Home vo2 tests

I could give you a figure now that would probably be within 15%

That would be great for checking lung capacity...

What do you do with your VO2max once you have it ?

I have a predicted one from doing the bleep test.

I could repeat the test and that would update me as to my progress - but just tracking my results there would be as useful without needing to convert to a theoretical figure.

Just posted this in another thread...

I'm going for some testing on Friday (VO2 max etc), I seem to be at best a VERY slow responder. Worried that I don't respond at all. I aim to find out once and for all over the next few months.

Not sure about this - filled in my details based on results I tend to get for those kinds of intervals and even erring on the side of caution I couldn't get lower than 62 (started out with 75!). That seems a bit optimistic. As luck would have it I have a voucher for a VO2 max test somewhere so when I'v finished my current training block (mid March) I might get it tested, more out of curiosity than anything else. Will let you know how accurate this test is after that.

Done many Vo2 max tests over the years , normally done as part of a protocol to ascertain performance prior to
a study of something else.
Vo2 max , number of millimoles of oxygen uptake per minute per kilo. If we take the oxygen uptake figure ,to all intent and purposes its not trainable, as its determined by genetics. The only way you can improve your Vo2 max is by reducing the number of kg you're carrying around. The reason the sports scientist like the figure is , it demonstrates a ultimate potential in a sporting context . So that they can tell the difference between a no hoper and a future Olympic champion. But theres nothing you can do to change that. Theres no way you can measure it out of a lab , you need to be wearing a mask and they're measuring gas exchange levels . If you look at the graph that's produced , there is a pretty obvious point where you stop consuming more oxygen. then the oxygen/ carbon dioxide levels stay constant. No matter how hard you work.
So knowing your Vo2 max is pretty immaterial. Its what your body does with the oxygen when its been converted into haemoglobin is what matters and that is trainable.

e999sam wrote:

I've got to do a VO2 Max test as part of my employment medical. If I fail I guess it will eventually mean the sack.

just wondering what kind of employment requires a vo2max test..?

Imposter wrote:

e999sam wrote:

I've got to do a VO2 Max test as part of my employment medical. If I fail I guess it will eventually mean the sack.

just wondering what kind of employment requires a vo2max test..?

A friend of mine had to do one. I can only assume it's to check for any undiagnosed respiratory illnesses (area of heavy industry).

jibberjim wrote:

sub55 wrote:

. If we take the oxygen uptake figure ,to all intent and purposes its not trainable, as its determined by genetics.

That may be true (and it's debateable) but less debateable is there being no way of knowing if in your test that you actually elicited your VO2max, or simply reached failure through some other means, as someone mentioned above the sport specific nature of the test is relevant and you'll often fail through peripheral means long before any central vo2 component.

I'm sure if I did some sort of endurance arm curls I'd get nowhere near eliciting my vo2max, I'd fail much earlier. Just because you're not consuming more oxygen doesn't mean that you've elicited vo2max, just that you're not using any more oxygen - and many people will never reach that in a test anyway.

It's a completely worthless test in any case, as you note, but even if you do a test and get given a number, it doesn't mean it's the same number as you'll get another time even if your weight is constant.

Though I fully appreciate what your saying , I can only refer to my experiences within the lab.
Never done a Vo2 max test specifically , but as part of the protocol to lab testing ,you do a ramp test ( on a bike )
and when you look at the data afterwards , you can plainly see the power output continues to rise after you stop consuming more oxygen. coincidently because im being stabbed in my thumb every 15 seconds to measure LT levels , you can also see a massive spike in lactate levels. Somewhere between Vo2 max and collapsing in a heap on the floor. Then the research students test whatever it is they're testing , probably over a few weeks , followed by another protocol. Which is to validate their figures ,to make sure there was nothing array in test one.
As for oxygen consumption not being trainable and dictated by genetics , ive read many things that point both ways. However the professor at the local uni where all these tests have been done over the years is adamant that you cant alter it. To be quite frank its him who I think maybe right.

I did a VO2 max test a couple of years ago as part of a scientific study. Other than being of interest to see what it actually was, it has not been of any use in structuring any training I've done.

You may recall the "drugs" furore around Chris Froome in last year's tour. In the aftermath of this one interesting point was that Sky said they didn't bother with VO2 tests, which says something about how useful or otherwise they are.

If you have access to a power meter they really don't add anything standalone. While there is some correspondence VO2 cant accurately predict real world cycling performance. The best it can do is put you into a group e.g. "well trained","pro" etc but it couldn't say where you would finish in race with others in that group. A mean-max w/kg curve on the other hand would be far more helpful.

What can be useful, as noted above, is that the test protocol measures other stuff like "RQ" and can give you precise numbers based on blood sugar as to where your aerobic and anaerobic thresholds sit. The latter can be useful if you train with HR which, along with the fact that it can be used to make comparisons across sports, explains why VO2 became popular in the first place.

Their other use is that they provide a handy measure for long term fitness. That's what I use them for, I had one 5 years ago, another last year before serious training and will repeat later this year and plan to repeat every 2-5 years until I pop my clogs. In this sense the tests are just motivational, it's nice to put out numbers that would make you a "fit" 25 year old even if your wrinkles say otherwise. Since the number is related to weight then it also helps with the diet.

PS Wouldn't worry about hitting 40, if you are relatively fit should be no issue unless you are grossly overweight.

NapoleonD wrote:

Just posted this in the Coach thread, meant to put it here...

Just happened upon this article 'Defining and developing Aerobic Capacity'

https://attachment.fbsbx.com/file_downl ... EzDirVqOXZ

Link doesn't appear to work Nap.