VO2 MAX
-
No new posts
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller | Reply |
2014-03-03 2:12 PM |
Extreme Veteran 671 Not Quite DFL | Subject: VO2 MAX Hello, I read on another website that you can roughly estimate your VO2 Max by taking your Max HR divide by your resting HR and then multiply by 15. If you know your VO2 max, is this a somewhat accurate formula? I'm curious if this actually works. I don't see being able to find this out on my own anytime soon. (I know of no place that does this test - I live basically in the middle of no where) |
|
2014-03-03 2:22 PM in reply to: crimefighter2 |
Champion 9407 Montague Gold Mines, Nova Scotia | Subject: RE: VO2 MAX AFAIK the only reason that would work for a given athlete is fluke. There are ways to estimate VO2max if you would like to do a field test; if you want I can give you the details. To run some numbers, the maxHR I've ever seen is 205, my resting HR is about 40 which gives almost 77 for VO2max. Based on field testing and racing, my VO2max is, at best, about 60. Shane |
2014-03-03 3:08 PM in reply to: gsmacleod |
Subject: RE: VO2 MAX Yeah...in peak fitness, I've seen max HR as high as 199, resting HR around 40-43 (lets say 42). That would give me a VO2 Max of 69. Highly unlikely...or I am underperforming at every race I enter. I agree with Shane that it's probably a formula that is possible to work by fluke, but anytime you're using Max HR to calculate anything...you have to be somewhat suspicious. |
2014-03-03 3:09 PM in reply to: gsmacleod |
Member 1748 Exton, PA | Subject: RE: VO2 MAX I was tested in July last summer, trained but not in top shape. VO2 max = 53 HR max = 185 (I don't go over this- I probably could but better safe than sorry) HR rest= 45 by your formula I would have a 61.6 Vo2 max, so I would say that's not very accurate. Who cares what your VO2 max is anyway, I just did mine because I was part of a study. |
2014-03-03 3:59 PM in reply to: mike761 |
Extreme Veteran 671 Not Quite DFL | Subject: RE: VO2 MAX I think sometimes my HRM is a bit wonky as at times I do go over the 200 mark. My interest is largely just curiosity. I like to count calories, and one formula I found asks for a VO2 max to accurately calculate the calories burned. (for the times I'm on a treadmill, etc). I do think you guys are correct. Can't trust the internet! Bon Jour! (sorry, I love that commercial) |
2014-03-03 6:02 PM in reply to: crimefighter2 |
Coach 9167 Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: VO2 MAX What would you do with the number if you had it? Would it be more useful than simply knowing your resting & max HRs? The only correlation I can see is that from resting HR to max HR your entire spectrum of Vo2 is covered. So the further apart they are OR the higher your Max HR the more likely you are delivering more O2 to your tissues. |
|
2014-03-03 9:23 PM in reply to: AdventureBear |
643 | Subject: RE: VO2 MAX Originally posted by AdventureBear What would you do with the number if you had it? Would it be more useful than simply knowing your resting & max HRs? The only correlation I can see is that from resting HR to max HR your entire spectrum of Vo2 is covered. So the further apart they are OR the higher your Max HR the more likely you are delivering more O2 to your tissues. I agree. The more I read about V02 Max, the more I decided against the test. Knowing the number wouldn't affect my training at all. A power meter for my bike and HR + RPE/pace for running seem way more important than a bragging number. I even talked myself out of getting a lactate test since I can do it myself with FTP tests on the bike and a 30 minute all out run to dial in my HR and pace zones. That's a free test that I can do myself once a month on my rest week and adjust things as needed. |
2014-03-03 9:28 PM in reply to: Blastman |
Master 1430 Calgary, AB | Subject: RE: VO2 MAX The only reason I wanted to know was to find out if I was in the middle of the bell curve, or a lucky one with huge potential. Somewhat trained I was at 54 which is right in the middle. If I'd seen a 70+ like Briancd then I'd know I had much more potential and was just being a slacker in my training. I have no need to get re-tested, results show that well enough. If anything, more frequent LT testing would help with racing. |
2014-03-03 10:16 PM in reply to: Khyron |
New user 230 penticton | Subject: RE: VO2 MAX but vo2max as little to do with what your potential is in a sport like triathlon. some of the greatest of our sport had relatively low vo2max numbers. why....because vo2max isnt a limiter in triathlon...economy, efficency, conditionning are what will determine the outcome. perhaps if you were a cross country skier or a 3000m runner...then it would be relevant but for triathlon... it s about as important as the color of your bike |
2014-03-03 11:11 PM in reply to: AdventureBear |
Coach 9167 Stairway to Seven | Subject: RE: VO2 MAX Originally posted by AdventureBear What would you do with the number if you had it? Would it be more useful than simply knowing your resting & max HRs? The only correlation I can see is that from resting HR to max HR your entire spectrum of Vo2 is covered. So the further apart they are OR the higher your Max HR the more likely you are delivering more O2 to your tissues. I was referring to knowing the fake number, btw |
2014-03-04 6:52 AM in reply to: Khyron |
Member 1748 Exton, PA | Subject: RE: VO2 MAX Originally posted by Khyron The only reason I wanted to know was to find out if I was in the middle of the bell curve, or a lucky one with huge potential. Somewhat trained I was at 54 which is right in the middle. If I'd seen a 70+ like Briancd then I'd know I had much more potential and was just being a slacker in my training. I have no need to get re-tested, results show that well enough. If anything, more frequent LT testing would help with racing. Don't know why you think your in the middle(avg) for VO2 max, below is a chart for men. A 54 puts you in the superior for almost every age group. Male (values in ml/kg/min) Age Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Superior 13-19 <35.0 35.0 - 38.3 38.4 - 45.1 45.2 - 50.9 51.0 - 55.9 >55.9 20-29 <33.0 33.0 - 36.4 36.5 - 42.4 42.5 - 46.4 46.5 - 52.4 >52.4 30-39 <31.5 31.5 - 35.4 35.5 - 40.9 41.0 - 44.9 45.0 - 49.4 >49.4 40-49 <30.2 30.2 - 33.5 33.6 - 38.9 39.0 - 43.7 43.8 - 48.0 >48.0 50-59 <26.1 26.1 - 30.9 31.0 - 35.7 35.8 - 40.9 41.0 - 45.3 >45.3 60+ <20.5 20.5 - 26.0 26.1 - 32.2 32.3 - 36.4 36.5 - 44.2 >44.2 Table Reference: The Physical Fitness Specialist Certification Manual, The Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research, Dallas TX, revised 1997 printed in Advance Fitness Assessment & Exercise Prescription, 3rd Edition, Vivian H. Heyward, 1998.p48 |
|
2014-03-04 7:36 AM in reply to: jonnyo |
Extreme Veteran 5722 | Subject: RE: VO2 MAX Originally posted by jonnyo but vo2max as little to do with what your potential is in a sport like triathlon. some of the greatest of our sport had relatively low vo2max numbers. why....because vo2max isnt a limiter in triathlon...economy, efficency, conditionning are what will determine the outcome. perhaps if you were a cross country skier or a 3000m runner...then it would be relevant but for triathlon... it s about as important as the color of your bike I have been tested for the run and the bike. I was not looking for my VO2max number I was looking for other results, the Vo2max came as part of the package I had a very good VO2max. I am able to hold a good % of Vo2max for a long period of time But my power for a given VO2 value was very average. This is the efficiency thing My running pace for a given VO2 value was better. So you can have a VO2max of 60, be able to hold 80% of that for a long period of time and generate and generate 250watts You can have a VO2max of 50, be able to hold 80% of that for a long period of time and generate 270watts And apparently the answer to improving that efficiency is lots and lots and lots of time in the saddle, although this seems to be debated quite a bit. |
2014-03-04 8:46 AM in reply to: Khyron |
Pro 4675 Wisconsin near the Twin Cities metro | Subject: RE: VO2 MAX Originally posted by Khyron If anything, more frequent LT testing would help with racing. Only if you know what to do with the results in designing your training plan. |
2014-03-04 9:14 AM in reply to: Birkierunner |
Regular 1161 Hamilton, IL | Subject: RE: VO2 MAX When I got my first Polar HRM I wanted to know my VO2 max because I was most interested in calories, and the setup allowed for you to enter that in. Max HR and Min HR divided by 15 isn't going to be a number that will show much change over time. If you google formulas you'll find different ones for estimating it, but (though it's been a while) I seem to remember finding that it would be more accurate to use the Cooper test (you can also find this on the sometimes reliable wikipedia). The Cooper test says: VO2max = (d12 - 505)/45 (where d12 is the number of meters you can run in 12 minutes.) I'd be interested if there is anyone above that can calculate based on those numbers and see how much closer you get. for me 15(223/54) = 62 where (2800-505)/45 = 51, which is likely wayyyy closer. but, like was said above, this doesn't do a whole lot for ya in terms of training planning, but who here doesn't like to know numbers like that? C'mon, you know you are all pulling out your calculators right now... |
2014-03-04 9:58 AM in reply to: mike761 |
Master 1430 Calgary, AB | Subject: RE: VO2 MAX Originally posted by mike761 Originally posted by Khyron The only reason I wanted to know was to find out if I was in the middle of the bell curve, or a lucky one with huge potential. Somewhat trained I was at 54 which is right in the middle. If I'd seen a 70+ like Briancd then I'd know I had much more potential and was just being a slacker in my training. I have no need to get re-tested, results show that well enough. If anything, more frequent LT testing would help with racing. Don't know why you think your in the middle(avg) for VO2 max, below is a chart for men. A 54 puts you in the superior for almost every age group. Male (values in ml/kg/min) Age Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Superior 13-19 <35.0 35.0 - 38.3 38.4 - 45.1 45.2 - 50.9 51.0 - 55.9 >55.9 20-29 <33.0 33.0 - 36.4 36.5 - 42.4 42.5 - 46.4 46.5 - 52.4 >52.4 30-39 <31.5 31.5 - 35.4 35.5 - 40.9 41.0 - 44.9 45.0 - 49.4 >49.4 40-49 <30.2 30.2 - 33.5 33.6 - 38.9 39.0 - 43.7 43.8 - 48.0 >48.0 50-59 <26.1 26.1 - 30.9 31.0 - 35.7 35.8 - 40.9 41.0 - 45.3 >45.3 60+ <20.5 20.5 - 26.0 26.1 - 32.2 32.3 - 36.4 36.5 - 44.2 >44.2 Table Reference: The Physical Fitness Specialist Certification Manual, The Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research, Dallas TX, revised 1997 printed in Advance Fitness Assessment & Exercise Prescription, 3rd Edition, Vivian H. Heyward, 1998.p48 Sorry should have clarified - vs general population anyone that can do an IM/Marathon is going to look pretty good, but if you want to know, say, are you genetically capable of running a 2:30 marathon (65+), you can get a good answer. Of course you can train to improve it - within a fixed range. Some dudes have a natural 60 before they even start training, which can get into the 70s or 80s. It can go the other way - some people beat themselves up for not breaking some reasonable time goal (like 1:50 HM) but if they can only get their VO2 up to 40, fully trained, it's not their fault/training. |
2014-03-04 10:33 AM in reply to: Khyron |
Member 1748 Exton, PA | Subject: RE: VO2 MAX Originally posted by Khyron Originally posted by mike761 Originally posted by Khyron The only reason I wanted to know was to find out if I was in the middle of the bell curve, or a lucky one with huge potential. Somewhat trained I was at 54 which is right in the middle. If I'd seen a 70+ like Briancd then I'd know I had much more potential and was just being a slacker in my training. I have no need to get re-tested, results show that well enough. If anything, more frequent LT testing would help with racing. Don't know why you think your in the middle(avg) for VO2 max, below is a chart for men. A 54 puts you in the superior for almost every age group. Male (values in ml/kg/min) Age Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Superior 13-19 <35.0 35.0 - 38.3 38.4 - 45.1 45.2 - 50.9 51.0 - 55.9 >55.9 20-29 <33.0 33.0 - 36.4 36.5 - 42.4 42.5 - 46.4 46.5 - 52.4 >52.4 30-39 <31.5 31.5 - 35.4 35.5 - 40.9 41.0 - 44.9 45.0 - 49.4 >49.4 40-49 <30.2 30.2 - 33.5 33.6 - 38.9 39.0 - 43.7 43.8 - 48.0 >48.0 50-59 <26.1 26.1 - 30.9 31.0 - 35.7 35.8 - 40.9 41.0 - 45.3 >45.3 60+ <20.5 20.5 - 26.0 26.1 - 32.2 32.3 - 36.4 36.5 - 44.2 >44.2 Table Reference: The Physical Fitness Specialist Certification Manual, The Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research, Dallas TX, revised 1997 printed in Advance Fitness Assessment & Exercise Prescription, 3rd Edition, Vivian H. Heyward, 1998.p48 Sorry should have clarified - vs general population anyone that can do an IM/Marathon is going to look pretty good, but if you want to know, say, are you genetically capable of running a 2:30 marathon (65+), you can get a good answer. Of course you can train to improve it - within a fixed range. Some dudes have a natural 60 before they even start training, which can get into the 70s or 80s. It can go the other way - some people beat themselves up for not breaking some reasonable time goal (like 1:50 HM) but if they can only get their VO2 up to 40, fully trained, it's not their fault/training. Maybe someone else has info or large collection of data of VO2 max for athletes in different age groups that can chime in? However even within the athletic groups I don't think a 54 is average. There have been Olympic runners with VO2 max's in the 50's(back in the 70's & 80's can seem to find that list now) I was measured at 53 which I know could be higher because I was carrying an extra 10 lbs at the time. With that I was in a study for endurance athletes, they only excepted people who had recently done marathons, 1/2 or full ironman. With the 40 people in the study I had the 3rd highest VO2max, the 2 that had higher were more than 20 years younger than me. While I'm sure there are some people out there measuring in the 60's and 70's(80's maybe) a 54 is still good. Remember that there is a genetic factor and a trained factor involved in that VO2 max. So your potential could be more like 58-62(WAG). |
|
2014-03-04 10:33 AM in reply to: Khyron |
Member 1748 Exton, PA | Subject: RE: VO2 MAX Originally posted by Khyron Originally posted by mike761 Originally posted by Khyron The only reason I wanted to know was to find out if I was in the middle of the bell curve, or a lucky one with huge potential. Somewhat trained I was at 54 which is right in the middle. If I'd seen a 70+ like Briancd then I'd know I had much more potential and was just being a slacker in my training. I have no need to get re-tested, results show that well enough. If anything, more frequent LT testing would help with racing. Don't know why you think your in the middle(avg) for VO2 max, below is a chart for men. A 54 puts you in the superior for almost every age group. Male (values in ml/kg/min) Age Very Poor Poor Fair Good Excellent Superior 13-19 <35.0 35.0 - 38.3 38.4 - 45.1 45.2 - 50.9 51.0 - 55.9 >55.9 20-29 <33.0 33.0 - 36.4 36.5 - 42.4 42.5 - 46.4 46.5 - 52.4 >52.4 30-39 <31.5 31.5 - 35.4 35.5 - 40.9 41.0 - 44.9 45.0 - 49.4 >49.4 40-49 <30.2 30.2 - 33.5 33.6 - 38.9 39.0 - 43.7 43.8 - 48.0 >48.0 50-59 <26.1 26.1 - 30.9 31.0 - 35.7 35.8 - 40.9 41.0 - 45.3 >45.3 60+ <20.5 20.5 - 26.0 26.1 - 32.2 32.3 - 36.4 36.5 - 44.2 >44.2 Table Reference: The Physical Fitness Specialist Certification Manual, The Cooper Institute for Aerobics Research, Dallas TX, revised 1997 printed in Advance Fitness Assessment & Exercise Prescription, 3rd Edition, Vivian H. Heyward, 1998.p48 Sorry should have clarified - vs general population anyone that can do an IM/Marathon is going to look pretty good, but if you want to know, say, are you genetically capable of running a 2:30 marathon (65+), you can get a good answer. Of course you can train to improve it - within a fixed range. Some dudes have a natural 60 before they even start training, which can get into the 70s or 80s. It can go the other way - some people beat themselves up for not breaking some reasonable time goal (like 1:50 HM) but if they can only get their VO2 up to 40, fully trained, it's not their fault/training. Maybe someone else has info or large collection of data of VO2 max for athletes in different age groups that can chime in? However even within the athletic groups I don't think a 54 is average. There have been Olympic runners with VO2 max's in the 50's(back in the 70's & 80's can seem to find that list now) I was measured at 53 which I know could be higher because I was carrying an extra 10 lbs at the time. With that I was in a study for endurance athletes, they only excepted people who had recently done marathons, 1/2 or full ironman. With the 40 people in the study I had the 3rd highest VO2max, the 2 that had higher were more than 20 years younger than me. While I'm sure there are some people out there measuring in the 60's and 70's(80's maybe) a 54 is still good. Remember that there is a genetic factor and a trained factor involved in that VO2 max. So your potential could be more like 58-62(WAG). |
2014-03-04 11:19 AM in reply to: mike761 |
Extreme Veteran 671 Not Quite DFL | Subject: RE: VO2 MAX Wow - this is all fascinating (really - it is, I'm not being a SA). I can tell you guys are all better athletes and such than me - I don't know any of those numbers you guys talked about. I mainly got back into running when my daughter - about 6 years ago, at the tender age of 4, asked me when I was going to have my baby.... My training plan is sporadic - I do what I can, when I can. I know at my age I will never be on the podium. I suspect I will never be an AG winner either. I do agree with what someone else said - and that's the numbers thing. I now have to go run for 12 minutes and figure out how far I can get. Thank you everyone. I really appreciate your comments and insight. |
RELATED POSTS
RELATED ARTICLES
| ||||
|
| |||
|
| |||
|