Go Back  Bike Forums > The Racer's Forum > "The 33"-Road Bike Racing
Reload this Page >

VO2Max estimation spreadsheet

Notices
"The 33"-Road Bike Racing We set this forum up for our members to discuss their experiences in either pro or amateur racing, whether they are the big races, or even the small backyard races. Don't forget to update all the members with your own race results.

VO2Max estimation spreadsheet

Old 11-16-10, 07:55 PM
  #1  
tallmantim
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
tallmantim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
VO2Max estimation spreadsheet

I have been following through the energy transfer chemistry that occurs when exercising and realised that you could calculate out a weight of O2 burnt while doing a particular effort based upon this.

See the attached spreadsheet and you can enter your own details (over on the right hand side) and get a figure for VO2Max - which may or may not be accurate to any degree but I think the math works out at least and the numbers it comes up with look sort of right.

I have put some figures up there for Lance and it comes through with 83ml/kg/min - which is pretty darn close to the 85 touted for him.

https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?...thkey=CM25-NgD

Issues:
  • Only deals with aerobic energy from glucose (ie. 100% glucose for energy)
  • States that the energy generated by 1 mole of glucose is 2880kJ, however 1 mole of carbohydrate should equal 3024kJ by normal calculations for energy (180g x 4cal/g x 4.2kJ/cal)
  • Probably someone will come up with some other issues I haven't thought of!

Anyway, let me know your thoughts.
tallmantim is offline  
Old 11-16-10, 08:24 PM
  #2  
Racer Ex 
Resident Alien
 
Racer Ex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 5 Posts
"The page isn't redirecting properly

Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete"

I think BF will allow you to upload a zip or straight XLS.
Racer Ex is offline  
Old 11-16-10, 08:27 PM
  #3  
tallmantim
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
tallmantim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Racer Ex View Post
"The page isn't redirecting properly

Firefox has detected that the server is redirecting the request for this address in a way that will never complete"

I think BF will allow you to upload a zip or straight XLS.

Hmmm - that's odd. I'm using Chrome so it works OK for me (as you'd expect!).

Unfortunately I can't upload to BF - proxy blocks the upload function.
tallmantim is offline  
Old 11-16-10, 08:42 PM
  #4  
Jancouver
Senior Member
 
Jancouver's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: San Diego, CA
Posts: 1,104
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Your 1' power is only 447? Just asking since you said your FTP was around 360? That would be kind of low 1 min power IMO for 360FTP.
Jancouver is offline  
Old 11-16-10, 08:56 PM
  #5  
tallmantim
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
tallmantim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Jancouver View Post
Your 1' power is only 447? Just asking since you said your FTP was around 360? That would be kind of low 1 min power IMO for 360FTP.
1 minute effort @ VO2Max - so the top of your aerobic range.

If you just plug in your max 1' power you are using too much (ie. mostly) of your anaerobic power and not doing oxygen conversion.

Just had a look at the results from my last MAP test in September and that gives 1' maximal power @564W - which I think may be a better number but gives me a stupidly large VO2Max result.

MAP or RAMP test protocol was to start at 200W and increase and hold power by 25W per minute - I finished after 13 minutes which took me up to 500W - so you are aerobic only by that point essentially, but for some reason I have an minute maximal power (MMP) listed as 564.

Hmmm - so now not sure whether I should use 447 (121% of FTP), 500 (MAP figure) or 564 (MMP).

Oh well.
tallmantim is offline  
Old 11-16-10, 11:39 PM
  #6  
Racer Ex 
Resident Alien
 
Racer Ex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 5 Posts
75
Racer Ex is offline  
Old 11-17-10, 03:20 AM
  #7  
tallmantim
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
tallmantim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Racer Ex View Post
75
hi rx

I imagine you have done the test - is it close to reality?
tallmantim is offline  
Old 11-17-10, 10:22 AM
  #8  
Racer Ex 
Resident Alien
 
Racer Ex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by tallmantim View Post
hi rx

I imagine you have done the test - is it close to reality?
I haven't done the test. It's kind of a lab rat number that if I was 20 would be something I'd want to know, but wasn't worth the money to test otherwise. That said it would seem to be in the ballpark given where I fall on performance/Ewang thing.

I used Explorer to get the link to work. Might have to give Chrome a shot.
Racer Ex is offline  
Old 11-17-10, 10:43 AM
  #9  
ridethecliche
Batw Creakcreak
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Dirty Jerz
Posts: 20,701
Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 190 Post(s)
Liked 230 Times in 134 Posts
Do you think the glucose energetics number is 'off' to account for inefficiency?
ridethecliche is offline  
Old 11-17-10, 04:48 PM
  #10  
tallmantim
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
tallmantim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ridethecliche View Post
Do you think the glucose energetics number is 'off' to account for inefficiency?
No - we are only 20-25% efficient as a rule and the figure of 2880 vs less than 5% off (rather than 75%).

I think that 1g glucose = 4 cal is just a convenient shorthand approximation, where it actually equals 3.81cal/g. Not usually an issue as if you are cal counting you will get most of your information from the nutritional information on the packet. Have looked at other sources, and the 2880 figure is the correct one.

Interestingly, if you look up sugar some use this figure to show energy:

https://www.calorieking.com.au/foods/...k9c3VnYXI.html

whereas some company sites use the larger approximation:

https://www.csrsugar.com.au/Everyday/White-Sugar.aspx

carbs are spot on 16kJ per gram (and there are 4.2kJ per Calorie).
tallmantim is offline  
Old 11-17-10, 04:50 PM
  #11  
tallmantim
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
tallmantim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Racer Ex View Post
I haven't done the test. It's kind of a lab rat number that if I was 20 would be something I'd want to know, but wasn't worth the money to test otherwise. That said it would seem to be in the ballpark given where I fall on performance/Ewang thing.

I used Explorer to get the link to work. Might have to give Chrome a shot.
Cool - what figure did you use? MMP, high MAP, 121% FTP or other?

Thanks
tallmantim is offline  
Old 11-17-10, 05:15 PM
  #12  
Racer Ex 
Resident Alien
 
Racer Ex's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Location, location.
Posts: 13,089
Mentioned: 158 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 349 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 9 Times in 5 Posts
Originally Posted by tallmantim View Post
Cool - what figure did you use? MMP, high MAP, 121% FTP or other?

Thanks
121 % FTP and weight from my best numbers in '09. I never got as light as I wanted this year.
Racer Ex is offline  
Old 11-17-10, 09:50 PM
  #13  
tallmantim
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
tallmantim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
One other interesting point (for me at least!) is that if you burn through 180g of glucose you will generate about 108g of water in your body (108mL).

High intensity work could see you burn through this in an hour or less and the average person sweats 0.8 - 1.4L/hour while exercising - so you will likely sweat out 8-14 times the volume of water under normal circumstances, however we would be somewhat closer to balance when doing a hard workout in very cold conditions.
tallmantim is offline  
Old 11-17-10, 11:12 PM
  #14  
SalsaPodio
Senior Member
 
SalsaPodio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Iowa
Posts: 965

Bikes: 2012 Parlee Z5

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I just did a VO2 max test for a study and got 62.8. Your spreadsheet gets pretty damn close to that for me
SalsaPodio is offline  
Old 11-17-10, 11:41 PM
  #15  
tallmantim
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
tallmantim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SalsaPodio View Post
I just did a VO2 max test for a study and got 62.8. Your spreadsheet gets pretty damn close to that for me
Excellent. What figure did you use? (121% FTP, MAP, MMP, etc)

Thanks
tallmantim is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 06:39 AM
  #16  
Nate552
Senior Member
 
Nate552's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: TX
Posts: 2,620

Bikes: Orbea Orca Trek 5500 Trek Equinox

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SalsaPodio View Post
I just did a VO2 max test for a study and got 62.8. Your spreadsheet gets pretty damn close to that for me
This does not bode well for me......
Nate552 is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 06:49 AM
  #17  
SpongeDad
Overacting because I can
 
SpongeDad's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: The Mean Streets of Bethesda, MD
Posts: 4,552

Bikes: Merlin Agilis, Trek 1500

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Other than approximations based on some fraction/multiple of another (FTP, MAP, ...), what interval would best approximate your VO2 max power? 6 minutes?
__________________
Courage is going from failure to failure without losing enthusiasm." (Churchill)

"I am a courageous cyclist." (SpongeDad)
SpongeDad is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 12:34 PM
  #18  
FormerRower
Senior Member
 
FormerRower's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 51

Bikes: QR Seduza, Warp9 Ascent

Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
80 for me... with my racing weight from this year. About right maybe a little low.
FormerRower is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 12:47 PM
  #19  
echappist
fuggitivo solitario
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Northern NJ
Posts: 9,107
Mentioned: 32 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 243 Post(s)
Liked 13 Times in 9 Posts
i'll have to enter the data when i'm up to doing some CP6 min tests. When i got tested in June (before my crash, so at a possibly higher fitness level), i got 69mL/kg/min. I was producing 360W, for how long, i'm not sure.

Even when i enter 360W, i had to use 21% efficiency in order to get to 69mL/kg/min. This is probably the case as i was sweating so uncontrollably that the electrodes were falling off. Too bad my body temperature wasn't measured, so i can't be sure.
echappist is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 12:48 PM
  #20  
Ygduf
\_(ツ)_/
 
Ygduf's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Redwood City, CA
Posts: 10,978

Bikes: aggressive agreement is what I ride.

Mentioned: 109 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 967 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 4 Times in 4 Posts
Originally Posted by tallmantim View Post
hi rx

I imagine you have done the test - is it close to reality?
just saw this. my numbers calced to 67. I tested last month at 70.
Ygduf is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 05:34 PM
  #21  
tallmantim
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
tallmantim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by SpongeDad View Post
Other than approximations based on some fraction/multiple of another (FTP, MAP, ...), what interval would best approximate your VO2 max power? 6 minutes?
I think an actual test for this would probably be a MAP (AKA a RAMP test) test - ie, the best average power you can get to and hold for a minute - there are various protocols out there, but it should last 10-15 minutes or so (ie, for mine, you need to average 200W for the first minute, 225 for the second etc and the biggest minute you can fully complete at that average power or higher is your MAP number). The MAP number could then be used in here I think.

Originally Posted by FormerRower View Post
80 for me... with my racing weight from this year. About right maybe a little low.


That's huge. No wonder they liked you on the rowing team! Is that based off FTP?

Originally Posted by mcjimbosandwich View Post
i'll have to enter the data when i'm up to doing some CP6 min tests. When i got tested in June (before my crash, so at a possibly higher fitness level), i got 69mL/kg/min. I was producing 360W, for how long, i'm not sure.

Even when i enter 360W, i had to use 21% efficiency in order to get to 69mL/kg/min. This is probably the case as i was sweating so uncontrollably that the electrodes were falling off. Too bad my body temperature wasn't measured, so i can't be sure.
LOL - efficiency sounds about right then!

Originally Posted by Ygduf View Post
just saw this. my numbers calced to 67. I tested last month at 70.
Based off FTP?
tallmantim is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 05:46 PM
  #22  
Grumpy McTrumpy
gmt
 
Grumpy McTrumpy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 12,509
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
I put mine in as well, but I think it would be far more accurate if you used 5 minute records. my best 1 minute is firmly in the anaerobic range, and gives me VO2max of 87. No friggin way.
Grumpy McTrumpy is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 05:49 PM
  #23  
Grumpy McTrumpy
gmt
 
Grumpy McTrumpy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Binghamton, NY
Posts: 12,509
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 45 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 3 Times in 3 Posts
figuring for my 5 minute record, it was 63
Grumpy McTrumpy is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 06:11 PM
  #24  
tallmantim
Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
tallmantim's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 910
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Grumpy McTrumpy View Post
I put mine in as well, but I think it would be far more accurate if you used 5 minute records. my best 1 minute is firmly in the anaerobic range, and gives me VO2max of 87. No friggin way.
Grumpy, was that one minute in the aerobic range? (ie, after burning off your anaerobic power) - that's what the MAP test is designed to do, so definitely not just your 1 minute power as that is firmly in the anaerobic range.

For me, max 5 minute average power is about the same as my MAP test though, so 5 minute max average power may be about right - but is dependent upon what sort of anaerobic ability someone has though (ie, it would skew results between someone who could stay in the anaerobic zone for 2 minutes rather than 45 seconds with similar FTP's).
tallmantim is offline  
Old 11-18-10, 06:12 PM
  #25  
ericm979
Senior Member
 
ericm979's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Santa Cruz Mountains
Posts: 6,169
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2 Post(s)
Likes: 0
Liked 1 Time in 1 Post
Using my 5 min record (which is very close to FTP *1.21) I get 60. Polar's estimation for me is 55 or 58.
ericm979 is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information -

Copyright 2021 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.