Along with age/date/ml/kg/min please note treadmill or bike
.
Age 49, 47.4 running and 46.2 biking
.
50 years old
61.2 run at age 50 in Oct 2012
63.4 bike at 49 in April 2012
I am not sure how to interpret the numbers. I read that a higher VO2 max is useless if not combined with efficiency, but I am not sure how one trains for more efficiency.
Along with age/date/ml/kg/min please note treadmill or bike
This is a good thing to know but isnt FTP as a % of V02 max more interesting? I had a test for both recently and although my overall V02 max was a little low (can be genetic so I understand) my FTP was up at 78%. My training plan is therefore to raise FPT and whilst VO2max can be improved not so much as FPT. Hope I have understood this correctly!
Along with age/date/ml/kg/min please note treadmill or bike
This is a good thing to know but isnt FTP as a % of V02 max more interesting? I had a test for both recently and although my overall V02 max was a little low (can be genetic so I understand) my FTP was up at 78%. My training plan is therefore to raise FPT and whilst VO2max can be improved not so much as FPT. Hope I have understood this correctly!
I think you understand it correctly.
But there is a third element which is “efficiency” which is the amount of power for a given level of oxygen consumption.
My “higher” VO2Max does not translate to a high FTP.
FYI, my FTP was at 85% of VO2max which I think is not too bad. But I have bad “efficiency”.
Just thought of other relevant stuff arsising from my recent test which I didnt know before.
We are mostly told taht to improve we have to train at or just above FPT so that in time the body adapts and improves the % upwards towards V02max. Where I had my test done they talk not only about the first jump i.e first lactate turning point (FTP) but also about the second point at which lactate jumps which is a couple of notches above FTP. So the acedemic at the University looking after me suggests training just below, at and above the second lactate jump which they call MLSS or LT2. MLSS stands for Maximal Lactate Steady State and is the point at which the body can sustain these jumps in lactate but is above FTP. I have done a couple of sessions on the trainer at MLSS and its much harder than say 90 -100 FPT obviously. In terms of power this means for me MLSS occuring at about 15 wattts above FTP and going up to about 60 watts above FPT. The intervals are in the 15 to 20 minute range with a 15 min recovery between them. I managed 2x20 on Monday and will build over the winter.
I’m guessing someone with much more knoweldge will jump in and trash my thinking!
Along with age/date/ml/kg/min please note treadmill or bike
This is a good thing to know but isnt FTP as a % of V02 max more interesting? I had a test for both recently and although my overall V02 max was a little low (can be genetic so I understand) my FTP was up at 78%. My training plan is therefore to raise FPT and whilst VO2max can be improved not so much as FPT. Hope I have understood this correctly!
I think you understand it correctly.
But there is a third element which is “efficiency” which is the amount of power for a given level of oxygen consumption.
My “higher” VO2Max does not translate to a high FTP.
FYI, my FTP was at 85% of VO2max which I think is not too bad. But I have bad “efficiency”.
How do you define “efficiency” By the way from what I know FTP at 85% VO2 max is way up there!
Along with age/date/ml/kg/min please note treadmill or bike
This is a good thing to know but isnt FTP as a % of V02 max more interesting? I had a test for both recently and although my overall V02 max was a little low (can be genetic so I understand) my FTP was up at 78%. My training plan is therefore to raise FPT and whilst VO2max can be improved not so much as FPT. Hope I have understood this correctly!
I think you understand it correctly.
But there is a third element which is “efficiency” which is the amount of power for a given level of oxygen consumption.
My “higher” VO2Max does not translate to a high FTP.
FYI, my FTP was at 85% of VO2max which I think is not too bad. But I have bad “efficiency”.
How do you define “efficiency” By the way from what I know FTP at 85% VO2 max is way up there!
Take a look at this http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12471319
Conclusion : A high CE/GE seems to compensate for a relatively low VO2max in professional cyclists
where CE is cylcing economy and GE is mechanical efficiency
or
http://www.peakfitnessnow.com/cyc_econ.htm
If I can figure out how to fix this Rappstar is in trouble
Oooh, oooh. I’ll play! I want to extend my e-penis a little bit.
84.55 as measured at a university lab. Was on the bike last year. 28 years old at the time.
tested in 2009, run 71.2, bike 69.X, 32 YO and about 145lbs at the time. I’m not that fast. Assuming the test was legitimate, I’m a perfect example of how V02 max is rather limited in its usefulness. It doesn’t tell me anything useful.
Jay
Feckin’ hell! Are you Greg LeMond in disguise :0)
I’m just the ST average 12". ;0)
Oooh, oooh. I’ll play! I want to extend my e-penis a little bit.
84.55 as measured at a university lab. Was on the bike last year. 28 years old at the time.
I quit. I’m taking my ball and going home.
240 ml/kg/min on a treadmill. Woof woof!! Oh, I’m 4, but that’s 28 in human years.
This thread is ridiculous, vo2 max tests based on equipment and procedure are easily inaccurate, not to mention the stat means nothing. If your FTP wasn’t 5.5 W/KG at the time that score is simply not possible.
Smalldick says what?
This thread is ridiculous, vo2 max tests based on equipment and procedure are easily inaccurate, not to mention the stat means nothing. If your FTP wasn’t 5.5 W/KG at the time that score is simply not possible.
At that time, I think it was around an altitude adjusted 5 w/kg on my road bike. That was after training for just over a year.
Baby oh baby, now we’re at 13 inches.
Someone knows very little about the vo2 max as a metric. I’ll take Derek Clayton’s “small” 69 score with his corresponding 2:08 marathon pr over a “high” score of someone who “mysteriously” can’t put any of that ability to the road.
Fair enough. I never said it made me the best athlete of all time. Just threw my number out to win the non-existent prize.
In 2008, when I was 41, it was 64.16 mL/kg on a treadmill.
unless done in a lab on quality equipment, by folks that know what they are doing, and not by podunk trainer/coach at the Y, the info really is completely useless. one could write numbers on pieces of paper, put them in a hat, draw one out and be just as well off.
I did do a vo2 test once, 1st year into cycling, in '93. value sucked…54, told me nothing, but it was free as part of a study. while i hope it is now higher, it doesnt really matter as I can’t train by that value anyway