mike868y

yeah i have no idea how it calculates it but it spits out a number now that i have a powermeter.

isn't 59 really high?

Norm values for VO2max

grolby

For your average joe? Yes, it's high. For a mid-level, trained amateur endurance athlete? I don't really know. It may be a little high I suppose but it's completely plausible. It's well below the range that pro cyclists typically fall into. I would be raising my eyebrows if your Garmin thought your VO2 was 69, but 59? Why not? There's no need to read too much into it. FTP correlates better to results than VO2, anyway.

Doge

Above a certain level (65 to ride the TdF, more for a single day rider dude) it matters as much as how deep the water is you are swimming in. It is another eWang thing that Lemond made a big deal as his was high. It also depends on what the thing is you are doing to measure it. Cycling will not pull the numbers xcountry sking or rowing will. I expect swimmers would be high, but don't know of measurements. It also depends on the build of the athlete. A more efficient rider may pull a lower number. A beet root taking athlete lower still.

I'm thinking the next big measure will be the lactate levels.

cali_axela

I actually had my VO2max lab-tested a few weeks ago -- there's a startup here in SF that does surprisingly accurate VO2max and LT1 / LT2 estimates based on your power and HRM data during a specific set of interval tests. I took that test and it estimated my VO2max as 62, which seemed surprisingly high given that I'm not well-trained at all... Cat 5 soon to be 4. So, they paid for a full suite of metabolic makeup and efficiency tests to help improve their algorithm, and lab test confirmed my VO2max as just over 60, which is about 90th percentile for my age (34).

It doesn't have much bearing on your current performance level, but has a lot of bearing on your performance potential. Basically, I have a lot more headroom that the average bloke to see big gains from doing more serious training. Good motivation.

TMonk

Train hard @cali_axela! How long have you been riding? How long have you been riding a lot/training?

Also, your racing cat is a measure of your race experience, and not so much your performance potential unless you're at the top (1/2). Most average Joes like myself can at least have some moderate success at the cat 3 level.

cali_axela

I've been riding "seriously" (more than my 5 mile commute, which I've been doing almost daily for ~7 years) for about 2.5 years now. I've done a handful of road races, a single XC MTB race, and a smattering of velodrome events -- I plan to focus mainly on that and cat up to 3 there first.

PepeM

My Garmin has me at 62. Should I not suck? Because I suck.

Doge

That does not say anything about your cycling efficiency but it does indicate your whole engine.
You can cheat these things. If you stand up and sprint and move your body (and you have the HR left to do it) you can pick up more points. It is a reflection of total O2/energy use, more than faster cyclist.
Modern techniques throw this measurement out of wack. Some can continue increasing power over VO2 max. Nitrates decrease VO2, while the rider puts out more power. A peaked efficient cyclist will pull a lower number at the same power. To me, that sucks as a real test.

mike868y

dammit, guess i'm not special.

revchuck 

My Garmin has mine at 48; my RA is 65. I suck too.

PepeM

What's RA?

TMonk

Nice, do it up.

hubcyclist

for some reason i realized it's probably been months since i manually zeroed out my powertap (i have autozero on but I guess I should periodically do a manual zero). maybe i'll be lucky and my recent dip in threshold power is a calibration thing, not holding my breath though! has anyone ever experienced a lot lower power prior to manually zeroing?

TheKillerPenguin

Autozeroing *should* prevent that altogether, but I'm in the habit of manually zeroing before at least every other ride so I can't out and out confirm that it will read accurately without a manual reset over long periods of time.

mike868y

new high score today, 61!

topflightpro

I participated in a scientific study a few years ago to determine the effect of a cooling pack on cycling performance. (I've mentioned this before.) Anyway, before that test, they hooked me up to a bunch of computers to get my VO2 max and determine my baseline fitness - that test by the way was the most difficult and painful thing I've done on a bicycle. I felt like I was drowning.

Anyway, I don't remember my exact number, I want to say it was in the low 50s. The guy running the test said it was really high for the average 32 year old (my age at the time) but pretty mediocre for a competitive cyclist.

grolby

Yep, I don't know if I would call it "cheating," but protocol is important. This is why cross-country skiers record higher VO2max numbers than cyclists do, on average. They're using more oxygen simply because they're using a lot more muscles. VO2 is important, but it's one of three elements that combine for aerobic performance. VO2max, efficiency and sustainable % of max are all really important and people vary in all three.

Heh, if it's changing the estimate by that much day-over-day, that's pretty silly. As you mentioned, it started estimating when you got a power meter, which is funny - no idea what protocol it might be using. I can't find the VO2max estimate on my Garmin, but it might not be available for the 500. Anyway, how does it compare to the VO2max estimate you get from HR? It's pretty simple to calculate: divide max HR by resting HR and multiply by 15. So in my case, 15(205/50) = 61.5, that's where the number I gave before come from. Like I said, for all I know my resting HR is lower right now, which would yield a higher estimate. But it's really only useful for dick-measuring contests. It'll be more impressive if I could win some damn bike races.

TheKillerPenguin

That method would place me in the low-mid 70's which I would wager is absolutely ridiculous.

This is good though. We needed a new ewang thing here. East cost vo2 vs west coast vo2

PepeM

I found that mine went up a few times the first few weeks, but after that I have only seen it go up once.

Not really sure what's the method used, but it needs both a HRM and a PM. They also make these recommendations:

So, some sort of 20 minute test.

Since my estimation seems to be fairly high I'll claim it is a robust method that shall be taken seriously. Otherwise I would call it a gimmick and tell people not too look too much into it.

Doge

Puppy was tested at age 10 then age 15 - in a lab breathing through the tube. 20 different and the test did not complete (operator error). Peak should be at age 18 if charts are right, but I don't know if training since babydom skews the curve. Also moving 5# from legs to upper body I expect changes things for cycling and, as mentioned the beet root diet.
So for us, we just decided not to bother with it anymore.

rideaz

I had my vo2 max tested a few months ago as part of a study I was participating in with the local university (study was comparing vegetarian to non vegetarian athletes). My score was 55 which is supposedly really good for my age/gender. The only problem was that they tested me running on a treadmill, I rarely run so I felt like my legs got tired before my HR maxed out. In any case, used along with all the other stuff they tested me on...blood work, LT test, power test etc...it was useful as part of the big picture.

Doge

I don't think an 80 would help much more than a 70. TdF guys say you need about a 65 to do the TdF. So it needs to be high, but seems to serve more and more for eWang.

revchuck 

Racing Age

PepeM

I see. Well, at least that is one number that just keeps going up!

Doge

I remember racing in my 20s and the 40+ field had like 5-10 guys in it. I think it was the 1984 Olympics that really boosted interest in SoCal. Then the invention of the Triathlon.