker by extrapolating from CRF studies, ignoring the limitations and the importance of diverse exercise (strength, balance, endurance).
Practical takeaway: Focus on improving overall activity and METs, not VO2 max; it’s free, simple, well-studied, and far more meaningful for health outcomes than smartwatch-derived VO2 max numbers.
If you want, I can also make a 1-sentence ultra-TL;DR version suitable for quick memory or social media. Do you want me to do that?
No comments:
Post a Comment