For those of you who don’t know, I am pretty decent triathlete. I can swim, bike and run well thanks to hard training and I am aiming to consistently go sub 2 hours for oly distance next season. My bike/runs times would be sub 60’ for 25m TT and sub 36’ for 10k (but flat out separately).
I have done some recent VO2max tests in cycling and running, and I did well in them - 82 on the bike, 74 on the run. The running one was done with the mask, the bike was done based on watts on HR, so that may be inflated a little. Both were done by sports scientists so they are real results.
Obviously, they suggest I have potential at these sports, considerably more than for my current speeds, which is nice! But I must use a lot of oxygen when I am going at these speeds at the moment, so my question is - am I terribly inefficient? Is my body capable of using huge volumes of air, and this is compensating for my lack of effectiveness when I cycle or run?
FWIW, I have only been cycling or running consistently for about 2 years now, I did a little (well, a lot of) swimming before that. So am I new to these sports, and thus can’t be expected to have developed much efficiency yet. That said, for those 2 years I have been training hard and training 3x/week (on average) in each discipline.
My interpretation of the VO2max results is 1) I have lots of potential and 2) I am really inefficient at using the huge volumes of air I can inhale. Is the right or wrong? What would you take from my results, given my current speeds?
Note that when I say inefficient, I mean relative to other FOP people at my standard… it’s all about where you want to be.
It gives you a shot at lots of potential, depends on where that high VO2 is coming from.
Some sport sci beleive it comes from high % of FT fibres which probably does not translate well to long endurance sports.
However, it is possible it coming from something else (capillarization/mitochondria and a reasonable % of ST to FT and other?).
Frank Shorter had a low VO2 relative to his competitors but was extremely economical.
Lance A had a very high VO2 but got more and more economincal over the years.
In the end, it is about speed, how fast are you going at sustainable levesl of VO2 - that is what you want to put more focus on.
VO2 gives you the size of bucket to use. But, it is no good if you can only fill it up part way with sustainable paces.
So, for every athlete, it is slightly different, finding the right size bucket and then filling it to the right amount that equals the fastest sustainable speed for your distance.
Before coming to any conclusions or deciding whether there is potential or not; I would suggest checking the method used to determine your Vo2max. What was the metabolic cart used? Unfortunately, there are many inaccurate systems out there now which are creating many false interpretations.
What was your max intensity on each of the assessments? Max speed and max power?
Okay - I’ll describe the tests themselves then since I don’t know the difference between types.
On the bike (the one with no air mask) I did 3 mins @264 watts, straight onto 3’ @ 314 watts, straight onto 3’ @ 364 watts (after being properly warmed up for 9 mins). My HR in the final interval was 167, which is my MLSS (LT) HR. My bike max HR is 183. (My RHR is 36.)
In the running one (with the mask), I did 9 mins at slow paces (10 kph?), then increasing by 0.5 kph every minute until I couldna take no more. I blew up at 20 kph, with a HR of 181 - I could have concieveably gone longer but I had raced 4 days previously and didn’t quite have the motivation to take on my central governor. My max run HR is 188.
I see your point about V02max results - I probably use a lowish % of my one compared to others, but then I figure this is understandable as I am relatively new to the sports. Thanks for your comments.
Tigerchick - I did a little swimming compared to a swimmer, and a lot of swimming compared to a triathlete! I liked the 100m free best. Nothing hurts like that (ok, 'scept fly). I clocked a 58 for 100m free when I was 16, and went downhill from there. Though really, I was never a “proper” competitive swimmer: I did B galas and such. Then I started playing water polo for good while, and then I saw tri on TV, and the rest is history …
What about you, are you a “real” swimmer? (unlike me!)
OK, so I’m a 'tard, but how exactly can you do a VO2 Max test w/o a mask???
Isn’t that kinda like doing repeats at the track without a watch? How do you measure that which you are trying to measure, without having something to measure it with???
-signed,
confused.
Long story short - you don’t seem to have V02 Max as a limiter.
(aka - you chose the right parents)
Lance A had a very high VO2 but got more and more economincal over the years.
Scott
Over 8 years- 1992-1999 - Lance was tested for VO2 max by Ed Coyle- Univ of Austin Professor… His V02 max ranged from the 66 to 81… When he was tested in 1999 (his first Tour win) his VO2 max was 71.5 … Lance has always had lower VO2 max results… and his VO2 max of 1999 is inconsistent with his results that year… he must have been doing something else… to get more economical.
Those are only estimates, the one test he is describing looks like an Astrand Max cycle test. In these kinda test the subject exercise at a load until he or she can no longer complete a stage, in this case i believe he stopped at 364 so either the last stage was 364 or the one before (314). I find it odd though that the values used were such uneven numbers, usually the subjects starts at 100 and it goes up from there to 150, 200 and so on. Anyway long story short, yes you can have your VO2Max estimated and not tested with this procedure, the correlation factor for such a test is really high (.85 to .9) which is considered a really good estimate of what the VO2Max could be!
Great numbers on the test by the way!!!
Hope this helped
Just a question for the original poster what was the cadence you were using while doing the test without the mask??? was it 50 or was it higher?
I beleive Coyle tests were done preseason and suggests that his VO2 was likely 5-10 points higher later in the season. But, agreed, the big difference for Lance was his “efficiency” improvement over the years. I think Coyle demonstrated that quite well.
I beleive Coyle tests were done preseason and suggests that his VO2 was likely 5-10 points higher later in the season. But, agreed, the big difference for Lance was his “efficiency” improvement over the years. I think Coyle demonstrated that quite well.
Scott
1999- was done in November… remember… Lance is “always on the bike, training his butt off”…
Snoop - Well, the test was not as high-tech as that: the wattage was determined by adding weights to the bike (somehow, I don’t know how?), so the particular watt outputs I mention were maintained for each entire 3 minute interval. And the intervals were one after the other. The reason they are odd numbers are that there were no more weights! I was at the max weight (ie watts) they had available! The wattage needed was determined prior to the test by looking at HR. The cadence for the tests were 60 for all, so for higher cadences that I normally use, I would have had a higher HR. Note that my HR would have continued to rise if I had continued the interval for longer, those watts were very hard to push, and were near enough to all-out effort by the end.
I asked the tester about the accuracy - I too remained skeptical. But she said it was pretty good, to withing about 3-4 units of your real V02max. I reckon it would be a little lower if anything. In my run test, by comparison, I was sucking in 5.2 L by the end ( I think that’s 5.2 L/kg/min if my units are right). I would expect the bike to be something similar.
Murphy’s Law - I don’t know how it’s calculated, sorry! Apparently it is accurate though?
No-one has mentioned inefficiency yet. If I need 5.2 L/kg/min of air to run as fast as I can, is this partially because I have running inefficiencies that require more energy, than say a real runner?
I have been tested at the best testing facilities in Sweden (Åstrandslabratoriet) and I have so far never had better values on the bike than on the running. I know good bikers that have done better values on the bike than on running-mill, but I think you have to be a fairly good biker(read only biker). My best Ironman-split is so far 4:36, so I guess you could atleast call me an ok biker. So with out proper testing, I don’t think you should read anything out of the bike-vo2max test out than you have talent and are in pretty good shape!
Btw, in my best Oly I did sub60 and 36:36 on the run, but the race was wetsuit-illegal so I didn’t manage to go sub 2… I definitly think you can do it to as long as you log the miles! My values for the bike: 5.99 L/kg/min (measured as best average of three highest outputs, top output was 6.02).
No-one has mentioned inefficiency yet. If I need 5.2 L/kg/min of air to run as fast as I can, is this partially because I have running inefficiencies that require more energy, than say a real runner?
You never run as fast as you can when you do a VO2max test…
Those VO2max tests are good and you can use them to set your perfect training zones but that’s pretty much it. They also tell you that you have an above-average capacity but it doesn’t mean you will ever be a world champion or so. People with lower VO2max can still beat you in races even if you are racing on top of your form at the moment.
So I’d say you should use the VO2max values to proper set your training zones but it’s the hard work - year by year - that will lead you to success.
I would suspect that the test may not be accurate. With a VO2 max of 74 on the run, you should be running faster than 36 for a 10K. Heck, I was close to that at 195 lbs, with a VO2 max of 55 or so. The bike test was not really a VO2 max test as you indicated, since they did not measure oxygen consumption. I am assuming that it was a submaximal test that predicted your maximum based on heart rate slope and predicted maximum heart rate? If so, it is only as accurate as your estimate of your maximum heart rate. Also, that kind of test normally assumes that HR goes up linearly with exercise intensity, which is not really the case.
Also, it would be unusual to have a higher VO2 max on the bike than the run. It is almost always the other way around.
In any case, what does it matter. You are pretty fast and will get faster with training. Even with a VO2 max in the 60s for run and bike you could be competitive in Ironman with the right training.
the bike test sounds quite shady. the standard i’ve found in a lot of studies is to do something more like a starting value of X and then add 20-50 watts every 1-4 minutes. the test you did seems to be invalid in my opinion because you weren’t using a powermeter and your weren’t able to self-select your cadence.