Training & Nutrition - I had my VO2 max measured...

...and I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed. I have been fairly sedentary (Who am I kidding? Ive been a couch potato since New Year's), so I wasn't expecting much going into the whole deal. We did the test and I topped out at 375 watts, 188 bpm, and 61.9 VO2. The guy doing the tests said that I could probably raise that by about 10-15% through training, but that still seems awfully low. So, to anyone else who has had his or her VO2 max measured, how did you do? and is this whole 10-15% idea correct?

I wish my baseline was as good as yours! My numbers, after many years of inactivity, were 350 watts, 181 bpm, and 53.9 VO2max. :( Of course, my name is Fred and I'm 43.

Is it expensive to get it done? and where can you get it done?

The cardiologist that I saw charges $900 for the test that included max hr, VO2max, lactate threshhold, lung volume, exhalation rate, etc., etc., plus a blood test with a complete report.

does insurance take care of any of it :eek: :eek: :eek: :eek:

Mine took care of all of it after I satisfied my annual deductible. :D

I got paid to do it through a study at Ball State University. They're having me come back and do leg extension lifts on Friday, then a muscle biopsy on Wednesday.

Yikes!

That's a lot of money for a VO2 max test. I had the same tests done and paid half price (since I was an employee of the club when the folks came to town with the equipment). It was $80 for me, and $175 for members.

With training, which includes base, endurance, and then aerobic capacity, there's no reason why VO2 max can't be raised. It's not bad at all... the results you got.

Koffee

I got paid to do it through a study at Ball State University. They're having me come back and do leg extension lifts on Friday, then a muscle biopsy on Wednesday.


Muscle biopsy......I don't envy that one bit.

...and I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed. I have been fairly sedentary (Who am I kidding? Ive been a couch potato since New Year's), so I wasn't expecting much going into the whole deal. We did the test and I topped out at 375 watts, 188 bpm, and 61.9 VO2. The guy doing the tests said that I could probably raise that by about 10-15% through training, but that still seems awfully low. So, to anyone else who has had his or her VO2 max measured, how did you do? and is this whole 10-15% idea correct?

For those of us who don't always follow that stats... Why were you disappointed? Were number were you expecting? (What's considered "good"?) If I did that, I would mostly be interested in repeating the tests after some amount of training to see if it was progressing (or regressing...)

I'm a Navy Diver and participated in a research study at the university on fitness of Canadian Forces Diver's. I was actually PAID to have my max VO2 measured, $100! The test was a month ago when I was about at my laziest in the year, but I was still fairly active. Max BPM was 201, max VO2 was 68.7. I was pretty happy with the results. I'll be re-tested in the spring and I hope to break 70.

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


According to this I'm "Superior"!! :D

Of course you other guys are "Super Human"! :eek:

Just for fun, I'll add that Lance Armstrong's is 84 and Miguel Indurain was an unheard of 92 or 93.

For those of us who don't always follow that stats... Why were you disappointed? Were number were you expecting? (What's considered "good"?) If I did that, I would mostly be interested in repeating the tests after some amount of training to see if it was progressing (or regressing...)

Well, I guess looking at that chart, I'm pretty happy with the results. I barely qualififed for the study, which was for elite cyclists only, whatever that means. I guess they needed at least a 60. I did the leg extensions today, which was really easy. I'm terrified of the muscle biopsy, but I've heard that it's not too, too bad.

I'm terrified of the muscle biopsy, but I've heard that it's not too, too bad.

Yeah, be worried, they're gonna cut you up alive... :eek: :eek: :eek:

On another thought... :D :D :D

We did the test and I topped out at 375 watts, 188 bpm, and 61.9 VO2....and is this whole 10-15% idea correct?

I'm curious how those numbers translate in power-to-weight ratio. How much do you weigh?

That 10-15% improvement is an average, I believe. Some people don't improve at all with more training, but a few improve as much as 40%. This was the result of a study of sedentary people who were trained at 75% of MHR for 6 weeks.

I did weigh 157 at the end of last season. Right now, I hover between 168-171. 157 was awfully light for someone 6 feet tall with my build. I'd like to stay around 165-167 if I can this season.

I'm thinking that I could have easily hit the low 70's had I done that test mid-season last season. My last century for the year was 4 hours and 42 minutes on a solo effort. Now, my forty mile ride today has put in some pain tonight. I don't know... I guess it doesn't matter. I think we cyclists get fixated on numbers, since we don't get a whole lot of hard data to work with, other than avg. speeds (which mean nothing) and how we feel. He offered to do the test mid-season this year if I wanted. I probably will, and I'm interested to see how that turns out.

Right now, I hover between 168-171.

Let me see, that puts your power-to-weight at VO2max at 4.9 W/kg. You must be pretty competitive in all but the big climbs.

I'd like to get my LT power-to-weight up to 5 this year. It's stuck at about 4.6 right now.

Let me see, that puts your power-to-weight at VO2max at 4.9 W/kg. You must be pretty competitive in all but the big climbs.

I'd like to get my LT power-to-weight up to 5 this year. It's stuck at about 4.6 right now.

I'm glad you posted that, because I always thought of max wattage as what you could push at the very most. I've pushed almost 800 watts on a stationary bike before, but only for about 10 seconds. Given that, I was thinking about 10 W/kg, which doesn't even seem realistic when you think about it.

Funny thing is that I was climbing Skyline Drive in Front Royal, VA over Christmas, and I didn't feel very strong at all. I guess a lot of climbing is learning technique, which isn't easy living in Indianapolis. But, man, did that first climb kill me, and I know guys who ride a lot less and do that climb easily. I wonder what gives with that.

Something else to keep things in perspective:

Look at your signature. You've come a really long way. What would your VO2 have been even a year ago?

Am I reading that right? 340 to 160 in one year? How is that possible? Surgery?

6' and 157 is skinny, but so am I at 5' 10" and 147! And I honestly don't look very skinny.

Nope, no surgery... Just a LOT of riding and eating right. I feel much better at 170 than I did at 160. I guess I'm at my ideal weight now.

So you lost 180 lbs in one year naturally? Forgive me if I find that hard to believe.

yep. somewhere here I posted my pics. I did take a chromium supplement for a few months, but I didn't notice any appreciable difference in weight loss with it. It really wasn't hard when I was riding 250+ miles per week and restricting calories.

Let me see, that puts your power-to-weight at VO2max at 4.9 W/kg. You must be pretty competitive in all but the big climbs.

I'd like to get my LT power-to-weight up to 5 this year. It's stuck at about 4.6 right now.

I think your assumption of 375 watts at VO2max may be an overestimation. If this was preformed as a ramp test and 375 watts was the highest wattage achieved during the test (how I read it), that number or wattage is not representative of VO2max. Depending on testing protocol and the amount of time spent at each power level, it may not even be close.

I think your assumption of 375 watts at VO2max may be an overestimation. If this was preformed as a ramp test and 375 watts was the highest wattage achieved during the test (how I read it), that number or wattage is not representative of VO2max. Depending on testing protocol and the amount of time spent at each power level, it may not even be close.

Interesting. Can you explain this more fully? All the tests I've seen report a power at VO2max. Are they all inaccurate, or are some better than others? As I understand it, heart rate takes about a minute to respond to increased effort. Is a minute at VO2max sufficient to get a decent reading? How much "dwell time" at a given power level do you suggest?

Interesting. Can you explain this more fully? All the tests I've seen report a power at VO2max. Are they all inaccurate, or are some better than others? As I understand it, heart rate takes about a minute to respond to increased effort. Is a minute at VO2max sufficient to get a decent reading? How much "dwell time" at a given power level do you suggest?

My disclaimer here ****NOT AN EXPERT****

I may be confusing FT or functional threshold testing with VO2max testing.

So when a VO2max test is done, say 25 watts per 60 second increase starting at 100 watts, your VO2max wattage is equivalent to watts produced at failure?

I've always looked at VO2max wattage, estimating only, as something I can maintain for 4-5 minutes and FT as wattage I can maintain for 30 minutes.

So when a VO2max test is done, say 25 watts per 60 second increase starting at 100 watts, your VO2max wattage is equivalent to watts produced at failure?

I think VO2max is defined as the maximum point on the oxygen uptake graph. It doesn't have to be the failure point, some people briefly can produce more power beyond their VO2max point. But even though that power may be higher, oxygen uptake starts to decrease.

...and I have to say that I'm pretty disappointed. I have been fairly sedentary (Who am I kidding? Ive been a couch potato since New Year's), so I wasn't expecting much going into the whole deal. We did the test and I topped out at 375 watts, 188 bpm, and 61.9 VO2. The guy doing the tests said that I could probably raise that by about 10-15% through training, but that still seems awfully low. So, to anyone else who has had his or her VO2 max measured, how did you do? and is this whole 10-15% idea correct?

Goodness!

When I first joined the Air Force more than twenty years ago, I was 25 years old, weighed 167 lbs, had 6% body fat, and my VO2max was 51 ml/kg/min at 193 bpm. Back then I could crank out more than 500 watts all day long.

Now I'm 47 years old, weigh 245 lbs, have 38% body fat, and my VO2max was measured last month at 32 ml/kg/min.

Give a drop in VO2max from 51 to 32, I must be grossly out of shape, right?

Not at all, and here's why:

VO2max is calculated as mililiters of oxygen consumed per kilgram of body weight each minute. The problem is, that "/kg" portion makes no distinction whatsoever between lean body mass (contributory to both power production as well as O2 uptake) and fat (non-contributory). Fat neither takes up O2 during cardiovascular activity, nor does it produce a single erg of power. It does have a slight parasitic effect in that it makes your heart pump harder, but that effect is very slight - less than 1% of the total O2 update during a max effort.

In fact, the entire VO2max approach was formulated as a means of comparing cutting edge athletes, not your average citizen, and certainly not couch potatos!

Unfortunately, these facts gets lost in the shuffle and as a result, sports physiologists and even sports medicine physicians continue to use it, quite erroneously, as a means of assessing one's cardiovascular fitness. They're not to blame - that's simply what they were taught in school.

Fortunately, there's an easy fix: Adjust the results for % body fat so that all results are on a per kilogram of lean body mass.

Here's how:

1. Determine your current % body fat by means of one of the better handheld electronic units. Please note this is not the same as your BMI (body mass index), so if that's all the unit is giving you, either find a different unit which gives you the results in terms of % body fat or backwards compute your % body fat from your BMI.

2. Calculate your lean body mass as follows:

LBM = current weight * ( 1 - % body fat)

3. Calulate your VO2max as a function of your lean body mass as follows:

VO2max(lbm) = VO2max * current weight / LBM

Unless others are keeping track of their VO2max(lbm) as well, this won't give you a basis for comparing yourself to them. However, if you're carrying around some unwatned pounds and you know your weight and % body fat when you previously took a VO2max test, you can accurately compare any current VO2max score and your previous score by converted both into a VO2max(lbm) score.


Interesting. Can you explain this more fully? All the tests I've seen report a power at VO2max. Are they all inaccurate, or are some better than others? As I understand it, heart rate takes about a minute to respond to increased effort. Is a minute at VO2max sufficient to get a decent reading? How much "dwell time" at a given power level do you suggest?

There's direct conversion between VO2max and measurements such as watts or kcal/hr because VO2max is a measure of aerobic efficiency, not power output. Furthermore, it's dependant on a number of factors particular to each individual, including level of hydration, amount of rest, ratio of muscle tissue types, mental calmness, and lastly, but most importantly, the overall efficiency of your cardiovascular system.

There is a way, however, to combine the two and compare them with other people, accurately. The first step is to convert to the VO2max(lbm) figure. Next, create a ratio by dividing the watts by the VO2max(lbm). Finally, multiply the result by the lean body mass. The result, in watts/ml/min, can be used to accurately compare the efficiency in terms of power produced per unit of oxygen consumed.

By this measure, both my watts improvement and efficiency improvement over 25 years are nearly the same: 42% and 45%, respectively - as to be expected.

So, according to the Air Force's measurements, I'm out of shape, but according to science, my cardiovascular system is more efficient now than ever. In fact, when a few years ago I rode by bicyle to and from work most days and had dropped back down to 180 lbs, I was about to ourperform most cyclist who were twenty years younger than I, and was averaging 23 mph to work in the morning, which is the same pace as the Tour de France.

Admittedly, in three weeks my milage was just 234 miles, not 3,000...!

See this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/science/14cycl.html)for more information on muscular efficiency.

Goodness!

When I first joined the Air Force more than twenty years ago, I was 25 years old, weighed 167 lbs, had 6% body fat, and my VO2max was 51 ml/kg/min at 193 bpm. Back then I could crank out more than 500 watts all day long.

Now I'm 47 years old, weigh 245 lbs, have 38% body fat, and my VO2max was measured last month at 32 ml/kg/min.

Give a drop in VO2max from 51 to 32, I must be grossly out of shape, right?

Not at all, and here's why:

VO2max is calculated as mililiters of oxygen consumed per kilgram of body weight each minute. The problem is, that "/kg" portion makes no distinction whatsoever between lean body mass (contributory to both power production as well as O2 uptake) and fat (non-contributory). Fat neither takes up O2 during cardiovascular activity, nor does it produce a single erg of power. It does have a slight parasitic effect in that it makes your heart pump harder, but that effect is very slight - less than 1% of the total O2 update during a max effort.

In fact, the entire VO2max approach was formulated as a means of comparing cutting edge athletes, not your average citizen, and certainly not couch potatos!

Unfortunately, these facts gets lost in the shuffle and as a result, sports physiologists and even sports medicine physicians continue to use it, quite erroneously, as a means of assessing one's cardiovascular fitness. They're not to blame - that's simply what they were taught in school.

Fortunately, there's an easy fix: Adjust the results for % body fat so that all results are on a per kilogram of lean body mass.

Here's how:

1. Determine your current % body fat by means of one of the better handheld electronic units. Please note this is not the same as your BMI (body mass index), so if that's all the unit is giving you, either find a different unit which gives you the results in terms of % body fat or backwards compute your % body fat from your BMI.

2. Calculate your lean body mass as follows:

LBM = current weight * ( 1 - % body fat)

3. Calulate your VO2max as a function of your lean body mass as follows:

VO2max(lbm) = VO2max * current weight / LBM

Unless others are keeping track of their VO2max(lbm) as well, this won't give you a basis for comparing yourself to them. However, if you're carrying around some unwatned pounds and you know your weight and % body fat when you previously took a VO2max test, you can accurately compare any current VO2max score and your previous score by converted both into a VO2max(lbm) score.



There's direct conversion between VO2max and measurements such as watts or kcal/hr because VO2max is a measure of aerobic efficiency, not power output. Furthermore, it's dependant on a number of factors particular to each individual, including level of hydration, amount of rest, ratio of muscle tissue types, mental calmness, and lastly, but most importantly, the overall efficiency of your cardiovascular system.

There is a way, however, to combine the two and compare them with other people, accurately. The first step is to convert to the VO2max(lbm) figure. Next, create a ratio by dividing the watts by the VO2max(lbm). Finally, multiply the result by the lean body mass. The result, in watts/ml/min, can be used to accurately compare the efficiency in terms of power produced per unit of oxygen consumed.

By this measure, both my watts improvement and efficiency improvement over 25 years are nearly the same: 42% and 45%, respectively - as to be expected.

So, according to the Air Force's measurements, I'm out of shape, but according to science, my cardiovascular system is more efficient now than ever. In fact, when a few years ago I rode by bicyle to and from work most days and had dropped back down to 180 lbs, I was about to ourperform most cyclist who were twenty years younger than I, and was averaging 23 mph to work in the morning, which is the same pace as the Tour de France.

Admittedly, in three weeks my milage was just 234 miles, not 3,000...!

See this article (http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/14/science/14cycl.html)for more information on muscular efficiency.

Interesting...

Help me with your math. Using your example:
weigh 245 lbs, have 38% body fat, and my VO2max was measured last month at 32 ml/kg/min.

LBM = 151.9
VO2max(lbm) = VO2max * current weight / LBM

32*245/151.9 = 51.6129

Same as it was in the air force?

Boy this really makes me feel better. I just had my VO2 max tested today and I really sucked. My VO2 max was 31 ml/kg/min but my weight is 235 and body fat is 30% using your formula that put my adjusted VO2 max at 44.38.

Do you have a source for your formula before I start feeling better about my self?

Thanks.
buddy

Shouldn't you convert your lbs to kg's?

Goodness!

You realize that this thread is over 5 years old right?


Back then I could crank out more than 500 watts all day long.

*cough* BS *cough*

umd, what do you know. I bet he was riding around with a power meter 25 years ago.

and beating LeMond in TTs too