Unfortunately, like many of the other budget-priced metabolic systems now on the market, the CardioCoach system isn’t very accurate. Indeed, even the manufacturer doesn’t claim an accuracy any better than +/- 5% (and I suspect it isn’t even that good):
http://www.korr.com/...ardiocoach_specs.htm
That very well may be the case, and again, this isn’t so much about the actual number. Since I did the test on the same machine everytime, the variability is somewhat constant, so the changes are accurate
Or so you hope. However, it is quite possible for something like the Cardiocoach to be 5% high on one occasion, then 5% low on another, thus either masking an actual 10% change in VO2max, or making it appear that your VO2max went up by 10% when in fact it didn’t change at all.
Funny you should mention that, because his VO2Max corrected for weight did in fact go up by 10%. It is now at a whooping 82.5.
To answer your question and steer clear of the others questions, there are a few reasons why your hr can go down and vo2max go up at lt. Specifically, your heart can get better at pumping blood, either by getting bigger in terms of how much it can hold or by increasing the ejection fraction, what % of that blood gets moved out every pump.
There are other adaptations that people smarter than me can fill in that can account for this as well.
do some research coach spinney (bosquet, Gastin, etc)…the curve, she is pretty flat from 20-60min so call it what you want, but it is something you can “function” at right?
Do some research on what? What is it you are contesting? Do I need to come to Maine and give some smack down (just as long as it’s not x-c skiing)? Training is testing, testing is training (no I didn’t make that up).
Are you an Olympic marathoner? That is a pretty high VO2 number…
No, I’m an AG IM and Half IM guy. My IM PB was a 9:40 in Kona in '07 and my open Marathon PB was a 2:58 in Boston in '08.
Those are fabulous times. It is just that the actual number seems high to me. Currently you have a higher VO2 max than Derek Clayton, Frank Shorter, Peter Snell, Kenny Moore, Alberto Salazar and Sebastian Coe.
I’m confused by this kind of argument. I thought VO2max was just one piece of the puzzle, and a high VO2max does not necessarily equal high performance. Doesn’t efficiency, or economy or whatever the proper term is, make a big difference? Someone like Frank Shorter was renowned for being incredibly efficient to make up for a lower VO2 max number than some of his competition. Couldn’t Bryan’s VO2max be high, whatever the exact number is, without him being as successful as those in the above list?
Are you an Olympic marathoner? That is a pretty high VO2 number…
No, I’m an AG IM and Half IM guy. My IM PB was a 9:40 in Kona in '07 and my open Marathon PB was a 2:58 in Boston in '08.
Those are fabulous times. It is just that the actual number seems high to me. Currently you have a higher VO2 max than Derek Clayton, Frank Shorter, Peter Snell, Kenny Moore, Alberto Salazar and Sebastian Coe.
I’m confused by this kind of argument. I thought VO2max was just one piece of the puzzle, and a high VO2max does not necessarily equal high performance. Doesn’t efficiency, or economy or whatever the proper term is, make a big difference? Someone like Frank Shorter was renowned for being incredibly efficient to make up for a lower VO2 max number than some of his competition. Couldn’t Bryan’s VO2max be high, whatever the exact number is, without him being as successful as those in the above list?
If by not being “as successful”, you mean run a 2:20 marathon, then yes VO2 max is not that predicative. But VO2 is predicative within a range, and while two people (assuming they are trained) with the same VO2 max will probably not run the same time, they won’t be too different either. Basically, a VO2 of 70 and above puts you in an elite category. A 2:58 marathon is great in my opinion, but hardly elite. Thus he is either 1) incredibly ineffecient, undertrained or has bad coach or 2) doesn’t have a 78 VO2 max.
So no, based on his performance I don’t think he has a 78 VO2 max.
our tri team just did vO2 max testing and the highest value we got was 64.8; it was admittedly at 7258 ft elevation and on a bike, but i still don’t think we could have topped 78. impressive!
1st FTP derives from lactate threshold which is a term defined by exercise physiology, 2nd LT also indicates the ability of the muscles to supply energy and determines the fuel mix used carbs/fat. 3rd FTP can be accurately measured and track periodically. 4th LT is the most important physiological determinant for endurance performance. Last, since the metabolic strain when exerting at x intensity is related to power @ LT then knowing FTP can allow you to define levels and to more efficiently target specific physiological training adaptations. Based on that I would say FTP can be a very helpful metric, AeT on the other hand, I don’t know, you tell me…
