Jamirok,
I couldn’t agree with you more. I watch my players who certaily have lower V02 maxes than many of their counterparts run and skate circles around them. Usually high V02 max indicates to me that someone spend a lot of time on the eundurance end of training spectrum. I train mostly football and hockey, and i focus a lot on explosive speed and change of direction such as accel/decel. I believe Charlie told me the Russians had avg V02 maxes on Oly team of about 55. USA had 62-65. Who was whipping the arse off of who back then? Also, isn’t a high V02 max useless unless you have a high lactate threshold as well? Technology is nice, but it doesn’t replace experience. ESTI, Jamirok, No23 and many other have years of experience doing this. I can tell by the way my players enter the gym whether they are recovered just by demeanor, I don’t need to do a Wingate test to find out they are not recovered.
This just makes things worse! 
I have been playing with grip strength as a pre workout predictor, results are still in the air, need more work yet.
Slight exaggeration?. Unless its a technical drill in training. In hockey, soccer, football, nobody runs circles around anybody during games.
High VO2 is certainly a good quality to have & develop. Doesn’t necessarily mean your slow (even over the shorter distances). In my training, I’ve learned to balance high VO2 with fast sprinting over 30m. It can be achieved.
Just to elaborate a little on the application of technology in sport.
In particular I want to speak about two words ‘application’ and ‘enlightenment’.
The application of Technology is hugely important in sport.
Note I said ‘application’ as opposed to ‘use’. Many people use technology in sport, very few apply it. Even rarer is to find someone who applies it properly!
How many people know of coaches who have jump data, speed data, etc and never use it or apply it. It’s simply isolated data. (I won’t go into data management here)
It is ignorant to ignore technology and some mistakeningly assume the great coaches like Charlie didn’t use technology, they forget Charlie was one of the first to embrace both EMS and Omegawave in sport. In fact I know Charlie spent many hours discussing both of these technologies and what they were telling us.
But Number Two made the important point that Charlie while didn’t need it, he used it to confirm things, to support his thought process and for enlightenment. But he did use it when he had the chance, (including Omegawave), to test theories and concepts. But he embraced it for what it was.
The best coaches I know all have experience of technology and all use it to test concepts and for further enlightenment if you will.
Back to application. Application of a technology, like Omegawave means, using and applying it to the situation and continuously reassessing the results.
I don’t have time to go into it in huge detail, but this area is IMO the most important area and issue facing Team Sports at the minute.
Fitness Tesing is a complete waste of time in team Sports IMO.
I have written articles on this topic and will try and get them if anyone is interested.
It evidently depends on the intelligence of the human mind concerned.
I am definitely interested.
There are also plans a foot for a seminar later this year in the UK if you are interested in traveling to the sun!
Will be during a soccer international break.
no23,
good points, but many clarifications are needed. What is the technology you are referring to? (you made some examples, but then I missed the point, my fault, probably).
If you don’t define that, we are talking for nothing. Omegawave? ARP? An algorithm for the analysis of data would be technology (it is)?
The main problem is with the interpretation of data, as you said, because it requires a framework. In absence of framework, we are in a similar cul de sac as that currently faced by scientists working on the interface genome/medicine. Lots, tons of data, but many problems in the interpreation.
Now, as I wrote before, we don’t still understand a lot of things (and we won’t for a lot time) and therefore the implementation of technology is not automatic. If, let’s say, such a reliable algorithm were available, its simple implementation for determining training loads, emphasis and so on would be straightforward. If a reliable and 100% effective “cure” for, let’s say, overtraining were there, its application would be as straigthforward as the application of Quinine for malaria.
Talking about expertise vs technology without a context is naive.
Said that, Charlie was a great expert.
I was being general on purpose.
To get into the exact details of each technology would take forever, so I was speaking about the application of technology - from simplest to most complex.
Take timing gates and speed technique as an example … how many people use them properly and adjust training properly as a result?
How many people test speed once or twice and it just tells them what they more or less know already?
To summarize …
A test or technology is only useful if it affects a training session.
(Now I’m talking about Team Sports just so we are on the same page.)
Also, you make the comparison of quinine and malaria, with overtraining - however we generally wish to prevent overtraining, and as we know prevention is much more complex and therefore there is no ‘plug & play’ option, rather a protocol and series of steps to prevent it.
This is what I mean by application of technology.
Your last line is very important too (if I read it correctly). But rather than looking at it as ‘expertise vs technology’ look at it as ‘expertise & technology’.
The greatest impact is when expertise and technology are integrated and the degree of impact (of a technology, or on the athlete) is dependent on the degree of expertise of the user.
Yes, the example with overtraining was not the most appropriate, sorry. But you can choose whatever physiological trait you want.
Technology, as I see that, as I am not so “clinically” oriented, can be very useful in terms of first principles that directly or indirectly can affect a training session (can be a training itself). But I’m not thinking about something to be plugged exclusively. But now I more clearly understand your point, thanks.
we’re speaking about sport…contest…on the field…
No problem 
Actually I’m working on two technologies for recovery, low level magnetic bioresonance mattres and grounding technology.
Chiropractic or osteophaty session, at visceral, spinal and cranial level is really usefull for ANS regulation.
I’ve tested much tools, but at the moment I’ve really good results with the above mentioned.
@ESTI: LLLT is a great tools, but in Italy, many Medical Doctor are counter many new therapeutic or recovery approaches.
Omega Wave is overpriced…there are a lot of options, much cheaper and IMO effective.
(I’ve bad experience from DiffECG from OW in example, I prefer other tests)
Right! I agree…
I agree with No23 about fitness test.
But we have to speak about kind of test and not mix different areas.
Vo2Max is a fitness test, and It’s usefull for control the start point and then progressive results from a kind of training, but Vo2 Max doesn’t tell you about your inner staus of your regulatory mechanism (functional reserve and adaptation in brief).
I can do HRV or similar, every day, 3 times a week etc…Vo2Max every day is stupid to do.
This is because I say it’s a waste of time.
Leave it to sport lab and medical doctors.
PS: lactate is another argument really interesting, there are a lot of test to do, from carbo load to metabolic fatigue…and training organization.
@speedcoach: recovery is not so simple to evaluate with only the help of your eyes or with experience specially when you work with a team and have different athletes with different skills.
At the end if you have enought informations about recovery, it’s not a bad thing!
Just to make my own position on Vo2 clear.
In ‘general’ I think it is very important.
The ability to manage O2 is critical to all sports and every sport.
I don’t think testing it is useful however and focusing on it is less important. Monitoring it is however - like Jamirok says though, not on a daily basis.
Every 6 weeks is fine - 4 if you’re paranoid.
I agree to this. Unfortunately, the soccer players who workout with me in off-season, all of them have fitness tests the first week of practice. Not one school out of the 20 I’ve come across, decided it wasn’t important.
I guess the question is how does one go about “breaking” tradition of this? Ultimately, it has to come from those in charge of the program/team.
Examples of tests used:
*Danish Test:
*2mile run
*Cooper
*Beep (continuous and intermittent recovery)
*1 mile
*“Gauntlet” consisting of 1 mile, rest 2 min, 1/2 mile, rest 2 min, 1/4 mile, rest 2 min, 2x200m, rest 35 second, 8x36yd (rest 15 second).
*Manchester Utd recovery test
Most common test is the 2 mile run, then intermittent beep.