Improve VO2Max

1246

Replies

  • OldAssDude
    OldAssDude Posts: 1,436 Member
    tsazani wrote: »
    For the next 4 weeks the only change I will make is to push my 60 min / week cardio average intensity from the green zone (75% MHR) to the yellow zone (85% MHR). So instead of 2 yellow, 2 green, and 3 blue per week it will be 4 yellows and 3 blue zones.

    Did you get your true max heart rate yet?

    If not, those zones are not accurate.
  • fishgutzy
    fishgutzy Posts: 2,807 Member
    I don't even pay attention to that number.
    Most of my aerobic work is swimming. Can't measure it so my VO2max is always in the low range. :D:D:D
  • Tacklewasher
    Tacklewasher Posts: 7,122 Member
    edited February 2019
    53 here (almost 54) and my max is in the 180 range.

    I keep thinking I need to get a chest strap that talks to my watch.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,847 Member
    tsazani wrote: »
    Blue = low intensity (65% MaxHR). Green = moderate intensity (75% MaxHR). Yellow = hard intensity (85% MaxHR).

    I exercise in zones. 30 min per day. 2 days in yellow (resistance), 2 days in green (cardio), and 3 days in blue (yoga).

    My VO2Max is 32. As a 61 year old male this is considered "moderate". I'd like to get to 41 which is "elite" for my age and sex.

    Will the above exericise program get me there?

    A training plan for a race would probably help, or at least will improve other metrics (distance, average speed).
    Conditions will affect the VO2 estimate, depending on how you're measuring it. (A running watch won't take wind speed and temperature into consideration, for instance, but this will certainly affect your effort...Garmin estimate for me tanks in winter and summer).

    I doubt yoga or resistance training will do much/anything. 2x30minutes per week cardio is pretty minimal and probably won't do very much to improve it.
  • ritzvin
    ritzvin Posts: 2,847 Member
    ...I think VO2max is mostly just looked at when trying to estimate/compare possible race times across different distances.. so not necessarily a metric to care that much about unless maybe training for a new race distance and selecting a goal pace.
  • aokoye
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    tsazani wrote: »
    I think my zones are just about right. We older people should not listen to young athletes.

    Last Monday I did my resistance training but I cut the rest between sets. Normally I rest until my HR drops below 75% MHR. Then I do another set. Last Monday's average was 92% MHR (red zone). Normally I average 85% (yellow zone) over 30 min. First time in a over 2 years that I actually got gassed. I was sweating like a maniac. I definitely over did it.

    Tuesday I did my normal yoga. Usually my average is 65% MHR (blue zone). That day it was in the green zone.

    Wednesday I woke up with back pain. So I wasn't able to do anything for 3 days. Yesterday I did 30 min of cardio. Stayed in the green zone the whole time. Average was 75% MHR.

    Today I did my resistance training but I went back to my old way of resting between sets. Average was 82% MHR. Much better.

    It's funny because most of the people who are telling you that the age based numbers your using are not accurate "older people" (your words, not mine). Older, athletic, people. Never mind that I had a conversation with a bunch of "older people" last weekend about how they were planning on going to a lab to get their VO2 max and LT tested.
  • aokoye
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    edited February 2019
    tsazani wrote: »
    I understand the physiology of what I'm doing. I also understand that the age based maximal heart rate formula for older people may not accurate. I had a stress echo done about 6 years ago my max heart rate was 166. Bruce Protocol.

    The problem is that it's not really accurate for the vast majority of the population. There's a story in the NYTimes where it was reported that the formula is inaccurate for essentially everyone, including children. I'm pretty sure @AnnPT77 has mentioned either here or elsewhere (definitely elsewhere and more than once) that the people doing her cardiac stress test didn't allow her to actually get to her max HR, so I wouldn't be so fast to trust that unless it was in an athletic performance lab with the an end goal that didn't involve diagnosing you with X condition or monitoring your cardiac function for health reasons (as opposed to for athletic training reasons).
  • aokoye
    aokoye Posts: 3,495 Member
    AnnPT77 wrote: »
    aokoye wrote: »
    tsazani wrote: »
    Given that my measurements are accurate, my reduced exercise program has REDUCED my VO2Max. Before falling off the wagon and then getting back on last month but doing 30 min of cardio per week instead of the 4 hours I did before.

    I was looking thru my exercise log on Polar Beat. On Aug 4 my VO2Max was 39 (very good). Then it went to 35 (good) on Sept 9th.

    I fell of the wagon for a while. On Dec 12th I was at 32 (moderate). Every week after that I've been at 32 with no improvement.

    In conclusion, if one does the minimum one can be in good shape. To be in better shape one must do more volume and intensity.

    Which measurements were correct? Did you say you used the 220-age to find your maximum HR? That's definitely not accurate for most people. Polar, while a nice company, isn't likely going to give you correct VO2 max measurements if only because the an accurate measurement is going to come from a laboratory a watch and wrist or chest based HR measurements.

    I mean let's be honest, even 4 hours of cardio a week wouldn't get you to an elite level for your age. This thread is now making me want to get my max HR and VO2max tested...though the place I would go doesn't have a rowing machine in their lab (just a stationary bike and a treadmill).

    You (with a helper, and a chest belt HRM with separate monitor or recording device, and an erg) can run a rowing machine HRmax testing protocol developed by a reasonably sound source. Google is your friend.

    Don't do it if you're not medically 100% certain you'll live. ;)

    So, there is a possibility that a group of us are going to take a few ergs to a testing center and LT testing might be involved as well. Apparently three or four of them used to do it once every few years. There was musing as to whether or not we could get a group discount ;)
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 25,278 Member
    aokoye wrote: »
    tsazani wrote: »
    I understand the physiology of what I'm doing. I also understand that the age based maximal heart rate formula for older people may not accurate. I had a stress echo done about 6 years ago my max heart rate was 166. Bruce Protocol.

    The problem is that it's not really accurate for the vast majority of the population. There's a story in the NYTimes where it was reported that the formula is inaccurate for essentially everyone, including children. I'm pretty sure @AnnPT77 has mentioned either here or elsewhere (definitely elsewhere and more than once) that the people doing her cardiac stress test didn't allow her to actually get to her max HR, so I wouldn't be so fast to trust that unless it was in an athletic performance lab with the an end goal that didn't involve diagnosing you with X condition or monitoring your cardiac function for health reasons (as opposed to for athletic training reasons).

    Yeah, the medical stress test techs stopped me substantially before I got to my previously-seen max, even though I had breath enough to argue with them about it while I was still treadmilling.

    They figured they had the data they needed as I got near age-estimated max, and they wouldn't continue. Not saying that's what happens everywhere, but that's what happened to me. Had I not been (much!) higher previously, I would've had no idea it was an early stop.
  • OldAssDude
    OldAssDude Posts: 1,436 Member
    tsazani wrote: »
    I understand the physiology of what I'm doing. I also understand that the age based maximal heart rate formula for older people may not accurate. I had a stress echo done about 6 years ago my max heart rate was 166. Bruce Protocol.

    No. You do not understand the physiology of what you're doing.

    When you get a standard stress test done, they use the standard formula and make you get your heart rate up to a percentage of your max heart rate based on that standard formula.

    I don't know how many times I have to tell you this, but...

    YOU NEED TO GET YOUR TRUE MAX HEART RATE IF YOU WANT TO DO HEART RATE TRAINING.

    Even in the rare event that your true max heart rate is even close to the standard formula and you are training the way you are now, you still are not even doing the bare minimum to improve your VO2max.

    You said you want to improve your VO2max, and people are telling you how to do that, and there are no shortcuts.
  • OldAssDude
    OldAssDude Posts: 1,436 Member
    ritzvin wrote: »
    ...I think VO2max is mostly just looked at when trying to estimate/compare possible race times across different distances.. so not necessarily a metric to care that much about unless maybe training for a new race distance and selecting a goal pace.

    In terms of racing yes.

    But it is also a direct indicator of overall cardio vascular fitness in general terms. IE fitness level.
  • amandaeve
    amandaeve Posts: 719 Member
    I totally recommend a VO2 max lab test. If I followed the Garmin model I would be off by more than a whole zone. Getting personalized zones has been incredibly helpful.

    Also, it seems like a few people here are confusing VO2 max with Max heart rate. Max heart rate is entirely dictated by Gene's and age. VO2 max is only to an extent, the rest varies by training style.
  • AnnPT77
    AnnPT77 Posts: 25,278 Member
    amandaeve wrote: »
    I totally recommend a VO2 max lab test. If I followed the Garmin model I would be off by more than a whole zone. Getting personalized zones has been incredibly helpful.

    Also, it seems like a few people here are confusing VO2 max with Max heart rate. Max heart rate is entirely dictated by Gene's and age. VO2 max is only to an extent, the rest varies by training style.

    Can't speak for others, but I'm trying to say that the genes part is potentially a big deal, since age is such a flawed predictor of HRmax. Ranges set on an incorrect HRmax are incorrect, and training by flawed ranges is less effective.

    VO2max can improve with training, unless/until potential is maxed out . . . somewhere pretty much none of us here is likely to be at this moment.

    Sports lab tests of VO2max and HRmax are a great plan, but can be pricey and logistically difficult for some. Worth considering, if these things are important to a person, absolutely.