VO₂max Is Just a Number — And Often the Wrong One
VO₂max has become cycling’s favorite badge of honor. It’s neat, numerical, and easy to compare. Higher looks better. Higher feels like validation, in both directions. And because it’s associated with elite performance, many riders assume that increasing VO₂max should be the primary goal of training.
The problem is that VO₂max tells a very small part of the story—and often distracts riders from the adaptations that matter far more.
What VO₂max Actually Represents
VO₂max is a measure of maximal oxygen uptake. In simple terms, it describes the upper limit of how much oxygen your body can consume during all-out effort.
That ceiling matters, but it’s important to understand what it is—and what it isn’t.
VO₂max is:
Heavily influenced by genetics
Responsive early in training, then resistant to change
Primarily improved through high-intensity work
From a scientific perspective, VO2max is:
VO2=Q×(CaO2−CvO2)
where Q = SV (stroke volume) x HR (heart rate)
and (CaO2−CvO2) is the arterial/venous oxygen concentration difference.
Most riders see modest gains with relatively little targeted effort. Then it plateaus. At that point, chasing further improvement requires disproportionate stress for very little return. This is where many riders get stuck.
The Trap of Chasing the Ceiling
Because VO₂max responds to intensity, it rewards riders who train hard. That feedback loop is seductive. Push harder, see a bump, feel validated. But raising the ceiling doesn’t automatically improve what happens below it.
Most riding—training rides, long days, group rides, even races—is done far below VO₂max. Performance there depends less on how high the ceiling is and more on how efficiently the body operates at submaximal intensities. This is where VO₂max becomes a distraction.
Lactate-based intensity guidance
The Metrics That Actually Govern Performance
What determines whether you can ride longer, recover faster, and repeat efforts isn’t your maximal oxygen uptake. It’s how your metabolism behaves at lower intensities. Two thresholds matter far more in practice: LT1 and LT2.
LT1 marks the intensity where fat metabolism starts to decline, and subsequently lactate begins to rise above baseline. Below it LT1, effort is sustainable and recovery cost is low. Above it, stress begins to accumulate.
LT2 marks the point where fat oxidation is nearly completely turned off, carbohydrate utilization is dominant, and subsequently lactate accumulation accelerates sharply. Above this intensity, efforts become time-limited and recovery cost rises quickly.
Between these two points lies the majority of meaningful training—and the majority of mistakes.
Why FATmax Deserves More Attention
FATmax refers to the intensity at which fat oxidation is maximized. This isn’t a buzzword. It’s a window into metabolic flexibility.
Riders with a well-developed aerobic system can produce meaningful power while relying heavily on fat metabolism. They spare glycogen, manage stress better, and recover more predictably. They don’t just ride farther—they ride with less cost.
Chasing FATmax doesn’t feel heroic. It feels restrained and can be very frustrating. But it builds the infrastructure that makes intensity effective instead of destructive.
The Cost of Too Much Intensity
There’s a growing recognition—both in research and in long-term athlete outcomes—that excessive intensity carries consequences.
Chronic sympathetic activation, persistent fatigue, and maladaptation are common in riders who live near or above threshold year-round. Cardiovascular adaptations are not inherently protective when stress dominates recovery, a theme explored thoughtfully in the book The Haywire Heart: How too much exercise can kill you, and what you can do to prevent it.
This isn’t an argument against intensity. It’s an argument against misunderstanding it. High-intensity work should be specific, limited, and supported by a large base of lower-intensity training. When that balance is lost, riders often get fitter on paper while becoming less resilient in practice.
Performance, Health, and Longevity Are Linked
Cycling can be a powerful tool for long-term health—but only when intensity is applied intelligently.
Aerobic efficiency supports not just performance, but metabolic health, hormonal balance, and recovery capacity. These adaptations matter as much at 60 as they do at 30. In many cases, they matter more.
The riders who last are rarely the ones who trained hardest. They’re the ones who understood when to push—and when to protect the system.
Reframing the Goal
VO₂max is not meaningless. It’s just incomplete. It tells us how big the engine could be. It tells us very little about how efficiently that engine runs day to day, or what it costs to use it. And it can often detract from rider potential, especially for developing riders.
For most riders, the path forward isn’t chasing a higher number. It’s learning how their body fuels work, where stress begins to accumulate, and how to train in a way that supports performance and longevity at the same time.
Closing
VO₂max is a ceiling. Thresholds define behavior. Metabolism determines sustainability. If you want to ride faster, longer, and with fewer setbacks, stop obsessing over how high your limits are—and start paying attention to how your body actually operates below them.
In the next piece, we’ll look at why lactate—often misunderstood and unfairly maligned—is one of the most honest signals we have for understanding exercise intensity, recovery cost, and long-term adaptation.