vo2 testing

poynedexter

i did a lab test today for vo2 max, which provided data on various HR thresholds and VO2 max (obviously) along with a few other bits of info.

has anyone else done this type of testing?

I now need to do the work to improve the figures, but its with slightly different ideas on training zones than before. I plan to re test in about 8 weeks, targeting an increase in anerorbic threshold.

imposter2.0

How was your VO2 max tested - and what are these different ideas on training zones? What particular figures are you planning on improving?

poynedexter

it was tested at aspire fitness lab, using a system called cardio coach.

I was on a watt bike, attached via a mask to the measurement equipment. it provided my thesholds (aerobic and anerobic) based on a ramp test and the target is to raise my anerobic threshold as close as possible to my VO2 max.

I haven't read anything about targeting zones with VO2 and hr before, just HR or power.

this is me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sNXt7YUIc8E

imposter2.0

Raising your various thresholds sounds reasonable (it's the goal of most performance training), but there's nothing particularly unusual about it. What are the 'different' bits..?

poynedexter

ok, its different for me in how its approached, given that I purely rely on HR, and this uses HR and VO2 to indicate how my lactate is.

the test apparently sets the thresholds and the result mirrors blood lactate testing very closely.

also how I will approach the recovery zone of an interval will change. recovery will take place until a target HR rather than a time OFF.

JayKosta

Hopefully the testing gave you a better understanding of your RPE (relative perceived exertion) compared to the measured VO2 and lactate values.

I do my indoor training on fitness center exercise equipment using the displayed watts, and HR, and my feeling of RPE.
If I can't hold the target watts, because RPE and HR are too high, then I back-off to a 'recovery HR level' and then increase slightly to a slightly lower watt target - and see how it goes from there.
Having a way to measure your actual power output is good because that will let you know your level of recovery from the previous session. If there's a power plateau, or drop, then a little more recovery/rest would be helpful in the next few days.

Jay Kosta
Endwell NY USA

Dodger747

I've done a few V02 max tests as part of sports studies. TBH, I don't find them that useful for training - I've taken part to help out some people I know. Training with power is king...

diy

Done a bit of recovery adaption based on recovery rates and have done several Vo2 and threshold tests - mostly to assist students. I din't find I needed Vo2max to set my recovery rate, but certainly its useful, I get quite a good range both calculated and tested.

How were you setting your recovery times % of fall from peak for example?

Edit: just seen dodger's sig - Bugger thought mine was pretty good at 74

bahzob

Same old advice I am afraid. Best advice would be buy a copy of Time Crunched Cyclist.

Do its test to set zones, you should find some correlation with your tests.

Follow one of its plans and retest once you have completed it.

Given the TCC focus on short higher intensity you should see an improvement and gained a big insight into how train effectively.

bahzob

diy wrote:

Edit: just seen dodger's sig - Bugger thought mine was pretty good at 74

VO2 79 w/kg 4.9? Assuming latter is FTP at least one of the 2 is wrong.

Maybe worth a reminder that following the brohaha that followed Chris Froome's Ventoux win Sky released his training data. They didn't include VO2 as they said they didn't conduct these tests as the results didn't really tell them much compared to what their power meters could do.

Case in point. According to here http://www.topendsports.com/testing/records/vo2max.htm the top VO2 from a cyclist is 93 from Kurt Asle Arvesen He was an OK rider but no world beater.

jgsi

bahzob wrote:

diy wrote:

Edit: just seen dodger's sig - Bugger thought mine was pretty good at 74

VO2 79 w/kg 4.9? Assuming latter is FTP at least one of the 2 is wrong.

Maybe worth a reminder that following the brohaha that followed Chris Froome's Ventoux win Sky released his training data. They didn't include VO2 as they said they didn't conduct these tests as the results didn't really tell them much compared to what their power meters could do.

Case in point. According to here http://www.topendsports.com/testing/records/vo2max.htm the top VO2 from a cyclist is 93 from Kurt Asle Arvesen He was an OK rider but no world beater.

ah well, we all have a bit of crap tagged in sig lines... mine's a feat of self delusion in itself.

diy

bahzob wrote:

diy wrote:

Edit: just seen dodger's sig - Bugger thought mine was pretty good at 74

VO2 79 w/kg 4.9? Assuming latter is FTP at least one of the 2 is wrong.

Depends how heavy they are. I'm not aware that there is any relationship to VO2Max and body mass. Though I would expect a larger athlete to have a high VO2max. But I'm guessing your point is that its unlikely they are data from the same test.

bahzob wrote:

Case in point. According to here http://www.topendsports.com/testing/records/vo2max.htm the top VO2 from a cyclist is 93 from Kurt Asle Arvesen He was an OK rider but no world beater.

Maybe he was clean

ollie51

diy wrote:

bahzob wrote:

diy wrote:

Edit: just seen dodger's sig - Bugger thought mine was pretty good at 74

VO2 79 w/kg 4.9? Assuming latter is FTP at least one of the 2 is wrong.

Depends how heavy they are. I'm not aware that there is any relationship to VO2Max and body mass. Though I would expect a larger athlete to have a high VO2max. But I'm guessing your point is that its unlikely they are data from the same test.

bahzob wrote:

Case in point. According to here http://www.topendsports.com/testing/records/vo2max.htm the top VO2 from a cyclist is 93 from Kurt Asle Arvesen He was an OK rider but no world beater.

Maybe he was clean

Vo2 Max is expressed in ml/kg/minute....

With a Vo2 Max of 79ml/kg/min you'd expect the rider to be capable of a very high FTP, I'd expect it to be 4.9w/kg at Anaerobic Threshold.

poynedexter

diy wrote:

How were you setting your recovery times % of fall from peak for example?

the recovery measure was based on a 1 min and 2 min drop from peak as a %

my vo2 was measured in ml/kg/min.

I did a turbo session today based on my "new" recovery target, my off periods were 1 min max. this brought a toughness to the sessions as regardless of the on duration, 45-60 secs later I was back on.

I don't have nor can I afford a power meter, so this seems like as close to power training as I can do.

diy

ollie51 wrote:

Vo2 Max is expressed in ml/kg/minute....

Sorry yes, I should have explained myself better (though it can be expressed in L/min) Vo2Max doesn't map to body mass. i.e. 10% more kg doesn't mean 10% more vo2Max.

xavierdisley

diy wrote:

ollie51 wrote:

Vo2 Max is expressed in ml/kg/minute....

Sorry yes, I should have explained myself better (though it can be expressed in L/min) Vo2Max doesn't map to body mass. i.e. 10% more kg doesn't mean 10% more vo2Max.

If your body weight decreases then your Vo2 max expressed as ml.kg.min^-1 increases.

Eg. 80kg rider, 5 litres of o2 = 62.5ml.kg.min^-1
70kg rider, 5 litres of o2 = 71.4ml.kg.min^-1

Dodger747

diy wrote:

Edit: just seen dodger's sig - Bugger thought mine was pretty good at 74

When I did my first test, the professor conducting the study was laughing as soon as he turned the mask on. My numbers were good just sitting on the bike. As I said earlier, while interesting to know the number, for me it doesn't actually mean anything in practice.

bahzob wrote:

VO2 79 w/kg 4.9? Assuming latter is FTP at least one of the 2 is wrong.

What makes you say that?

Alex_Simmons/RST

bahzob wrote:

diy wrote:

Edit: just seen dodger's sig - Bugger thought mine was pretty good at 74

VO2 79 w/kg 4.9? Assuming latter is FTP at least one of the 2 is wrong.

If diy's gross efficiency is slightly above average but well within the typical range at ~ 22.5% and a fractional utilisation of VO2max of ~80% at FTP which is entirely plausible and reasonable level for a trained cyclist (the best can push that up towards 90%), then 4.9W/kg is exactly what you would expect their FTP to be.

If their GE was a bit lower then it's also feasible their fractional utilisation of VO2max is slightly higher than 80%.

diy

Dodger747 wrote:

diy wrote:

Edit: just seen dodger's sig - Bugger thought mine was pretty good at 74

When I did my first test, the professor conducting the study was laughing as soon as he turned the mask on. My numbers were good just sitting on the bike. As I said earlier, while interesting to know the number, for me it doesn't actually mean anything in practice.

I'm in a similar situation - as I sit hear typing my HR is 36bpm. That's with around 6 shots of coffee. (but then I'm an addict so probably don't get much of a boost.)

I've had it lower. My upper end is not bad either. I'm no race winner though - far from it.

xavierdisley

Also your Vo2 max is part of a box of tricks (ie. having a high Vo2 max isn't a bad thing for cycling performance), but not the box itself, which is what a lot of people tend to think.