I was one of the oh so lucky participants for the max vo2test in one of my exercise science classes today - actually, i volunteered. I’ve always wanted to know my vo2max so this was a great time to do it, and it was free! I and another student thought we’d experiment a little bit and have me drink some coffee to see if it would have any effect on performance. So, I knocked down a red eye compliments of starbucks and jumped on the hamster wheel about 10-15 minutes after the coffee . We did the Bruce max test and i finished at 15:33; speed 5.0 mph, 18% grade. VO2max = 61.9 according to the computer readings. My longest run since june '06 has been a whopping 10 minutes because of several overuse injuries so I’m thinking I could do at least a little better then I did today. accurate guess? Basically my only form of endurance type exercise is an 800 yd swim once a week and a 20ish mile ride once a week. I think I can go higher on the test, maybe 65+, but I don’t know.
I guess I’m trying to figure out how much the coffee effected the test…I know caffeine gives you that little boost when you’re feeling down and it also has the ability to decrease the onset of fatigue . Would it have that large of an effect on such a short test?
I wonder how much higher of a vo2max I could get if I were better trained. I’m not looking for estimations from the masses, but I’ve probably ran 1 total hour in the last 3.5 years. It seems a given that I could do a lot more, but again I’m not sure. My quads were ON FIRE for this test because I haven’t run in so long and that’s the reason I stopped…
One last thing is shoes. my initial thinking is that it’s purely just increased overall weight or decreased overall weight based on the weight of shoes. I wore Nike Mayfly’s for this test, which are 7 or so ounces lighter than my asics 2120’s that i use for everyday nonsense. I could have run in the 2120’s, but decided to see how the Mayfly’s did and they performed really well; i didn’t even notice them. Is it correct to think that lighter shoes, like mayfly’s, could help with fatigue onset becuase the shoes are only 4.x oz as opposed to the ~12oz of the 2120’s?
61.9 is a really good VO2max - like almost elite cyclist level…don’t know how much caffeine affects that, etc. I am not sure if there is a conversion between the imperial units and metric units for a VO2max test (I live in Canada and it’s based on litres, not sure if it’s different in the US) - but if they are the same, that seems to be a really good result. I think it has partly to do with fitness and part with genetics/physiology.
I had friends at the high performance lab in Calgary who would do elite athlete testing (cycling) and that’s where I got all my info on VO2max levels. So I’m not an expert, but that’s my two cents anyway. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong.
“61.9 is a really good VO2max - like almost elite cyclist level.”
sure it is…
“I had friends at the high performance lab in Calgary who would do elite athlete testing (cycling) and that’s where I got all my info on VO2max levels.”
There are many published papers on caffiene and its effects on performance. I am too lazy to look them up right now.
Over 60 means you can be a competitive athlete. I know cat 2 cyclists with VO2s in the low 70s and ones in the low 50s. It is the training you do that gives you the performance. Higher VO2, the less you have to train to be average or better
It’s just a number, but the rest of the data you get from the test can be helpful and setting up a training program.
If you ran in speedstars instead of those pieces of paper attached to a piece of styrofoam that they call shoes you would have gotten 160+ easily. What a failure.
+1 for speedstars
I improved from 62.3 to 91 on my VO2max test by switching to the yellow speedstars. You definitely are held back by your shoes, everyone knows yellow>orange, asics>nike, speedstars>mayflys…
Help me out here…I just did the Bruce protocol and did the same as you ie. time survived + the same 18% grade. I assume I weigh more than you too, so the estimated VO2 max would be higher in my case.
You say that if you were in better shape you would have a higher VO2 max…Doesn’t getting in shape just increase your efficiency? Does it really increase your VO2 max?
and isn’t that VO2 result you got just an estimate based on your weight and exercise tolerance? It doesn’t factor in efficiency right?
Don’t you have to breath in a mask to measure actual VO2 max?
+1 for speedstars
I improved from 62.3 to 91 on my VO2max test by switching to the yellow speedstars. You definitely are held back by your shoes, everyone knows yellow>orange, asics>nike, speedstars>mayflys…
lol…imagine if you had also drank a red bull…
I did the VO2 Max test in a university lab a few times several years ago, full ‘scuba’ mouth gear, etc. I tested at 63 or 64, can’t remember. Anyway, I was a reasonably fit cyclist, but I don’t think I ever averaged faster than about 41 - 42km/hr on a flat 40km time trial (just time trial, not a tri). SO I agree that it is just a number, and getting over 60 doesn’t mean you are an elite athlete. Plus, I’d be willing to bet that -most- elite level and pro athletes are over 70.
Isn’t lactate threshold supposed to be a better measure of potential??
Yes - I’d definitely go with lactate threshold vs. most of the VO2max (or more likely submax) tests for predictors of athletic performance. Esp since many of the machines (not necessarily University ones, but certainly the New Leaf ones) aren’t calibrated very well (I tested 79 two years ago on of those gems which is highly suspicious ;))
I agree with youthat the vo2max test doesn’t take efficiency into account. My reason for stopping the test was more because I felt like my legs were going to give out; not because my lungs couldn’t handle it. So my thinking is that if I were in better running shape, cycling shape, better shape in general I would be more efficient which would lead to a longer time to fatigue, which would in turn allow me a higher vo2max by being able to run the test further. We had the full mask setup, too so it was an actual vo2max measure and not an estimate
True, I heard Lance in an interview say the thing that puts him apart is his LT but how does that differ between cycling and running? Is it just use of different muscle for the 2 sports?
I have dona a fair amount of those tests over the years, even the one you just mentioned (21 1/2 minutes at age 50) I looked into what changes you VO2max, and what I found the be the greatest game changer, was your weight. You can come up with whatever number you get on a given day, and I’m not sure how training affects that number, but they plug your body weight into the equation, and just a 5 lb difference can really change you rating. I have heard that Eddy Mercyx had only a 72, but Frank shorter had a 92. But since their bodies were so different, not sure how much you can read into that comparison. When I was 23, I had a 79, but my training partner Kim Bushong had an 86. Thought it might have been a mistake, until he went to Hawaii and led Dave Scott and Scott Tinley off the bike by 10 minutes one year…Funny thing was that he was a 50 and 100 yard sprinter as a swimmer, go figure…
I haven’t done one in awhile, but I think whatever you weigh has an affect on your #. We need an exercise phyis to get in here and tell us the formula they use these days…
61.9 is a really good VO2max - like almost elite cyclist level…
Depends on what you mean by “elite”.
In the paper “Physiological and Performance Characteristics of Male Professional Road Cyclists” by Iñigo Mujika and Sabino Padilla, the following was observed based on the pro riders tested:
It is the latter measures along with VO2 Max and Gross Metabolic Efficiency that will dictate physiological performance potential. A high VO2 Max on it’s own is insufficient - it just allows you entry to the ball park.
Easier and more practical just to measure power output in a time trial, since that combines all of these factors and is what matters.
Which is why Functional Threshold Power is called Functional
It’s pretty simple. VO2 (volume of oxygen consumed) can be expressed in absolute or relative terms. In absolute terms, VO2 is expressed in litres per minute (l/min). Generally speaking, bigger aerobic athletes have a higher absolute O2 consumption than smaller athletes (ie. A male heavyweight rower would likely have a higher absolute O2 consumption than a small male cyclist). When you see VO2max expressed in absolute terms, the typical values are usually in the range of 2-5 litres/min.
To account for differences in size, VO2 is usually expressed RELATIVE to body mass. To do that, simply take the O2 consumption (l/min), divide it by mass (kg) and multiply by 1000 (to convert litres to mililitres). The result is oxygen consumption relative to mass, expressed as ml/kg/min (mililitres of oxygen consumed, per kilogram of body mass, per minute). Typical values range from roughly 30 to 80+ mls/kg/min.
By looking at relative VO2, you can determine whether the big rower or the little cyclist has a higher O2 consumption, so it allows comparison of different subjects.
So, to answer your question, body mass does factor significantly into relative VO2. But it’s also trainable - more trainable in some than others. So it’s entirely possible to increase VO2 max with training, without losing any weight.
