Jeff Theis puts up 88 VO2

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/2359150/ wrote:

Peak treadmill running velocity was the best laboratory-measured predictor of performance (r = -0.88(-)-0.94) at all distances in ultra-marathon specialists and at all distances except 42.2 km in marathon specialists [compared to lactate threshold and VO2max]

Also from Running Science wrote:

> Showing the separation of VO2max and performance, the Vollaard study found that the change in VO2max was not related to the change in time trial performance (2009). Other studies demonstrate improved performances without changes in VO2max (Daniels et al. 1978). Also, studies show that VO2max can improve without changes in performance, which is seen in a study by Smith that showed improvements in VO2max by 5.0% without an improvement in performance over either 3,000m or 5,000m (2003). In addition, in looking at long-term changes in performance in elite athletes, changes in performance occur without subsequent changes in VO2max.
>
> In highly trained athletes, many studies have shown that VO2max does not change, even with performance improvements. In one of the only studies done on a large group (33) of elite runners, Arrese tracked changes in VO2max across three years. Performance improved by an average of 1.77% in men and 0.69% in women, with VO2max remaining essentially unchanged (~76.56 vs. ~76.42 in men, and ~70.31 vs. ~70.05 in women) (Legaz Arrese et al., 2005). This points to improved performance in elite runners without changes in VO2max. Furthermore, it has been shown that among homogenous groups, such as well-trained runners, VO2max does not correlate well with performance and cannot be used to distinguish which runners are faster (Legaz-Arrese et al., 2007).

> Further evidence can be seen in two case studies on elite runners. In a study on a female Olympic level runner, Jones showed that while the athlete’s 3,000m time improved by 46 seconds, her VO2max decreased from 72 ml/kg/min down to 66 ml/kg/min (Jones, 1998). Another study by Jones, this one on the current women’s marathon world record holder, found that while VO2max varied some based on the time of testing, it was essentially stable at 70 mL · kg–1 · min–1 from 1992 to 2003 (Jones, 2006). The fact that Radcliffe’s Vo2max was essentially stable despite her training volume and intensity increasing substantially is intriguing. Her training increased from a modest 25-30 miles per week (and her VO2max was already 72 at the time) to 120-160 miles per week. The fact that VO2max did not change despite this massive increase in volume and intensity shows the short time course of changes in VO2max. Most importantly, Radcliffe’s performance improved dramatically during that time period.
>
> The rapid change in VO2max can even be seen in untrained individuals. In a study by Smith and Donnell, they evaluated the changes in VO2max over a 36-week training period (1984). VO2max substantially increased by 13.6%, but all of those gains were seen in the first 24 weeks of the study with no further increases during the final 12 weeks. Similarly in a study by Daniels, in untrained subjects VO2max increased during the first 4 weeks of training but did not increase after that even with a further increase of training, despite continued improvements in performance (1978). Given the evidence that VO2max does not change in elite runners and does not correlate with performance, training focused on improving VO2max does not seem like a logical idea for well-trained runners.

> Vollaard may have put it best when they came to the conclusion that “Moreover, we demonstrate that VO2max and aerobic performance associate with distinct and separate physiological and biochemical endpoints, suggesting that proposed models for the determinants of endurance performance may need to be revisited (2009, pg. 1483)”. Their recognition that aerobic performance and VO2max are not direct equals or even well linked is a step in the right direction and needs to be acknowledged to a much greater degree. Combining these findings with Noakes’ CGM creates a situation where VO2max may not be measuring what we think it is. Adding the facts that using %VO2max to classify training results in a wide range of adaptations and that changes in VO2max do not occur in trained athletes, one has to question basing entire training programs on VO2max. The point isn’t to question the importance of oxygen or the aerobic system but instead to show that VO2max does a poor job of representing the aerobic contribution.
>
> The bottom line question that needs to be asked is why is so much of training focused on a variable that does not change in well-trained athletes, barely changes in moderately trained athletes, levels off after a short period of time, and does not even correlate well with performance? Does this sound like a variable that we should be basing all of our training off of?