Yes. But only part of the explanation imo. We had some world-class athletes in our cohort who were very familiar to the road bike. Still a low-ish VO2.

@@wod-science I think his point is that if you take identical twins and one trains in CF and the other in cycling, the CF athlete has a lot more upper body muscle mass, and then it would come as no surprise that the VO2max, since it takes bodyweight as the denominator, is going to be less. Typical high level cyclist has very little upper body mass. High level long distance runner same, perhaps even more so.

@@SettleNow Exactly. Quickest way to improve VO2 max is to lose weight.

Thank you! Means a lot. I’d argue it’s not intelligence though, it’s willing to learn and critical thinking.

Same :)

I’d rather have the vo2 max of a cyclist, with half the strength of a weight lifter who does traditional gym. Not gonna waste time doing CF stuff and be neither here nor there.

@@87togabitoI agree

@@87togabito do not assume a decent crossfit practitioner is not as strong as decent gym goer. I practiced CF for 3 years, now in a regular gym since pandemic. I have seen much more people in CF squatting 3 plates or deadlifting 4 than in regular gyms, or doing more and better strict pull ups with more ROM. Really, CF is wildly underrated by gym goers, but actually a fantastic sport (if practiced with good programming and leaving the ego at the door) that puts you in really good overall shape and strength, and helps wildly with adherence for people demotivated with regular lifting. Not optimal for strength/hypertrophy, that's true, but choice should depend on goals/sport specific training.

Gladly taken ser!

I agree, but as discussed in other comments. CF atheltes also have a substrantially lower VO2 than fi rowers and cross-country skiers who are in the same weight cat.

Thanks for the suggestion. It’s much lower accuracy for sure estimated vs. tested. How much I don’t know. Will do research and make a video when the data is robust.

Good point. Don't confuse movement efficiency with VO2max. Movement efficiency basically means how much oxygen a person is consuming at a given intensity (submaximal). What you refer to is more related to total muscle mass use. Usually, VO2max is higher on a rower because it's a whole body exercise compared to biking. That said, it can be that specialists have better technique and oxygen extraction capacity within certain muscles (fi legs cyclists) which will result in a higher VO2 on the machine the athletes is used to. To your last point, I'd use movements where you are good at. You want to efficiently use as much muscles as possible to accurately determine VO2 max.

@@wod-sciencethanks for the reply Very logical 👍

That's an excellent fitness profile!

Agreed 💯 %. It’s likely volume. CrossFit athletes just train literally everything all the time 😀

Had to laugh out loud with this one. Warmup up jogs are always a race 😂

It’s just impossible to train as much as a bodybuilder/cyclist when you’re a hybrid athlete.

@@wod-science Exactly!!!

This study found similar VO2max in kettlebell athletes as presented here in this video (45-50). Cool study - check it out journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/fulltext/2020/06000/cardiopulmonary_demand_of_16_kg_kettlebell.17.aspx

Agreed. We discuss this in the paper after revisions. More physiological variables were correlated to Open Rank in women because the spread in performance was slightly higher in that cohort compared to men.

Not untrue. But as briefly discussed, also absolute VO2 max was not that high in this cohort of athletes.

Thanks for your reply. I agree and have not missed this point. CrossFit is a strenght biased sport as explained from 08:30 onwards.

Discussed this briefly in the video. Absolute VO2 in CrossFit athletes is also not great. Better than relative obv (high muscle mass), but for instance much lower than those of cross-country skiers which also carry a lot of weight.

Coherent. Critical power also 20-25% lower as reported for elite endurance athletes.

Same to you ser!

Yes please. Info@wod-science.com.

Likely not Glasgow. Still contemplating.

There are ways nowadays to determine what 'limits' VO2max in athletes (heart, lungs, muscles?). Would be interesting to do such studies on football players vs. CrossFitters or other sports. Video on those methods coming up soon.

@@wod-science the study mentions cycling athletes, but I would argue there should be a big difference between road cycling and track cycling athletes, the latter being much stronger and explosive due to the nature of their sport, different body composition. Same as distance runners and 400m (or 200/100 for instance) runners.

Excellent question. I’ve just been looking up some studies and there are NONE in pure hyrox athletes. To your point, I think the same. Hyrox athletes are less muscular, taller and more aerobically built. So yes, HYROX selects for higher VO2max.

@@wod-science I also do some hirox sometimes and I think I can push more since i am increasing vo2 max. Its mostly because running part is less painfull and I fell like i have more in my tank for following runs.

@@wod-scienceI’d say most of us sit between 64-75 for our Vo2max scores. It’s been a minute since I’ve tested mine but I have spoken with a few guys in the top 15 and they all test in that range.

@@Dylan-vh9zz Makes complete sense, thanks for sharing.

I have seen Rich's VO2max data. The RER at the end of the test was -unphysiologically- high, which indicates problems with the analyser. That said, I would not be surprised to see that Rich has a higher VO2 than the athletes we tested in our study.

@@wod-science Yes it is for sure individual differences normal. But i was surprised about the results from your study. There is for sure a lot of research necessary to understand performance determinants from this sport. Thanks for share your knowledge!

Yes, I would add to this that you now see CrossFit athletes who choose to be competitive from young age. It might well be that we see very high VO2maxes in those cohorts, but only if the sport gravitates to more 'endurance' (like this year) in stead of strength (previous years).

Fuck Israel and the zionists. 🇵🇸 the world is against you.

That’s crazy. Can’t imagine doing that. Muscle endurance very important factor here too. Similar as i CrossFit. Would expect same-ish VO2 max in you sport than in CF.

@@wod-science I believe it would be a very different VO2 max for both sports. I train inside a CrossFit box mainly for the atmosphere and the friends. They do CrossFit and I do kettlebell sport. I have great respect for CrossFit and the amazing things they do, but these are completely different types of training with completely different emphases. Kettlebell sport is very endurance-focused. It takes about six months to a year to learn the technique, and then the focus is on progressively increasing the weights and the number of repetitions. I can do about 160 continuous one hand snatch repetitions with a 16 kg kettlebell, one hand switch, and I'm considered a "beginner" (16 kg for men is beginner level). When I started this sport, I was obese, and it has really helped me. It also slowed down my pulse rate.

@@yosefco3 fuck the isreali zionists. Free Palestine 🇵🇸

Agreed. But only partially 😃. In our paper, also absolute VO2 max is shown, which was - just like relative VO2 max - pretty mediocre. What’s interesting is that big athletes can also have large vo2maxes, like crosscountry skiers. In CrossFit athletes this does not really seem to be the case.

I see your point, but even when compared to athletes from the same weigth category (elite rowers, cross-country skiers), their VO2 came out lower than expected, at least to me (15 to 20% lower)

You can have a look at the study itself in the description. 7/60 were semi/games athletes. 62.3 is very impressive, something we saw too in a small cohort of athletes, but most had 8-10ml lower. Variations in measurement devices and lab settings might explain differences too. Fronings VO2 had a RER measurement of like 1.3 if I remember correctly, indicates measurement errors.

@@wod-science took a look at the study. anyone outside the top 1% of the open isnt good enough to make this test valuable. it would be the same as taking a mom that bike rides 4x a week and saying this is what the vo2 max of cyclists look like. as for the smi/games athletes are the individual athletes? or masters and teams athletes, this also is very important. if were gonna compare the best to best, you need to do that

@@tommypomaticofitness7945 If you look closely, we separated Semifinalist / Games athletes from the other well trained CrossFit athletes (top 5%). The VO2 of the Semifinalist / Games athletes was only marginally higher (3 to 4 ml O2). So I do not see your point tbh. Also - have you thought about how hard it is to test such an elite cohort of CrossFitters in the lab?

@@wod-science were these semi final/ games athletes , individual games athletes or were they team or masters athletes.

@@tommypomaticofitness7945 These were all individuals. Good point indd.

Yes, but we made a distinction between elite and well-trained. Differences were not that big between those cohorts. Overall both elites and well-trained performed 20-25% worse on endurance parameters compared to specialists.

It’s very much a cardio sport. Latest data have shown that Fran, arguably the most ‘anaerobic’ workout in CrossFit lasting 2-3 minutes, is 60+ % aerobic.

Your arguments goes to say that there are many factors, next to the pure physiological, that determine performance. Exactly as explained in this vid. 👍

Yes. I agreed. Still, some super elite athletes in our cohort were very familiar to a road bike. These athletes also had a low-ish VO2.

What are you defining as super similar? @wod-science

Absolute VO2 max also lower than I would have expected in CrossFit athletes. See other comments for detailed explanation 👍

They produce a tremendous amount of work within a given timeframe across basically all sport modalities. So even when their VO2max not that high, I’d argue they are very fit.

@@wod-science fit needs a purpose. Fit fir cross fit and game shows

Thanks for the elaborate response. I’d argue that if you want to compare absolute VO2 max you should do it against same caliber athletes - crosscountry skiers or rowers, who have much higher reported relative (70+ ml) and absolute VO2 max (6+L) at 85kg bw. However I look at it, our cohort had a low VO2 max, making me think that other physiological and non-physiological parameters are more determining for performance.

and btw. With a VO2 of 76 ml / 4.9L you are not going to follow the best climbers in de tdf. That is for sure. Hence I’d say that those numbers are not elite, at least not as elite as our cohort in the sport of CrossFit.

@@wod-science they are in the ballpark. The best climbers may have some more but you could flip this whole thing upside down. Imagine Jonas Vingegard puts on 30kg. What do you think will happen to his VO2 max /kg? It would for sure come down to CF athlete levels. So, again, we have elite CF with absolute VO2max that are completely similar to elite cyclists (doing VO2 tests on a bike). How could you possibly say CFers have "average" VO2 max? Makes no sense.

@@wod-science as far as comparing to rowers and skiers, well, those have more of a bodyweight component to their sport than CF and also tend to be quite tall. Comparing a 175cm/90kg crossfitter to a 190cm+ 100kg rower is a bit bonkers. Plus, you are comparing to the VO2 kings. In anyway you look at it you cannot possibly claim crossfit athletes have low VO2 max, defined by low capacity to absorbe O2. Crossfiters have a very high capacity to absorb O2. Your claim is misleading. To be clear for anyone reading, in a cycling ramp test, an elite crossfiter will absorb as much total O2 as an elite cyclist. The cyclist is able to do that with a lower bodyweight.

Van aert likely has 85 ml somewhere at 80kg this would equate to 7L. I don’t really see your point.

That doesn't really matter, dude. Cross fitters have crap V02Max because their methodology is based on silly notions from the "fitness" world instead of sport. If they maybe thought about training each energy system to some adequate degree, they'd realize they were almost never really training their aerobic system. If they run distance at all, they conceive of it as "work" and maybe a "calorie burn". I.e. fitness world bs that gets you nowhere. To get a high V02Max, you first need to build an aerobic base, which is to say you have vastly increased the numbers, size, and efficiency of mitochondria in skeletal muscle, as well as increased the density of capillaries to those fibers. This results in greater gas exchange in the muscles (more O2 goes in, more CO2 goes out). Gas exchange is the primary bottleneck to VO2Max. What I have seen crossfitters try to do is adapt "Vo2Max interval workouts" to use on machines like ergs and assault bikes without understanding those are the final refinements in periodized training. 90% of what goes into a high Vo2Max is low heart rate work. Crossfitters are exactly the kinds of guys running around the park on Sunday at threshold pace, passing the "slow people", never realizing some of those slow people are elite runners. That's why they have trash metrics in general. They just don't understand how adaptations actually work because crossfit is like the prodigal child of the American "fitness" industry. Look into sports.

@@noosphericaltarzan 90% just muscle mass from the upperbody, if you have 20kg of extra muscle you will have shitty v02. The end.

@@SuperAmazingAnt That is completely untrue. It depends upon gas exchange in those muscles. I just explained the science to you. Go read a book if you don't believe it. lol

@@noosphericaltarzan E=mc^2 get lost.

@@SuperAmazingAnt You have never even been to college cross fit clown. I just explained basic exercise science to you.

Which type of athlete or which sport would you can ‘fitter’?