I guess that is my point. It would be nice to see a study that compares outcomes against physical activity vs VO2max. Not sure how you would do that, but if you could find people with lower VO2max but lots of activity and if these people were not equally protected, that would tell you that VO2max is the thing. Probably not enough people out there with high activity and lower VO2max to make things statistically significant? I know I have seen papers that show high activity level is also protective….just not sure if anyone has ever compared activity to VO2max?
What do you think about the suggestion that it isn’t the vo2 that provides the benefit. Instead it is all the activity that is needed to have a high vo2. If this is true then training specifically to improve vo2 would not be nearly as important as just having high activity levels?
I guess that is my point. It would be nice to see a study that compares outcomes against physical activity vs VO2max. Not sure how you would do that, but if you could find people with lower VO2max but lots of activity and if these people were not equally protected, that would tell you that VO2max is the thing. Probably not enough people out there with high activity and lower VO2max to make things statistically significant? I know I have seen papers that show high activity level is also protective….just not sure if anyone has ever compared activity to VO2max?
At what point are METs being measured? Is it an average across a day? Maximum performance?
What do you think about the suggestion that it isn’t the vo2 that provides the benefit. Instead it is all the activity that is needed to have a high vo2. If this is true then training specifically to improve vo2 would not be nearly as important as just having high activity levels?