[nradov]

That is generally correct, but I wouldn't focus too much on VO2 Max as a single metric. As Goodhart's Law states: "When a measure becomes a target, it ceases to be a good measure."

All else being equal, a higher VO2 Max is better. But in reality we have limited time to train and have to make trade-offs. As a (mediocre) endurance athlete, my race performance has improved even though my measured VO2 Max has declined. Most athletes can only sustain their VO2 Max output for 6 - 10 minutes but I am more interested in being able to hold a high percentage of VO2 Max for a much longer period. I could change my training plan to focus specifically on optimizing VO2 Max but would that actually reduce my risk of premature death relative to what I'm doing now? Doubtful.

Agree with your other points.

[kiba]

It's probably harder to cheat a metric that's physical/biological.

I would say your race performance is different than the goal of increasing longevity. What matters more is how important vo2 max is to longevity.

[nradov]

I'm not talking about cheating a metric. VO2 Max is correlated with longevity but it's likely just a proxy for several other factors. I'm sure I could boost my VO2 Max by a few points if I focused on training that but I'm skeptical whether that would make me healthier than maximizing performance over longer efforts. We just don't have clear data to say one way or the other.