The table says record measurements not vo2 of notable people … 90 would be top 11 ever recorded… Pretty amazing
I read somewhere that reliable measurements is difficult but 10 percent above likes of froome does put you in rarified air
The table says record measurements not vo2 of notable people … 90 would be top 11 ever recorded… Pretty amazing
I read somewhere that reliable measurements is difficult but 10 percent above likes of froome does put you in rarified air
Froome was tested 85 off season, pointing to 88 at TdF weight, and possibly more : https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/chris-froome-described-as-close-to-human-peak-after-physiological-data-release-202644
Having investigated the VO2 evaluation methods, I did realize there is a lot of different methods (only looking at the “officially certified labs”), giving different results for the same guy at the same fitness level. So, 90 could easily be 88 somewhere else…
IMO :
above 90 : the best XC skier in the world (as apparently XC ski give higher results, probably using more muscles than bike)
around 90 : best bikers in the world, TDF winner potentially (if light and resisting 3 weeks), Hour Record or IP world champion (if heavier)
85 : excellent pro biker (regularly win in pro tour)
80 : very good pro biker (Wurf measured at that level, if not mistaken)
75 : top young AG, or old pros, or top junior going for pro career
70 : very good AG, very good junior
Blumenfelt is not going to win TdF, but he is Olympic / 70.3 WC / Kona winner stuff, for sure. Same for Iden (already spanked AB !)
You could be right there, also about other athletes flying under the radar
Curious what Blums lung capacity is and heart stroke volume… His chest looks relatively huge
The table says record measurements not vo2 of notable people … 90 would be top 11 ever recorded… Pretty amazing
I read somewhere that reliable measurements is difficult but 10 percent above likes of froome does put you in rarified air
In November 2015 tested Blummenfelt 86,9
https://nb-no.facebook.com/triblu1/videos/nye-perser-på-dagens-vo2-max-tester/852791738173028/
That table is not updated and I am sure a lot of high tests are not there. Swedish xc-skiers will have the same test results as Norwegians since their training regime is the same.
I am more suprised that some thinks a VO2 max in the high 80s is high.
But I am not sure how much people are testing or how open they are about results.
Runner Ingrid Kristiansen had VO2 max of 81-82 in 1986.
https://www.ingridkristiansen.com/...1986-sesongen-del-1/
I have heard of other top ITU guys of the moment being well into the high 80’s. Some countries and programmes use frequent vo2 testing while others rarely test. Think it was last year or maybe 2018 Blumm mentioned testing 86 on his social media.
Halfway through their Thailand camp last year Gustav Iden had an AMA on his insta story, on which he was asked about his Vo2 max. Seem to recall that he answered 87.
I think the figure on the left of the screen, around 280/290 at the end, is in fact Ve (Volume Expiré in french, in english volume of air used). 290 liter/mn is coherent with VO2 of 90 ml/mn/kg with his weight.
The second figure, middle of screen, value around 1, is probably QR (in french Quotient Respiratoire) wich is VCO2 / O2. He apparently finish around 1.02, which is not very high (could be up to 1.15), possibly indicating it is not very strong anaerobically, logical given the Arild Tveiten approach ? (not sure of this, but my intuition based on my small experience)
The third is indeed VO2 calculated.
You could be right there, also about other athletes flying under the radar
Curious what Blums lung capacity is and heart stroke volume… His chest looks relatively huge
From a Ve around 290 L/mn, his lung capacity is possibly around 5 liters (4.5 used at VO2, due to high speed in/out).
Relative VO2max will change as it’s a function of body mass - ml/kg/min. On the other hand absolute VO2max will not - L/min //
Ok, but isn’t the number everyone is throwing around the relative one? My point was that some guy insinuated that the only way to pump up your VO2 max number was to dope. I’m pretty sure one can improve it through training somewhat, and of course by just getting lighter, as that is a number used in the overall equation…
IMO :
above 90 : the best XC skier in the world (as apparently XC ski give higher results, probably using more muscles than bike)
around 90 : best bikers in the world, TDF winner potentially (if light and resisting 3 weeks), Hour Record or IP world champion (if heavier)
85 : excellent pro biker (regularly win in pro tour)
80 : very good pro biker (Wurf measured at that level, if not mistaken)
75 : top young AG, or old pros, or top junior going for pro career
70 : very good AG, very good junior
Blumenfelt is not going to win TdF, but he is Olympic / 70.3 WC / Kona winner stuff, for sure. Same for Iden (already spanked AB !)
These seem right on from what my experience has been. I’m right at 70 when in very good shape…but I won’t be winning any world titles. It doesn’t help that I started swimming late. Biking is the strongest…I think other than XC skiing it’s probably the sport where pure VO2 max comes into play the most. Running economy plays a huge role in running fast, and VO2 is really just a ticket to the show for fast running.
People freak out when they see high VO2 max numbers, but it’s only part of a bigger picture. My 5k time is about 3min lower than what a VDOT of 70 indicates.
That said…if you test high and ARE already an international threat like Blummenfelt…why not throw the number out there like this?? Maybe it helps strike fear into opponents’ hearts.
Yes training and weight loss does effect relative vo2. A highly trained athlete who is already fit, unless dropping weight, doesn’t vary much at all though if tested during race season, and I mean very minimal. Sure a novice tested who then begins to train will see big gains, but like everything, once you are near the top they are minimal. The record holder at the sport institute I used to go to set the record at 86.5 (i think .5) at age 16 not fully fit, with only a month training, after a 6 week break. He has posted on his socials, reaching 89 now as an adult, very elite, ITU triathlete. As you see not much changed really. As they say you are either born with it or you are not.
**As they say you are either born with it or you are not. // **
That is not what they say, at all. We are all born with it, each and everyone of us. The difference is what is our number, and what affect can we have on it. You gave a very high end example, and he was able to improve his about 4% or so from your numbers. Of course the closer you get to your ideal weight and fitness, the number will vary very little. But if that kid you mentioned was 15lbs heavier at the first test, he certainly would have had a much bigger % gain than the 4% he actually did. You are not born to be a certain weight, that seems to be the variable that is the most affected in measuring VO2 maxes…
But agreed that some people are born with different potentials, which is one of the things that endurance sport teases out…
Relative VO2max will change as it’s a function of body mass - ml/kg/min. On the other hand absolute VO2max will not - L/min //
Ok, but isn’t the number everyone is throwing around the relative one? My point was that some guy insinuated that the only way to pump up your VO2 max number was to dope. I’m pretty sure one can improve it through training somewhat, and of course by just getting lighter, as that is a number used in the overall equation…
It is the relative VO2max that gets bandied around and my response was to that point about adjusting weight to get beneficial change. And sure doping will/might make a difference. Changes in VO2max get to a point of diminishing return once you get fit. Largest changes in the beginning to very small changes later - that’s physiological. Once you’ve achieved you max VO2max so to speak, the only way to make changes is in efficiency - cranking out a bit more pace, a bit more power, using a higher percentage of your VO2max for aerobic effort.
There was also a comment that he achieved his result by standing during the test. That would skew the results. VO2max tests, at least on a cycle, are usually (always) carried out with the instruction to remain seated. So let’s see how his numbers are affected with a proper seated test. It would still be impressive but probably not as high.
Ok, you are born with a certain potential, that is exactly what I meant by born with it or not. Take for example 2 athletes similar age, pretty much same body weight, very slim, both do the same training sessions, one pushes himself ridiculously hard day in day out and on testing achieves a maximum of 69. No matter how hard he works he never can get it higher. The other is a little lazier at training, doesn’t seem to give his all every session, has more sick days, but on testing achieves an 80, sometimes 81. I would say he was obviously born with a very high vo2 potential. Guy number 1 born with a more average vo2. Born with it, you get what I mean.
The young guy I mentioned previously was certainly not carrying any weight about the time of testing, exceptionally lean always.
Derek Clayton, 2.08 marathon, 69 Vo2.
Hate to burst everybody’s bubbles here, but I was already a few years into endurance sport and testing around 67/68 depending on the sport. Some years later, and at least 5 pounds heavier, I’m now testing around 81/83. So sort of screws up the idea that VO2 Max is not changeable, or that you need to drop weight to do so. Added muscle can certainly assist with processing oxygen, so extra weight is not always a detriment in this testing.
Also, I think the idea is generally to perform the test close to whatever position you’ll be training or racing in. At least if you want the results to be as applicable as possible. And I would be surprised if most of the best multi sport guys out there are not close to or above 90.
Relative VO2max will change as it’s a function of body mass - ml/kg/min. On the other hand absolute VO2max will not - L/min //
Ok, but isn’t the number everyone is throwing around the relative one? My point was that some guy insinuated that the only way to pump up your VO2 max number was to dope. I’m pretty sure one can improve it through training somewhat, and of course by just getting lighter, as that is a number used in the overall equation…
I didn’t state anything other than epo can dramatically improve vo2 max, generally way more than any training alone. So, when you see all time lists that include people from the epo age forward, you have to pause as to how natural everyone is truly on that list. It’s also why there are very few publicized results of VO2 max in the last 30 years of pro tour cyclists. I have read that some Physiologists have surmised that some of these top athletes would be over 100, and those results could only be deduced to their “training/preparing methods†off the bike.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max
From a 2014 study:
There’s a study from Danish researchers at Aarhus University, published in Experimental Physiology, that explores how the endurance drug of choice, EPO, works.
It’s interesting that in the non-EPO groups, training actually seems to suppress hematocrit a bit, perhaps because the overall plasma volume is also increasing as a function of training – but EPO reverses that effect pretty quickly! So for anyone who says “Oh, EPO doesn’t really do anything, you still have to do the training…” Well, it’s true that you still have to train, but this graph makes it pretty clear that EPO has powerful effects on its own. Along those lines, VO2max jumped 27% in the training-EPO group, but it also jumped 15% in the sedentary-EPO group. Not too shabby.
So if muscle changes don’t explain the “extra” boost of EPO, what does? There are a number of theories – for example, it apparently influences brain function and improves mood and perceived physical conditioning. But I’m not entirely clear on why there needs to anything extra. Time-to-exhaustion tests generally produce percentage changes that are as much as 10 to 15 times bigger than time trials, so a 54% boost in time to exhaustion compared to a 12% boost in VO2max doesn’t necessarily seem out of line to me. Either way, it’s a powerful drug.
Froome was tested 85 off season, pointing to 88 at TdF weight, and possibly more : https://www.cyclingweekly.com/news/latest-news/chris-froome-described-as-close-to-human-peak-after-physiological-data-release-202644
Plus, Froome’s success isn’t likely due to a high VO2 max, it’s his ability to recover in a 3 week tour after a hard effort. It’s why he’s won a large number of Grand Tours but never a 1 day race.
I know the second figure as RER. Respiratory exchange ratio. Same thing that you mentioned. VCO2 / O2
That doesn’t show me that he has very little anaerobic abilities. It shows me that something with the testing was reading inaccurately. I would discount the test entirely. Unless they can show why that number is off and recalibrate/do the numbers over.
You can not be below 1.00 and hitting the wall. Which, he clearly is, at the start of the video. I don’t care how perfectly aerobically trained or hypothetically doped someone is. It’s just not how it works.
I thought it was funny when Hogenhaug mentioned something similar to what you say on his instastory and Blu replied #Agscience on his strata account
.