Stepping up to the next level.

ric/rstsport

yes. there are lots of calculators for 'things' on the internet. people like them, but it doesn't make them correct.

none of these variables have anything much to do with VO2max. you may as well take a guess based on e.g. your 10 mile TT time. For e.g. MHR tends to decrease as you increase your fitness, so that'd send things the wrong way.

ric

cyco2

Are you saying that RHR stays the same for all levels of fitness.?

ric/rstsport

no, i didn't mention RHR. it can decrease. as can Max. as i said the calculation over estimates my actual (tested) VO2max and changes in MHR & RHR aren't sensitive enough to alter the calculated VO2max compared to my actual VO2max (as and when it changed with changing fitness).

cyco2

Since these calculated methods are quite likely based on an average correlation of VO2 data then very few athletes would be correct but if say in case of the 15 x ( MHR/RHR) by altering the constant '15' you could make it fit your own findings.

ric/rstsport

if i was going to come up with some such similar rubbish, there'd be far better ways to estimate VO2max. Like off actual performance. Please, this 'estimate' is utter tosh. you literally may as well guess a number between 40 and 90.

Froomes Edgar

Here's one for you Ric - I had a proper VO2Max test done with a face mask and everything - result was 80.3 @ 69kg, which should mean I'm f**king awesome. But I'm not, I'm useless - FTP 340w at best.

That said, using cyco2's formula with a constant of, oh I don't know, 16.94774 I get an estimated VO2Max of - you guessed it - 80.3. That's SCIENCE.

cyco2

F.E. that is awesome .