VO2 Max Testing Results (1)

Triathlon Forum
1

(x-posted from women’s forum)

I had my first VO2 Max test yesterday and was all excited when I left, thinking “whohoo - maybe now I at least have some guidance and a direction to head in to try to successfully get myself out of the overtrained state I am in.” (you can see my post about overtraining here: http://forum.slowtwitch.com/…;;page=unread#unread)

Then today I look at the results and I may know less about all of it now than I did before the test! Of course I think of all the questions to ask now, not immediately after the test.

Does anyone have any experience interpreting the results?

Here is the data that I “think” I’m reading from my results:

VO2Max: 44 ml/kg/min
HRMax: 200
LT estimated at 74% VO2Max (did not do the blood lactate testing, just estimated from VO2 testing)

If I’m reading it right, my AT Value is 173, with a V’O2/HR/ML of 9.9 for that value (whatever that means!)

I have tons more data, but I don’t know what any of it means.

I’m a bit surprised I maxed out only at 200 since some of my recent runs were topping 195-ish at a very easy effort. The tech did explain that a treadmill in air conditioner will produce different results than running outside in Houston, any time of the year, essentially acknowledging it is probably higher outside. But then again that doesn’t really help me much because I have no idea how much higher. He also told his assistant as soon as I started that they may see a new record high that day because I shot up so fast (but then oddly didn’t really go up much more from there).

The test was the first exercise of any type for me in 10 days, and before that I had run/walked 55 miles total in 5 weeks (including a 25k trail race 11/8), after an October 4 marathon.

I’m trying to make some sort of plan going forward to get back to training, but to make sure I don’t overdo it at all at first and to work on building some aerobic base.

One school of thought is to just use the 4 zones from Going Long, based on a 200 max for running, and plan to stay only in Z1 and Z2 for a while and eventually start to insert some small intervals at Z4 once I think I’m ready. Is that useful at all, or should I use the data I just got differently? My zones using 200 max would be:
Z1: 130-148
Z2: 150-170
Z3: 172-178
Z4: 180-190

Also, I do not know what HR my LT % corresponds with. Any way to determine that with the info I have?

2

BUMP!
Come on guys… help a girl out here!!

3

for what it’s worth (not much) here’s my $.02

You’ve already gotten pretty much all the value you’re going to get out of your Vo2 number. It’s fairly worthless.

I had mine tested a few years back and figured out my “zones”, but it didn’t tell me anything I didn’t already know, it just put numbers next to it.

You should already have a good idea of the pace you can hold for 30 min, 60 min, etc… so staring at your watch is just a distraction. And your HR is going to creep based on fatigue, temp, time, etc… so racing with them is pretty useless.

Basically - figure out your FTP, and VDOT. They are performance based metrics that you can plan training and racing around. Then swim more, ride more and run more.

4

I was thinking about taking the test fo shits an giggles but thought it would be a waste because I already know I need to lose 10 more pounds, run more swim more and bike more to get better. Maybe not all in one day But…
I am sure if we keep bumping some one will be able to read the results for you. Good luck if I was a lil smarter I would help you out. Okay alot smarter. I do like my HR indicator as a guage to when I am over doing or slacking.

5

i’ll take a shot here. first off, you were in some state of detraining if you hadn’t done anything for 10 days. don’t know the exact rate of decline but over that amount of time your VO2 Max will decrease. Now, this is not necessarily a bad thing. What is more important is your velocity at VO2 Max(how fast you are running, power biking, etc). YOur HR values are also unlikely to change just your speed relative to those HR values. ie. they you will be running faster with the same HR as you get into better shape.

So, you really have all the numbers you need to determine your training zones. I am more of a fan of keeping your LT and the zones above that within 5-6 beats as any more than that leaves a huge variation in intensity. Also, HR is mainly a guide. I didn’t read the overtraining thread but, if you find you have trouble maintaining a your HR at LT (yours is constantly lower) you are probably not absorbing your training and will need some recovery of some sort. So, use your zones as a guide but pay attention to other variables as well in relation to those zones. just my 2 cents worth.

6

My advice may counter some of the practices normally advocated on the main forum. FWIW, I’d stay away from trying to define very strict HR zones, as this tends to suck you into a HR watching zombie. Unless you have consistent access or are going to do pre training and post training measurements I would concentrate on mostly practical measures such as a 10K TT to determine threshold pace and then base other paces off of this. I’d be glad to help analyze this data if you send me the raw data via pm.

Even if you did calculate threshold and zone pacing right now as soon as you start running consistently again that will all shift, which is why it’s easier to stick with regular TT runs to gauge progress. HR is helpful within reason.

7

Here’s what Vo2 max means: your body’s maximal oxygen consumption is 44 ml, per kg body weight, per minute.

How does this help you?

You could compute the oxygen consumption required for certain paces, and then you’d know what % of vo2 max you’re working at. An increase in vo2 max requires at least 20 min @ 65% vo2 max, IIRC from ex phys class.

Do you have the graph with your vo2 on it? The LT estimate is from how those lines look; I want to say it’s where the oxygen consumption (one is oxygen consumption, the other is co2 exhalation) jumps up really quickly, or where they cross, or something like that, I can’t remember. Look on that graph if you’ve got it and tell me what happens with the lines at the point that corresponds to 74% of your vo2 max, I’m curious now.

But if your current issue is pulling yourself out of overtraining and trying to get back into training, I don’t think all these numbers are going to help you with that. Getting back into training: frequency and consistency and keep it easy for now.

I hope some of that is helpful… it’s been awhile since I’ve looked at actual vo2 max results, all the physiology behind it I remember though.

8

You need to find your HR at an RQ of 1.0- you also need to provide some HR ranges as this number approaches 1.2, and identify as well the criteria used to determine “max”- if you went until you “tapped out”, it may not be a true max. If your HR did not rise despite higher workloads, or other ventilatory factors, then that is an additional factor.

Don’t be caught up in % zones- use three ranges-

  1. Recovery to endurance- the HR that corresponds with an RQ of .XX-.95
  2. VT (which is close to LT)- the HR that corresponds with an RQ of .96-1.05
  3. VO2- HR with an RQ @ 1.2, or the value that met physiological endpoint criteria for test.

If you’ve got your print outs, that would help, but ideally we need your breath by breath analysis, or at least a 10sec sample with graphs for your V-slope.

9

Maybe for the untrained or maintanence, but for the trained it’s a much higher %.

Do you have the graph with your vo2 on it? The LT estimate is from how those lines look; I want to say it’s where the oxygen consumption (one is oxygen consumption, the other is co2 exhalation) jumps up really quickly, or where they cross, or something like that, I can’t remember. Look on that graph if you’ve got it and tell me what happens with the lines at the point that corresponds to 74% of your vo2 max, I’m curious now.

You mean V-slope? This is the VT, not the LT estimate. For V-slope, this is VCO2/VO2.

These numbers would actually probably help her, since she probably has a higher VO2, but was unable to obtain it due to being overtrained (incentive to recover fully and train correctly in the future). I’d be willing to be that by simply taking 2-3 weeks off from all training, not only would her VT curve shift right, but her peak/max would increase slightly, unless she increased bodyweight signficantly while recoverying.

To the OP- take a month off, recover, and start with a new test w/ direction. None of us make a living at training/racing, so don’t kill yourself slowly by not taking time to get out of an overtraining state.

10

RQ of 1.0 - refresh my memory - that’s the point where you’re burning pure glycogen, 0.7 is pure fat, anywhere between a mix of the two, right?

(hiding face in shame that I don’t remember all of this)

11

RER of 1.0 means you burning pure glucose however; RER values may rise above 1.0 and often do once you reach ventilitory threshold. RER of 0.7 is a theoretical value, most rest in the range of 0.72-0.75.

J.C

12

ok, was confusing RER and RQ then. RQ is respiratory quotient, right?

I also remember reading in my ex phys book where that 1.0 and theoretical 0.7 came from/ how those numbers were derived, but can’t remember exactly how it was. LOL, I remember reading the theory just not what the theory is!

13

Respiratory quotient and Respiratory exchange ratio are the same thing (I think), just depends on who teaches what. Its been a few years since my last ex phys course. Literature changes quite often so, it could be different by now.

J.C

14

RQ= respiraratory qoutient
RER = R = respiratory exchange ratio

besides i wouldn´t look to much at the LT if the blood lactate values unless they are taken from the v. femoralis (i assume that the test was perfomed on a bike ergometer) bc it doesnt show how much lactate your quadriceps are producing, but how much lactate you have where the blood sample was taken.

just my 0.02

15

I tried to say this subtly when I responded to your prior post, I’ll be more direct here. It now looks like you sought some benchmark of theoretical performance in hopes of establishing a range, below which you can continue to train and still come out of this body coma you have worked your way in to. First, due to your over trained state the benchmark testing does not have a whole lot of meaning or applicability. When your body comes around, you should retake it, because it will have value and help you from getting yourself back into this situation. Now for the direct part…the only way out of this hole is to rest. You can look for an easy way out some trick that enables you to keep going and you may find it. However, the higher probability is that you are going to do some long term damage to your body, whether it is observable or not remains to be seen. At some point your body will shut itself down if you do not give it what it wants, which is down time. If/when that happens your life will be miserable. Do the smart thing and listen to your body.

16

Only if the teacher is simplifying things too much

RER is CO2/%O2, and RQ is CO2/O2, and RQ determines protein catabolism as well.

This is why products like the New Leaf are pawned off as being “legit”- they approximate the RQ (because you can “estimate” RQ from RER), but it’s not the same.

17

The thought that went through my mind was what you were trying to achieve when you signed up for the test. My understanding is that the test is expensive so I’d want some real value from it.

As far as the zone 1-4 or 5 thing and HR, this is pretty classic training from the 70-90’s. In cycling from the “old days” of the 1950-1970’s, base miles (Zone 1-2ish) were done to get things started in January after several months of “rest” in the fall. Back then, many riders did very little training in the fall. They needed to rebuild the foundation first before starting more interval/LT type workouts.

My own opinion, worth not much, is that unless you’re just getting back into cycling or have had a very long layoff (months) then there’s not much use with the Z1-Z2 for several months. You obviously have a base already. Using Z1-Z2 as a recovery thing is another story.

Technology has allowed us to evolve from Perceived Exertion (PE), to Heart Rate monitors and now to power meters. Power meters are the most accurate of the 3 methods but again, interpreting the data is essential so you know what 200W, or whatever number, means on that day.

There’s plenty of evidence that high intensity intervals are where the bulk of fitness comes from after you have the foundation to do them. Old school coaches knew this too but forgot the part that recovery/rest is where you get the benefit from the work. Overtraining was more common back then than anyone knew at the time.

18

Only if the teacher is simplifying things too much

RER is CO2/%O2, and RQ is CO2/O2, and RQ determines protein catabolism as well.

This is why products like the New Leaf are pawned off as being “legit”- they approximate the RQ (because you can “estimate” RQ from RER), but it’s not the same.

Respiratory exchange ratio (RER) = ratio of CO2 production to O2 consumption as measured at the lungs.

Respiratory quotient (RQ) = ratio of CO2 production to O2 consumption as measured at the cellular, or at least tissue, level.

Both methods are influenced by protein catabolism, but it is common to assume that the impact of such is negligible during exercise (i.e., a non-protein RER is assumed).

RER = (weighted average across all tissues of) RQ when CO2 stores (which are rather large) and O2 stores (which are quite small) are constant over time. This holds true during exercise at intensities up to the respiratory compensation threshold, but above that point hyperventilation may result in RER being greater than RQ, sometimes by a large amount.

The reason that less expensive metabolic systems such as the New Leaf are often quite inaccurate is because they don’t have a CO2 analyzer at all - and you actually need to know the %CO2 as well as the %O2 in expired air to calculate VO2 accurately (when measuring inspired volume, anyway). The typical “workaround” is to assume a constant RER (e.g., 0.85), but that leads to significant errors when RER is much less than, or much greater than, that value.

19

Thanks! I am not sure if I have all of those numbers, but I may try to scan the data in and post it once I get back to work on Monday.

I’m going on about 7 weeks off/very light right now and went on a huge 3.5 mile walk today. I’ll be walking for a while, and take it from there.

20

I definitely know these test results weren’t necessarily accurate - I wanted more of a baseline reading than anything else, and also wanted someone else to check out my crazy high heart rate while exercising. Cardio said it was fine and this test again proved that it wasn’t much to worry about (on a long term basis…right now it definitely indicates overtraining).

I plan to get retested down the road in a few months if and when I’m feeling back in the game.

I have sat on the couch for the last 10 days, doing absolutely nothing, and today I walked 3.5 miles. Hopefully I can keep up a walking and maybe super light weight routine at home over the next few weeks and see how that is going. My body is still speaking very loudly and I’m listening.

Thanks again for your help.