VO2 Max Endurance Sports

ironhajee

Hello esteemed MFP Team!

This discussion is about VO2 max workouts! Feel free to brag about your number (if it's 94 you are a god) or feel free to post a suggestion or scientific facts about VO2

Any suggestions or example workouts for training VO2 max would be welcome as well.

Cheers MFP

sijomial

I'm a long distance cyclist, non-competitive (except with myself!) solo rider or Audax events.
Just turned 56 and with a VO2 max in range 50 - 54.

You may find this article interesting on winter training discussing pros and cons of high intensity versus steady base training.
http://roadcyclinguk.com/how-to/should-you-do-high-intensity-training-rather-than-base-training-during-winter.html#HUjQb1QCevbd2vzJ.97

My winter training is a mixture of both steady state and intervals.

Long duration intervals on a power meter equipped trainer, currently 8 min intervals low and high intensity with about 100 watts difference between the two levels for an hour or more. Building up steadily to 12 minute intervals.

Also do a hill interval program on a Spinning bike to improve my climbing power - 2:30min intervals of fast flat, seated climb and standing climbing for an hour.

ironhajee

Okay so that's very impressive! My next question is, during a one week training plan, how many workouts do you focus on VO2 max training or do you try to train VO2 every session?

Thank you for your insight!

ironhajee

Great article P.S

sijomial

Typically in winter I will be training twice a week at high intensity but not always intervals and once at a medium pace.
In summer it changes to nearly always outdoor cycling - mixture of fast/short fairly flat rides, hills, long distance at steady pace.

Hit my peak VO2 max following a (mostly) five times a week training plan in the 8 weeks leading up to a 114 mile event, mixture of one long ride a week, intervals & easy/steady rides.
https://www.bhf.org.uk/~/media/files/events/training-plans/cycling-training-plans/cyclingadvancedtrainingplan.pdf

By the way I use the "Fitness Test / OwnIndex" feature on my Polar FT60 to estimate and track my VO2 max.
Result is suspiciously close to the VO2 max = 15.3 x (MHR/RHR) formula so maybe that's what the HRM is using?

drachfit

(mostly indoor) rower clocking in at 71 as a lightweight (155lbs) / 27 years old. unfortunately this is a number calculated from my 2k race result. I really wish I could get lab tested, you know, get hooked up to that breathing mask, have my finger stuck every 2 minutes to measure lactate, and be forced to row/bike until failure. wooooo hoooo.

very few sessions dedicated directly to VO2 max training. The closest thing would be once a week sprint sessions consisting of 8x500m / 2min rest or 4x1000m / 2m rest. But I think direct VO2 training has shorter work intervals and shorter rests.

The rest of the workouts are 1 medium distance interval (4x2km / 5 min rest) and the rest is long distance stuff usually 10-15km+. 5-8 sessions per week total.

ironhajee

Anyone else know their VO2 number?

Share!

ilex70

Using this formula:

VO2 max = 15.3 x (MHR/RHR)

MHR = Maximum heart rate (beats/minute) calculated using age = 208 - (0.7 x age)

RHR = Resting heart rate (beats/minute) = number of heart beats in 20 seconds x 3

I get 50 for mine. Which is nuts and frankly hard to believe. Used a stopwatch function on my phone twice this morning to check RHR and got 54 both times...have gotten as low as 50 at times.

I'm 45 and charts say over 36.9 is excellent for my age. Had a stress test last year and was told my results were really good for my age. Lost weight since then and still have up to 45 to go dependent on body fat/waist measurements.

I do like cardio, but I don't do that much.

Seriously curious about trying rowing since we have a local club. Need to work on swimming and be able to shift and haul 50 pounds on my own to use a scull, so I've got that to work on.

So, yeah, don't know if it is for real. But nice to find something positive health wise vs. all the negative family history crap that is coming my way in middle age.

JaseG86

Well I'm 29 and I've used that formula a few times out of curiosity, typically somewhere between 60 and 68 at the minute.
A couple of years ago it was always in the high 70's.
I've never specifically targeted it but when it was at it's highest I was playing 5-a-side football 3 times a week, squash twice a week, plus interval training on an exercise bike at least a couple of times a week.

glevinso

That formula is fairly useless. It gives me 51, but I can easily exceed the "calculated" max heart rate. My last measured VO2 Max test I put down a 64.

robertw486

I've never tested other than the estimates, and even then didn't bother with the specific test method, but used known numbers I already had from previous workouts. And really I only did that to get a base number to work with, since I wanted to do a HIIT workout that required output at 170% of VO2max.

I've done quite a bit of higher intensity stuff and steady state, and I'm sure I've improved my number. But really the number means little in terms of ability to improve paces and such, as compared to actually having improved that pace.

At some point I might do some DIY testing, but even then which method to use comes into play. The way I see it though actual hard numbers would be great, they aren't the whole picture. Being that VO2max, lactate threshold, FTP tests, etc all often use a specific test method, they also possibly ignore the entire picture. Since most of them use some type of abbreviated test, under specific warm up and pre test conditions, etc.... they introduce possible flaw.

Though I have no doubt proper testing aligns with results most of the time, if my goal is the fastest one hour run, bike, swim, or any other exercise in specific, the best proof of my personal improvements is seeing faster times. If I know that I improved, I might know some test conditions would have shown it as well, but if the test conditions don't match my workout then in the long run the workout should trump.


Which protocol or DIY have most used for their VO2max testing?

ironhajee

I personally have no experience with VO2 max testing. Eventually I'd like to have that tested once my fitness levels improve.

SingingSingleTracker

ironhajee wrote: »

I personally have no experience with VO2 max testing. Eventually I'd like to have that tested once my fitness levels improve.

Seriously - unless you are considering going pro in an endurance sport, don't even bother.

robertw486

SingingSingleTracker wrote: »

ironhajee wrote: »

I personally have no experience with VO2 max testing. Eventually I'd like to have that tested once my fitness levels improve.

Seriously - unless you are considering going pro in an endurance sport, don't even bother.

Agreed. Though there is no harm in testing to get a number, you can increase it without the number. Really unless your oxygen uptake is so low that you can't start to exercise to improve it much, then there isn't much of a problem. Then again, I think VO2max does limit some before the muscle groups do, but that might vary quite a bit.

jonoc87

My vo2 max must be garbage. Im so unfit, but im trying hard to get it up slowly

ironhajee

From what I understand, the VO2 max is a genetic factor. However with training it can be increased 15 - 20% and some individuals may never even tap into their true VO2.

glevinso

SingingSingleTracker wrote: »

ironhajee wrote: »

I personally have no experience with VO2 max testing. Eventually I'd like to have that tested once my fitness levels improve.

Seriously - unless you are considering going pro in an endurance sport, don't even bother.

This. But even in the pro athlete case it isn't a terribly useful metric to have. Maybe for sprinters. But endurance athletes care more about their lactate thresholds than VO2Max.

ironhajee

An argument can be made by a more experieced individual that Vo2 max can definitely be a useful metric for endurance sports.

blues4miles

ironhajee wrote: »

An argument can be made by a more experieced individual that Vo2 max can definitely be a useful metric for endurance sports.

I just finished reading The Sports Gene (recommend it for sports/fitness enthusiasts who are interested in a little of the genes versus training stuff!) and one of the coaches the author speaks with says it's not worth testing for your V02Max because in general it's used to determine what your training paces might be or what you might be capable of...but at that point it's easier to just test your training and see exactly what you're capable of. I forget the analogy he used but he said it was akin to measuring a person's height by dropping something from a building and timing how long it took for the thing you dropped to land on them. Like it's a roundabout method of getting at what you really want, which is what you're really capable of. Researchers obviously use it for different reasons but athletes probably are better off doing time trials to see what they can do was the opinion of the coach.

glevinso

blues4miles wrote: »

ironhajee wrote: »

An argument can be made by a more experieced individual that Vo2 max can definitely be a useful metric for endurance sports.

I just finished reading The Sports Gene (recommend it for sports/fitness enthusiasts who are interested in a little of the genes versus training stuff!) and one of the coaches the author speaks with says it's not worth testing for your V02Max because in general it's used to determine what your training paces might be or what you might be capable of...but at that point it's easier to just test your training and see exactly what you're capable of. I forget the analogy he used but he said it was akin to measuring a person's height by dropping something from a building and timing how long it took for the thing you dropped to land on them. Like it's a roundabout method of getting at what you really want, which is what you're really capable of. Researchers obviously use it for different reasons but athletes probably are better off doing time trials to see what they can do was the opinion of the coach.

This. Time trialing is really the best way to work out your performance zones. Whether or not that is a formal lactate threshold test, or an actual TT, the result will be a real-world performance metric to base your training paces/power/zones. The VO2Max test is also a way to figure it out but it is not as useful for the real world.

ironhajee

All very good feedback indeed! Thank you very much for a stimulating discussion. In the future, if I have the resources available to m, I would definitely have it tested!

I am in training for Ironman Triathlon and yes I agree LT is also a good test! I need to research more on these topics!

Djproulx

As glevinso notes, if performance in endurance sports are your aim, LT is probably the most useful measurement.

robertw486

Bumping for further input....


The more I dig, the more I personally see VO2max as a useless number for just about anyone worried about performance for more than a brief period. Due to the differences in protocols used to test it, along with constant variations being possible, it's a number that is elusive as any exact, yet won't determine much for performance regardless.

It seems that LT testing is similar, with various methods to test. However in the case of LT testing, a person could better calculate a distance factor or known power measure, along with a true indication of pace maintained over a period of time, usually at least a half hour and more often one hour. Having an absolute way to measure time and distance, or some form of power meter on a bike trainer, Velotron, or anything with a watt meter, would give a much more useful metric a person could use.

If wattage is known, then VO2 could be calculated, as well as calories. Net wattage or calories could be adjusted to gross if desired by simply adding one MET into the net numbers. Since VO2 absolute is obviously proof to be operating below VO2max (using the half hour or hour TT test), a person could set a known low point that their VO2max would by most testing provide a higher number than proven absolute VO2.


As an example, the link below is based on the ACSM predictions, which align with the study often referenced in the Runners World article.

exrx.net/Calculators/WalkRunMETs.html

For any given one hour run distance x the weight input, it delivers a VO2 number. Since VO2max includes RMR, using the calculation for gross energy would include the metabolic overhead estimate of the RMR. VO2max would be this number at a minimum IMO, as long as you did your test based on a length high enough to overcome any short term output above VO2max.


This to me also exposes a flaw in any DIY (no metabolic cart) testing, since at short time intervals a person might be able to overcome their actual oxygen uptake limits with brief periods of intensity beyond that point. Though the time might be shortened, it could be enough for a person to fool the VO2max number into higher ranges.



Thoughts?

ironhajee

Lol I'm going to be as honest as possible. I have no idea what was just explained in the previous comment lol.

But I concur? I guess *erm* yeah... I concur...

ironhajee

My follow up question is why do pro endurance athletes then find this V02 number and V02 max training to be a useful metric ...?? most of the comments here have suggested V02 max is "useless" ... but it seems the majority of professional endurance athletes hold VO2 max in high regard

robertw486

@ironhajee

What I was doing in the above post was essentially "reverse engineering" a VO2max number, based on proven performance. Though the number might differ from a test, in my view real world numbers are more meaningful in the big picture.

As for your question, I think it's another metric that some people do pay attention to due to the variety of sports they are active in. And in some cases might be useful to determine maximum pace a person could sustain. But as an example, if your VO2max test shows you are in excellent condition and able to sustain a quicker run than your legs will tolerate, you still can't run that pace for long.

As tested, most VO2max testing is aimed at figuring out maximal oxygen uptake short term. But it's no indication of the ability to perform to a level that would require that level of oxygen use for any given amount of time. I actually think the testing could be designed to both test VO2max as well as anaerobic capacity, which might give better indications of both short term and long term abilities.

ironhajee

Thanks for the explanation! @robertw486

NorthCascades

I have a Garmin Fenix 3 watch and a power meter on my bike, so, for the past year or so, I've taken a VO2max test most days. To take a test I need to run outdoors with an HRM for 10+ minutes, or ride with HRM (and power) for 20+ minutes. It charts my running and cycling VO2max separately and I can see how they've changed (not much) over time.

I don't do anything with the results, except use them as one market of fitness. I trust this less than other ways people gauge fitness because it has less real-world application than 20-minute mean maximal power or time to ride a 40 km time trial. Certainly I don't base my zones on VO2max, I train by zones based on my FTP. It has nothing to do with how my bike calories are calculated, either; since I have a power meter those just come from the amount of work I've done.

My understanding is that VO2max has some predicate power. My watch estimates how long it will take me to run several race lengths purely from my VO2max. I don't run much so I can't say how accurate they are.

robertw486

@NorthCascades Just curious, but what are your thoughts on skewed VO2max testing by being familiar with the protocol used? I personally think I could cheat my VO2max high on a familiar piece of equipment, but outputting bursts in the above max level.

Once I saw the flaws in DIY testing, I just reverse engineer the VO2 based on actual performance at the longer real world work performed.

sarabushby

Hi OP,
I recently had VO2 & LT tested in a lab on the treadmill, I'm 32 and enjoy triathlon as my hobby. My VO2 came out at 50 which is 'above average' for females but my running economy / lactate threshold were low so I was advised to increase the volume of run training I do at a HR 71% of max. In my case max was measured at 189, so HR for lactate training is 153bpm. It's only been about a month since I received & started following this advice but I've already achieved new PBs and feel positive about the direction my fitness & running is heading.

Not sure if that helps or is of interest but thought it might be an interesting example of how you can use the data to influence your training & results.

EvgeniZyntx

ironhajee wrote: »

My follow up question is why do pro endurance athletes then find this V02 number and V02 max training to be a useful metric ...?? most of the comments here have suggested V02 max is "useless" ... but it seems the majority of professional endurance athletes hold VO2 max in high regard

No, it isn't that it is held in high regard, it is that VO2Max estimate or tested is useful to identify and calculate other parameters like LT and calories. It's an easy number to track.