My VO2 Max

curium
curium Posts: 815
edited September 2010 in Road beginners
I recently did a cardiopulmonary exercise test. I was a control for a study.

My VO2 Max was calculated at 47 mL/kg/min. I know this is way short of Lance Armstrong's 84 but I'm told this is good for a 33 yo male so I'm happy.

My anaerobic threshold was 24 mL/kg/min

Workrate acheived was 334Watts.

My weight is 87.8 kg and height 1.86m

Comments

  • softlad
    softlad Posts: 3,513
    congratulations..
  • Monty Dog
    Monty Dog Posts: 20,614
    FWIW Greg Lemond's was in the 90s and one of the Norwegian XC skiers is allegedly 96
    Make mine an Italian, with Campagnolo on the side..
  • Splottboy
    Splottboy Posts: 3,695
    Mine was in the 70's in the 80's if you get my drift! I was Super Fit and light though.

    Think my last one was around 57 or so and I was about 45yrs of age, still fit too, but about 1.5 stone heavier.

    Muscle, you see...
  • neeb
    neeb Posts: 4,473
    Workrate acheived was 334Watts.
    Just as a matter of interest, what sort of time period was that over?

    If you knew your maximum watts output over a range of times, would it be possible to approximately estimate Vo2 max or anaerobic threshold given height & weight?
  • jibberjim
    jibberjim Posts: 2,810
    neeb wrote:
    If you knew your maximum watts output over a range of times, would it be possible to approximately estimate Vo2 max or anaerobic threshold given height & weight?

    height's irrelevant. You could put a ballpark figure on it based on a whole load of averages. But not really. It's also pretty irrelevant.
    Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/
  • neeb
    neeb Posts: 4,473
    You mean that vo2 max is irrelevant, or that any approximation by these methods would be irrelevant because it would be too inaccurate?

    Surely height isn't completely irrelevant - it will approximate closely to the length of the limbs and hence to the relationship between muscle respiration rates and mechanical power output on the bike..
  • freehub
    freehub Posts: 4,257
    I wanna get my V02 max done, bet it's proper crap like 20 or something.
  • blackhands
    blackhands Posts: 950
    neeb wrote:
    Surely height isn't completely irrelevant - it will approximate closely to the length of the limbs and hence to the relationship between muscle respiration rates and mechanical power output on the bike..

    Not true. Anyway, even height is not completely correlated to limb length there are quite wide ranges within this. Muscle respiration has no dierct correlation with limb length.
  • jibberjim
    jibberjim Posts: 2,810
    neeb wrote:
    You mean that vo2 max is irrelevant, or that any approximation by these methods would be irrelevant because it would be too inaccurate?

    Both - VO2max itself is irrelevant. Because there are wide variation in efficiency below the VO2max - which is also why it's irrellevant.

    But the oxygen you're actually using may say a lot about your potential, unless you actually deliver on that potential with power produced.

    neeb wrote:
    Surely height isn't completely irrelevant

    Tall people don't have a particular advantage in cycling...
    Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/
  • neeb
    neeb Posts: 4,473
    blackhands wrote:
    Not true. Anyway, even height is not completely correlated to limb length there are quite wide ranges within this. Muscle respiration has no dierct correlation with limb length.
    Yes, I know that muscle respiration probably doesn't correlate with limb length, but limb length must have some effect on how the power generated in the muscles (via respiration and muscle contraction) is converted to power used in turning the cranks, because of the different mechanical properties of different length legs as levers. Perhaps it's effectively insignificant, I was just being pedantic.. :wink:
    jibberjim wrote:
    But the oxygen you're actually using may say a lot about your potential, unless you actually deliver on that potential with power produced.
    OK, I guess that's what matters. The value of calculating real vo2 max would be precisely to show up any differences between that figure and the sort of figures (power etc) you might use to try to estimate it... So it's irrelevant to estimate something when what you really want to know is the difference between the estimatable figure and the real one.
  • cookiemonster
    cookiemonster Posts: 668
    I'm living proof of the irrelevance of vo2max :)

    Ive been measured twice, with 75 and 79.4 (and I'm 73kg at 6'). Now if it was were the sole indicator of performance then i'd be kicking berties backside all the way up the Tourmalet. Sadly, that's not the case... I'm a moderate club cyclist.

    I guess its an "indicator of potential performance", if I trained harder then perhaps I could do much better than I do today. who knows.
  • gandhi
    gandhi Posts: 187
    If you have a power meter you can estimate it quite well (on bike efficiency doesn't change that much among trained cyclists).

    Take you best 5 miin power, divide by weight = PTW
    VO2max = 12 * PTW + 3.3

    Obviously it's just an estimate, but it get's mine about right.
  • jibberjim
    jibberjim Posts: 2,810
    gandhi wrote:
    If you have a power meter you can estimate it quite well (on bike efficiency doesn't change that much among trained cyclists).

    Take you best 5 miin power, divide by weight = PTW
    VO2max = 12 * PTW + 3.3

    Obviously it's just an estimate, but it get's mine about right.

    Overstates mine by 10% (73 vs 66)
    neeb wrote:
    So it's irrelevant to estimate something when what you really want to know is the difference between the estimatable figure and the real one.

    But knowing that doesn't help either. Let's imagine you have a low VO2max compared to the estimate due to having a heart 20% smaller than average - you'll never know that's the reason (just by getting an estimated and real values) what will you be able to do with the information?
    Jibbering Sports Stuff: http://jibbering.com/sports/
  • morstar
    morstar Posts: 6,190
    If you do want to get a reasonably accurate VO2 max reading at low cost, then do the bleep test.
    Values correlate very well to measured results.
    I'm a mid 50's man myself. Measured both in the lab on a bike as a student and bleep test twice, twenty years apart.
  • maryka
    maryka Posts: 748
    morstar wrote:
    If you do want to get a reasonably accurate VO2 max reading at low cost, then do the bleep test.
    Values correlate very well to measured results.
    I'm a mid 50's man myself. Measured both in the lab on a bike as a student and bleep test twice, twenty years apart.
    Or have a look around for students doing research who need subjects to come into the lab and ride til they puke. :wink: Our club gets lots of e-mails from PhD candidates and the like.
    http://www.twitter.com/smaryka
  • celbianchi
    celbianchi Posts: 854
    jibberjim wrote:
    gandhi wrote:
    If you have a power meter you can estimate it quite well (on bike efficiency doesn't change that much among trained cyclists).

    Take you best 5 miin power, divide by weight = PTW
    VO2max = 12 * PTW + 3.3

    Obviously it's just an estimate, but it get's mine about right.

    Overstates mine by 10% (73 vs 66)
    Mine also - estimates 76 v measured 65

Categories