I did it, quite a while back. Treadmill one year and cycle test the next, both at a university lab. I happened to know, and occasionally train with, the prof though I still paid for the lab time. I posted slightly higher results on the treadmill. However, we decided after that the treadmill may have been too slow as the test went longer than it should have and then they may have stopped the cycle test too soon. It would probably help to repeat the tests more than once, with lots of recovery, to dial in the best testing procedures. I was really just doing it out of curiosity so I didn't follow up further. Anyway, the threshold numbers matched up with the results of a few other methods so it didn't really change my training zones at all. The prof did suggest that I should be training to run faster.

I enrolled in a research study that included VO2 max testing but didn't get much value out of it. Mostly my fault for not being mentally prepared to go super hard, but also the test protocol didn't work for me. Treadmill test in which the researcher increased the incline every 90 seconds until I said "Uncle." I think my limit was more balance than anything else, and as a result the VO2 max result was comically low.

Honestly, the estimates I get from my Apple Watch seem pretty close, and the estimates from runalyze.com seem to be spot on. And since those are available with every run, I don't have to worry about having a bad day.

Edited to add: I'm basing my evaluation of the accuracy of the estimates from predicted race times. Plugging in the VO2 max values from runalyze.com or Apple watch into the VDOT predictions seem to be a good predictor of my actual races.

I don't think this would be of any great value to most athletes. The best way to set your zones is to ride and train and use actual outputs to determine your physiological thresholds. And that's free.

I’ve had a vo2max test in a lab along w a lactate test. It was mostly curiosity for me. The one thing it’s pretty good at is understanding your threshold as a percent of vo2max. Gives a good perspective on how close to your ceiling you are operating at and where you might focus your training. You can ballpark that without a lab test, but the lab test gives a better idea of what’s going on.

Full on lab tested Vo2 max testing with gas exchange measurement is a form of indirect calorimetry based on CO2 and O2 exchange, so it can be effective in finding a fairly close idea of how many and what kind (fat or carbs) of calories you are burning at "x" intensity. A longer protocol which includes a significantly longer warm up (at least 20 minutes) and includes long enough ramps (stages) to allow for heart rate stabilization if you can influence that with your lab tech. That can be challenging for some people to complete, where some can gas out before they actually hit their "VO2 max". But, couple it with a lactate test and you'll have pretty good data on how to set up your nutritional plans and zones for training and racing. Keep in mind you need a full report that shows all the data, not just the final number, and know how to read it or have it explained in detail, and know what to do with that information in regard to your zones and nutrition.

Having the max number itself that is derived from VO2 estimation algorithms or a track speed test is really only relevant to yourself, and just gives you an idea where you land in your ability to use oxygen and calories at a maximal intensity (which we sometimes like to compare to sport GOAT's). In reality just having the number is not very helpful at knowing how efficient you are at using your energy along the spectrum of intensities in the tested activity, because it can vary season to season even with the same VO2 max. Also, some heavily muscled individuals can produce very high lab numbers even with higher that average weight for their height, but can only produce mediocre results comparative to their running or cycling performance (low estimated VO2 on their smart watch, for example).

Personally, I have found the detailed data useful in the past, particularly from a nutritional aspect. But, remember your zones can change within a season, and season to season. So, you need to test VO2 periodically for the results to be relevant. For me it was a mostly fun endeavor and not critical enough to me to spend time and $$$ to do it on a regular basis to keep the results viable from season to season. For most of us, training consistently while using old-fashioned testing and trial and error can get you pretty close most of the time. But, if you are really focused on performance or just want to know what you're made of, give it a go.

Best of luck.

---

Matt Leu, M.S. Kinesiology
San Pedro Fit Works, Los Angeles, CA
Endurance Athlete and Coach
Consistency/time=results

I did a few years back. Was told it was 63.7 on the bike. Thought that was pretty neat and then went about normal training. No real incremental value for me.

I had my first one on the bike December 9th 2018 which had a 3' protocol. So starting at 120W and increasing with 40W every 3'. I dropped below the minimum cadence they allowed (70) at just over 2' into the 360W step at 13.2mmol/l so after about 20' of testing. VO2max was not measured but calculated at +-62 at 66kg.

November 13th 2019, as a part of an experiment I was allowed to participate in (ketone related), I had to do a 8' protocol which they used there to test the Deceuninck-Quickstep riders. I can tell you it was a lot harder. Starting at 100W and increasing with 40W every 8', I stopped after the 300W step but was already at a lactate level of 10.7mmol/l so not much use anyway if you want to determine aerobic and anaerobic threshold. Also I was already 48' into testing so over double as long as the previous test, my legs gave in before I could reach my VO2max. 10' after that they did a short test to determine VO2max by starting at 100W and ramping up 25W every 30" but I could also not reach my max heart rate anymore because my legs just gave up at 475W at 5-10BPM below my max.

It was harder mentally and physically but I believe the 8' protocol was definitely the better one since you spend more time at a fixed wattage so heart rate/lactate can stabilize/keep creeping up whereas with the standard 3' protocol you're already moving onto the next step. Seeing a +60W increase in my aerobic power in a year time made up for the suffering though :)
The zones and other information I get from them also are IMO much more useful than just training based on FTP.

I'm relatively new - only returned to running about 5 years ago and just starting tri. I saw a bunch of articles about vo2max and thought it would help me set pacing and HR for training. So, I did one last Feb. (running). I scored well for 58yo, but the data at the testing site I went to didn't give me what I was really wanting (HR zones). They didn't do blood tests and the zones were simply 10% increments from my max HR. I already did the 30 minute max HR test and knew that information.

So, I was disappointed. Maybe next time if I do it again I'll try to find a place that does the blood tests so I can get better HR zones.

---

Not a coach. Not a FOP Tri/swimmer/biker/runner. Barely a MOP AGer.
But I'm learning and making progress.

This is great info, thanks all. I do feel like I'm pretty close based on my own testing/garmin watch, etc., probably won't get too much additional value from the testing, but maybe something to consider at some point down the road.

I just had a test done last week. It was my 4th test over the years. The thing I find the most useful is the Ventilatory Threshold % and corresponding HR that has come with the test. YMMV, but I would assume this would be part of pretty much any VO2Max test. My experience has been that knowing the VT HR has correlated perfectly with just how hard I can run a marathon without blowing up.