VO2 max test scores?

harpo

I was wondering if anyone has been through a VO2 max test and what their results were. I volunteered to take part in a test at a local uni for some students needing guinea pigs for their thesis experiments. The thought being I’d get out of it a VO2 test result and some tailored specific idea about heart rate training zones and power zone training plus it would be good to help out.

In the test I managed a score of 59 reaching 380 watts I think lasting just shy of 14 minutes and max heart rate of 201bpm. The chap said that was a good result and that my heart rate reached about 15 to 20 bpm higher than similar aged participants (I’m just turning 33). I think I could have managed a bit more if I had dug in just a bit more, had a bit more encouragement and if I had known what to expect beforehand – but that might just be wishful thinking. It wasn’t my legs that went it felt that I couldn’t get enough air in the lungs and that was hurting. Hope to get tested at the end of the year when I’ve been on the bike a bit more through the summer and see what figures I can hit – I think with some training maybe into the 60’s.

Anyway has anyone else got any VO2 results or has any opinions on mine?

curium

http://www.bikeradar.com/forum/viewtopi ... highlight=

trickydisco

Very close to mine i did in November



I'm told lactate threshold or functional threshold are better values to go by when racing/training

Anonymous

I almost decided to give up when I was told 3 weeks ago my vo2 max was 40, however, my max power at the end of the ramp test was nearly 420 watts and when that was put into context I was OK again...

vs

Had mine done three times -

Age 43 - v02 max 65
Age 45 - v02 max 69
Age 47 - v02 max 74

trickydisco

NapoleonD wrote:

I almost decided to give up when I was told 3 weeks ago my vo2 max was 40, however, my max power at the end of the ramp test was nearly 420 watts and when that was put into context I was OK again...

Just out of interest what was your threshold ?

trickydisco

Like this from Joe Friel

http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblog/2 ... mance.html

If we did indeed test all of the pro riders at the start line of a bike time trial race and then ranked them from the highest VO2max at the top to the lowest at the bottom, how would that compare with how the race actually finished? Would the highest VO2max win the race and the lowest finish last? Not at all. This has been done in several different sudies and the research has found no relationship between race results ranking and VO2max ranking - among elite athletes.

Doobz

Here are the results from my out of season test at the start of this year.

I expect the numbers to increase quite a bit in the peak of the racing season when I will be tested again

Anonymous

trickydisco wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

I almost decided to give up when I was told 3 weeks ago my vo2 max was 40, however, my max power at the end of the ramp test was nearly 420 watts and when that was put into context I was OK again...

Just out of interest what was your threshold ?

MAP was 363.

trickydisco

What's MAP?

Sorry.. bit of a beginner here.. not familiar with that term

Doobz

trickydisco wrote:

What's MAP?

Sorry.. bit of a beginner here.. not familiar with that term

MAP………………….MAXIMAL AEROBIC POWER
The greatest rate at which oxygen can be delivered to working muscles during a ramped exercise test. Actual values of MAP in watts are protocol dependent so consistency in testing method is advised for athletes utilizing MAP testing.

trickydisco

So for me would that be my threshold or functional threshold?

When i did the test he told me the functional threshold is always lower than actual lactate threshold

Anonymous

Yeah, he didn't tell me my threshold from that ramp test (not had the results yet, it's for a Uni study). I didn't get to warm up which makes a HUGE difference to my power, if not actual vo2 rate... I have to start a TT or race sweating like a glassblower's arse if I want to do ok.

However I know my threshold is about 300ish. I did a 4k pursuit on the ergometer as part of the study and it took me 5.29 and it was 368 watts...

trickydisco

So MAP isn't threshold.. it's max

Now i get it - i think

Anonymous

trickydisco wrote:

So MAP isn't threshold.. it's max

Now i get it - i think

No, Max is above MAP, my max was 420is, my MAP is 363, my threshold around 305.

Doobz

to be fair.. The data gained from testing is not very useful unless you have the right tools to back it up with. Ideally you need a coach to create and adjust a training plan based on the changing variables achieved from your testing throughout the year as you would expect to see shifts in the numbers and thresholds etc..

Here are some other numbers from the testing I did.

trickydisco

No, Max is above MAP, my max was 420is, my MAP is 363, my threshold around 305.

Well then i haven't got a damn clue what my MAP is?

All i know is the googling i've done MAP = v02max power

http://sportech.online.fr/sptc_idx.php? ... n_anp.html

MAP = Maximal Aerobic Power (W)
It's the power produced at VO2 maximum.

http://www.flammerouge.je/content/3_fac ... rofile.htm

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1601557

Relationships between cardiac dimensions, anthropometric characteristics and maximal aerobic power (VO2max) in young men.

http://www.trainingandracingwithapowerm ... power.html

oduce during an incremental exercise test continued to fatigue. Indeed, such testing is usually conducted specifically to determine VO2max (via direct measurement of respiratory gas exchange), and the highest power maintained for 1 min during such a test is sometimes referred to as maximal aerobic power, or MAP (especially in the UK and Canada).

You'd think the term maximal aerobic power would mean top end power?

P_Tucker

80.3 at 69kg. I'm still rubbish though.

shockedsoshocked

Knowing your body comp would be good too.

I had a score of 71/450 watts but at over 15% body fat. I stood to lose about a stone of actual excess and tis would have raised the numbers dramatically.

Anonymous

It's maximal 'aerobic' power, you can do more with the anaerobic pathway...

trickydisco

It's maximal 'aerobic' power, you can do more with the anaerobic pathway...

Sorry i'm not convinced

V02max is the maximum amount of oxygen in milliliters (eg aerobic )

Therefore I believe V02max = Maximum Aerobic power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max

Alex_Simmons/RST

trickydisco wrote:

It's maximal 'aerobic' power, you can do more with the anaerobic pathway...

Sorry i'm not convinced

V02max is the maximum amount of oxygen in milliliters (eg aerobic )

Therefore I believe V02max = Maximum Aerobic power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max

Apples and oranges.

VO2max is a measure of oxygen utilisation, not power output.

MAP is a measure of power output. It is defined as the mean maximal 1-minute power attained during an incremental test to exhaustion, with power increasing at a predefined linear rate (typically 15, 20 or 25W/min depending on protocol used).

MAP is a functional equivalent of VO2max, in the same way that Functional Threshold Power is a functional equivalent of a blood lactate measured aerobic threshold (LT).

That doesn't mean however that the power one attains at VO2max* is MAP (or the power one attains at aerobic threshold is FTP).

They are functional measures, and in that sense are somewhat more useful than VO2max/LT since they represent what you can actually do.


* indeed VO2max can be induced at a wide range of power outputs.

trickydisco

what i was getting at is i assumed the power at V02max is the maximal aerobic power. Not that V02Max is MAP

Anonymous

trickydisco wrote:

It's maximal 'aerobic' power, you can do more with the anaerobic pathway...

Sorry i'm not convinced

V02max is the maximum amount of oxygen in milliliters (eg aerobic )

Therefore I believe V02max = Maximum Aerobic power

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max

Don't apologise, I'm not really that bothered

Alex_Simmons/RST

trickydisco wrote:

what i was getting at is i assumed the power at V02max is the maximal aerobic power. Not that V02Max is MAP

VO2max can be induced at a very wide range of power, including at MAP.

Typically one could sustain MAP for ~ 3-minutes or thereabouts.

Anonymous

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

trickydisco wrote:

what i was getting at is i assumed the power at V02max is the maximal aerobic power. Not that V02Max is MAP

VO2max can be induced at a very wide range of power, including at MAP.

Typically one could sustain MAP for ~ 3-minutes or thereabouts.

I managed it for 5.29 (well, 5 watts higher in fact!)

Shame my VO2 max is pitiful

(I am an asthmatic and only started exercising 3.5 years ago...)

Alex_Simmons/RST

NapoleonD wrote:

I managed it for 5.29 (well, 5 watts higher in fact!)

That would be exceptionally rare but not impossible. I'd first be suspicious of one or both of your power measures, or wonder whether you were at same fitness level for each effort.

For example, riders in an individual pursuit (efforts of 5-min or less) typically only average 90-93% of MAP, sometimes higher.

jibberjim

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

NapoleonD wrote:

I managed it for 5.29 (well, 5 watts higher in fact!)

That would be exceptionally rare but not impossible. I'd first be suspicious of one or both of your power measures, or wonder whether you were at same fitness level for each effort.

For example, riders in an individual pursuit (efforts of 5-min or less) typically only average 90-93% of MAP, sometimes higher.

I've managed my lab tested MAP for 6 minutes too... But then I perform very poorly in the lab compared to outdoors, there's no way I could do it for 4 minutes on a static bike, even with a gert big flywheel.

Alex_Simmons/RST

jibberjim wrote:

I've managed my lab tested MAP for 6 minutes too... But then I perform very poorly in the lab compared to outdoors, there's no way I could do it for 4 minutes on a static bike, even with a gert big flywheel.

Yes, for some there are these issues that can provide these outliers.

I wonder for you what the factors are that limit your ability to produce such power in a test, given it's a pretty short duration test as well.

In any case, "the best predictor or performance is performance itself".

Anonymous

Alex,

It is all being done as part of a study, the effect of warm up on 4k pursuit time. first was a ramp test with no warmup, then a week later a 4k pursuit with no warm up, then a week later a 4k pursuit with my warm up and I'm yet to do the 4k pursuit with his prescribed warm up.

My big big BIG issue with the ramp test was a complete lack of warm up, I.e. It was done from completely cold (not my choice). I really need a bloody good warm up to perform. For that 5.29 4k pursuit I was allowed to do my own warm up... When I did the 4k without warmup it was 18 seconds slower and 20 watts lower...

shockedsoshocked

NapoleonD wrote:

Alex,

It is all being done as part of a study, the effect of warm up on 4k pursuit time. first was a ramp test with no warmup, then a week later a 4k pursuit with no warm up, then a week later a 4k pursuit with my warm up and I'm yet to do the 4k pursuit with his prescribed warm up.

My big big BIG issue with the ramp test was a complete lack of warm up, I.e. It was done from completely cold (not my choice). I really need a bloody good warm up to perform. For that 5.29 4k pursuit I was allowed to do my own warm up... When I did the 4k without warmup it was 18 seconds slower and 20 watts lower...

I'm yet to have a max test that I had the option to warm up for...