RMR and VO2 Max Test
RunnerGrl1982
Posts: 412 Member
For anyone who is interested, I had my RMR (Resting Metabolic Rate) and VO2 Max tested this afternoon. The results were pretty surprising and provided some great information!
RMR is basically how much energy you burn when completely at rest over a 24 hour period. This number is acquired through a breathing tube over the course of 'x' minutes once calibrated.
So you can get a general idea about my own number (everyone's will be different based upon multiple variables, age, sex, weight, etc..), I'll provide my basic stats below:
Sex: Female
Age: 36
Height: 5'4
Weight 124
RMR: 1411
1411 is my baseline. So, if I'm nothing, but a couch potato all day long, binge watching Netflix - I'll burn 1411/day. There's a chart that indicates whether your metabolic rate is within normal range, slow or faster than the norm. I was just above the normal range, but pretty darn close, which confirmed something for me I had been curious about! I have hypothyroidism, so my medication is definitely regulated and doing it's job! Woot! No hindrance there, which is what I expected given my levels have been normalized for many years now.
So what's my TDEE or maintenance range? Based upon being completely sedentary, my maintenance range without exercise is 1411 - 1834. Which is pretty awesome, because with MFP - I'm clocking in roughly 1600ish/day without exercise. If, I were to include my exercise, I would add another x amount of calories based upon how much running I've done that day. So, my total TDEE would get me up anywhere between 1900 - 2300 range (this excludes my long run on the weekend which burns me an extraordinary amount of calories due to time sustained running, I'm just talking about regular exercise days of short to mid-distance runs during the week. So my TDEE is actually a bit higher than the range I gave if I include my long run.)
At the end of the day, the data was really nice to see. I'm such a nerd with this stuff, and it's helpful for me to manage my nutritional needs and future training in the future as I progress forward with my own fitness goals.
*****
VO2 Max Test:
I'll make this one shorter, because it can get super technical and long winded.... But VO2 tested my fitness level based upon how well I can maximize my oxygen consumption during an intense workout. It provides a baseline of endurance fitness basically... It also provides a graph of heart rate zones and how many calories you burn per hour based upon which range you are training in.
So, you throw on an oxygen mask and run on a treadmill, where you go through various stages of intense workout progression until you max out your heart rate and can no longer continue.
There's a chart for men and women of athletic and non-athletic capabilities with age ranges, etc... that shows poor, fair, good, excellent, and superior ratings for VO2 and their ranges for each category...
So sum up mine, I learned surprisingly, that for my age I ranked at the baseline for the 'superior' range, which is 40.2. I couldn't believe it! I was so stoked! I nearly did a happy dance in the place. I had low expectations going in, LOL. But clearly, my training has paid off. My Garmin has my VO2 ranked 6 points higher than my actual results, which is pretty impressive actually...my Garmin also nails my exercise calories burned, which is also awesome.
Bottom line, I really loved getting these tests done. They provided relief and a better understanding of where I stand over various metabolic and fitness questions I had.
Thanks for putting up with my rambles, but I wanted to share, and hope it wasn't too much of a bore to read!
RMR is basically how much energy you burn when completely at rest over a 24 hour period. This number is acquired through a breathing tube over the course of 'x' minutes once calibrated.
So you can get a general idea about my own number (everyone's will be different based upon multiple variables, age, sex, weight, etc..), I'll provide my basic stats below:
Sex: Female
Age: 36
Height: 5'4
Weight 124
RMR: 1411
1411 is my baseline. So, if I'm nothing, but a couch potato all day long, binge watching Netflix - I'll burn 1411/day. There's a chart that indicates whether your metabolic rate is within normal range, slow or faster than the norm. I was just above the normal range, but pretty darn close, which confirmed something for me I had been curious about! I have hypothyroidism, so my medication is definitely regulated and doing it's job! Woot! No hindrance there, which is what I expected given my levels have been normalized for many years now.
So what's my TDEE or maintenance range? Based upon being completely sedentary, my maintenance range without exercise is 1411 - 1834. Which is pretty awesome, because with MFP - I'm clocking in roughly 1600ish/day without exercise. If, I were to include my exercise, I would add another x amount of calories based upon how much running I've done that day. So, my total TDEE would get me up anywhere between 1900 - 2300 range (this excludes my long run on the weekend which burns me an extraordinary amount of calories due to time sustained running, I'm just talking about regular exercise days of short to mid-distance runs during the week. So my TDEE is actually a bit higher than the range I gave if I include my long run.)
At the end of the day, the data was really nice to see. I'm such a nerd with this stuff, and it's helpful for me to manage my nutritional needs and future training in the future as I progress forward with my own fitness goals.
*****
VO2 Max Test:
I'll make this one shorter, because it can get super technical and long winded.... But VO2 tested my fitness level based upon how well I can maximize my oxygen consumption during an intense workout. It provides a baseline of endurance fitness basically... It also provides a graph of heart rate zones and how many calories you burn per hour based upon which range you are training in.
So, you throw on an oxygen mask and run on a treadmill, where you go through various stages of intense workout progression until you max out your heart rate and can no longer continue.
There's a chart for men and women of athletic and non-athletic capabilities with age ranges, etc... that shows poor, fair, good, excellent, and superior ratings for VO2 and their ranges for each category...
So sum up mine, I learned surprisingly, that for my age I ranked at the baseline for the 'superior' range, which is 40.2. I couldn't believe it! I was so stoked! I nearly did a happy dance in the place. I had low expectations going in, LOL. But clearly, my training has paid off. My Garmin has my VO2 ranked 6 points higher than my actual results, which is pretty impressive actually...my Garmin also nails my exercise calories burned, which is also awesome.
Bottom line, I really loved getting these tests done. They provided relief and a better understanding of where I stand over various metabolic and fitness questions I had.
Thanks for putting up with my rambles, but I wanted to share, and hope it wasn't too much of a bore to read!
18
Replies
-
I had mine tested 2 years ago - at the time, RMR was 1,500 and VO2 Max was 49.3.1
-
I did my VO2 max a few years ago on a bike and should do a retest to see the changes over time.
I found how the proportion of fat to carb fuel usage changed as the intensity and HR increased quite revealing, it backed up my assumptions and "feelings" about different paces for different length cycling events.
Did you find your max HR was significantly different to calculated or assumed numbers?1 -
@RunnerGrl1982, thanks for sharing. I’m an analytical junkie and love data too. I found your sharing a great read.
Never really mastered an understanding of Vo2 Max, I’m more of a heart rate bpm junkie.1 -
I did my VO2 max a few years ago on a bike and should do a retest to see the changes over time.
I found how the proportion of fat to carb fuel usage changed as the intensity and HR increased quite revealing, it backed up my assumptions and "feelings" about different paces for different length cycling events.
Did you find your max HR was significantly different to calculated or assumed numbers?
Max HR was relatively close to the calculated numbers. It's a bit lower than expected, but that's because I'm still in the beginning stages of increasing my endurance to a higher level. So, hopefully that threshold will increase over time and interval training. My recovery is quite good though in bringing my heart rate back down to norm post workout.
0 -
RunnerGrl1982 wrote: »I did my VO2 max a few years ago on a bike and should do a retest to see the changes over time.
I found how the proportion of fat to carb fuel usage changed as the intensity and HR increased quite revealing, it backed up my assumptions and "feelings" about different paces for different length cycling events.
Did you find your max HR was significantly different to calculated or assumed numbers?
Max HR was relatively close to the calculated numbers. It's a bit lower than expected, but that's because I'm still in the beginning stages of increasing my endurance to a higher level. So, hopefully that threshold will increase over time and interval training. My recovery is quite good though in bringing my heart rate back down to norm post workout.
Mine was 5% higher than calculated and higher than I had ever seen cycling outdoors.
It gave me confidence on extreme hills that although I felt like I was about to expire in reality I had a little headroom left. 4 -
I did my VO2 max a few years ago on a bike and should do a retest to see the changes over time.
I found how the proportion of fat to carb fuel usage changed as the intensity and HR increased quite revealing, it backed up my assumptions and "feelings" about different paces for different length cycling events.
Did you find your max HR was significantly different to calculated or assumed numbers?
Well, you weren't asking me, but I'll jump in. As a 66 year old my HRmax per the old 220-age would be 154. My tested HR max was 178, a huge 24 bpm higher. Just think how far off my training zones would be if I had actually used the formula to set them! I knew that my HR max was in the 180 range from having done self test several times, but getting the lab tested number was well worth the cost. I train regularly at 90%+ of HRmax, so my VO2max was superior, at 53.2, slightly above my Garmin's prediction. I also do lactate threshold training, and it came in at 158 bpm, very close to my own prediction just based on observation and RPE. I'm thrilled with my results and so glad I took the test, but I probably won't do it again since the observed values were so close to my predicted ones. But so worth it to know for sure. I probably will do a Dexa scan now and then to watch body fat since I don't trust my scale's measurement, even though it was close.5 -
RunnerGrl1982 wrote: »I did my VO2 max a few years ago on a bike and should do a retest to see the changes over time.
I found how the proportion of fat to carb fuel usage changed as the intensity and HR increased quite revealing, it backed up my assumptions and "feelings" about different paces for different length cycling events.
Did you find your max HR was significantly different to calculated or assumed numbers?
Max HR was relatively close to the calculated numbers. It's a bit lower than expected, but that's because I'm still in the beginning stages of increasing my endurance to a higher level. So, hopefully that threshold will increase over time and interval training. My recovery is quite good though in bringing my heart rate back down to norm post workout.
I may be misinformed, but my understanding is that HRmax is mostly a genetic kind of thing, tending to decline with age (but that regular exercise seems to keep it higher longer); that training doesn't really increase it by much (unlike the way it affects resting HR downward); that it's neither good nor bad to have a relatively higher or lower healthy max heart rate; and that the main point of knowing it is to calibrate HR-based workout intensity realistically, instead of based on a age-based estimate that may be wildly inaccurate.2 -
RunnerGrl1982 wrote: »I did my VO2 max a few years ago on a bike and should do a retest to see the changes over time.
I found how the proportion of fat to carb fuel usage changed as the intensity and HR increased quite revealing, it backed up my assumptions and "feelings" about different paces for different length cycling events.
Did you find your max HR was significantly different to calculated or assumed numbers?
Max HR was relatively close to the calculated numbers. It's a bit lower than expected, but that's because I'm still in the beginning stages of increasing my endurance to a higher level. So, hopefully that threshold will increase over time and interval training. My recovery is quite good though in bringing my heart rate back down to norm post workout.
I may be misinformed, but my understanding is that HRmax is mostly a genetic kind of thing, tending to decline with age (but that regular exercise seems to keep it higher longer); that training doesn't really increase it by much (unlike the way it affects resting HR downward); that it's neither good nor bad to have a relatively higher or lower healthy max heart rate; and that the main point of knowing it is to calibrate HR-based workout intensity realistically, instead of based on a age-based estimate that may be wildly inaccurate.
Hey Ann! Thanks for chiming in! I'm not terribly knowledgeable myself on the subject, I tend to agree that HRmax is hereditary as far as how high your max will be. You can increase it within certain percentages, provided you are training to your optimum capacity. Likely, at my age, it won't be much of a difference, because I haven't been training for years and years - but at least the possibility of a slight percent change is there. I'm pretty happy as is regardless. Whatever I can aerobically achieve from here on out is bonus. My continuous fitness goal is to simply perform at the highest capabilities I can train to, whatever that threshold may be! 2 -
RunnerGrl1982 wrote: »RunnerGrl1982 wrote: »I did my VO2 max a few years ago on a bike and should do a retest to see the changes over time.
I found how the proportion of fat to carb fuel usage changed as the intensity and HR increased quite revealing, it backed up my assumptions and "feelings" about different paces for different length cycling events.
Did you find your max HR was significantly different to calculated or assumed numbers?
Max HR was relatively close to the calculated numbers. It's a bit lower than expected, but that's because I'm still in the beginning stages of increasing my endurance to a higher level. So, hopefully that threshold will increase over time and interval training. My recovery is quite good though in bringing my heart rate back down to norm post workout.
I may be misinformed, but my understanding is that HRmax is mostly a genetic kind of thing, tending to decline with age (but that regular exercise seems to keep it higher longer); that training doesn't really increase it by much (unlike the way it affects resting HR downward); that it's neither good nor bad to have a relatively higher or lower healthy max heart rate; and that the main point of knowing it is to calibrate HR-based workout intensity realistically, instead of based on a age-based estimate that may be wildly inaccurate.
Hey Ann! Thanks for chiming in! I'm not terribly knowledgeable myself on the subject, I tend to agree that HRmax is hereditary as far as how high your max will be. You can increase it within certain percentages, provided you are training to your optimum capacity. Likely, at my age, it won't be much of a difference, because I haven't been training for years and years - but at least the possibility of a slight percent change is there. I'm pretty happy as is regardless. Whatever I can aerobically achieve from here on out is bonus. My continuous fitness goal is to simply perform at the highest capabilities I can train to, whatever that threshold may be!
I think mainly what training will do is either let you achieve any given pace at a relatively lower heart rate than previously, or let you achieve a faster pace without exceeding previously-seen high heart rates . . . i.e., you get more output per beat. And your resting heart rate may drop, as well. For sure, there are a positive training effects of continued progressive training.
Best wishes!2 -
@RunnerGrl1982 - did you happen to get the data like @sijomial referenced?
Your given lactate or anaerobic threshold number they give can be a nice training number too if you like to do that type or training, and those extra details can be useful for endurance if you like to do that.
Just as HRmax changes little to none with training, VO2max seems to have the biggest changes with training (or lack thereof), and LT/AT less than that.
They might still have your raw data and could give it to you for your own use in spreadsheet.
Great write-up and results.2 -
@RunnerGrl1982 - did you happen to get the data like @sijomial referenced?
Your given lactate or anaerobic threshold number they give can be a nice training number too if you like to do that type or training, and those extra details can be useful for endurance if you like to do that.
Just as HRmax changes little to none with training, VO2max seems to have the biggest changes with training (or lack thereof), and LT/AT less than that.
They might still have your raw data and could give it to you for your own use in spreadsheet.
Great write-up and results.
Hey! I did get a print out of my training zones and other helpful information on my Aet and AT. Looking forward to implementing the data points into my training for the future. 1 -
RunnerGrl1982 wrote: »For anyone who is interested, I had my RMR (Resting Metabolic Rate) and VO2 Max tested this afternoon. The results were pretty surprising and provided some great information!
RMR is basically how much energy you burn when completely at rest over a 24 hour period. This number is acquired through a breathing tube over the course of 'x' minutes once calibrated.
So you can get a general idea about my own number (everyone's will be different based upon multiple variables, age, sex, weight, etc..), I'll provide my basic stats below:
Sex: Female
Age: 36
Height: 5'4
Weight 124
RMR: 1411
1411 is my baseline. So, if I'm nothing, but a couch potato all day long, binge watching Netflix - I'll burn 1411/day. There's a chart that indicates whether your metabolic rate is within normal range, slow or faster than the norm. I was just above the normal range, but pretty darn close, which confirmed something for me I had been curious about! I have hypothyroidism, so my medication is definitely regulated and doing it's job! Woot! No hindrance there, which is what I expected given my levels have been normalized for many years now.
So what's my TDEE or maintenance range? Based upon being completely sedentary, my maintenance range without exercise is 1411 - 1834. Which is pretty awesome, because with MFP - I'm clocking in roughly 1600ish/day without exercise. If, I were to include my exercise, I would add another x amount of calories based upon how much running I've done that day. So, my total TDEE would get me up anywhere between 1900 - 2300 range (this excludes my long run on the weekend which burns me an extraordinary amount of calories due to time sustained running, I'm just talking about regular exercise days of short to mid-distance runs during the week. So my TDEE is actually a bit higher than the range I gave if I include my long run.)
At the end of the day, the data was really nice to see. I'm such a nerd with this stuff, and it's helpful for me to manage my nutritional needs and future training in the future as I progress forward with my own fitness goals.
*****
VO2 Max Test:
I'll make this one shorter, because it can get super technical and long winded.... But VO2 tested my fitness level based upon how well I can maximize my oxygen consumption during an intense workout. It provides a baseline of endurance fitness basically... It also provides a graph of heart rate zones and how many calories you burn per hour based upon which range you are training in.
So, you throw on an oxygen mask and run on a treadmill, where you go through various stages of intense workout progression until you max out your heart rate and can no longer continue.
There's a chart for men and women of athletic and non-athletic capabilities with age ranges, etc... that shows poor, fair, good, excellent, and superior ratings for VO2 and their ranges for each category...
So sum up mine, I learned surprisingly, that for my age I ranked at the baseline for the 'superior' range, which is 40.2. I couldn't believe it! I was so stoked! I nearly did a happy dance in the place. I had low expectations going in, LOL. But clearly, my training has paid off. My Garmin has my VO2 ranked 6 points higher than my actual results, which is pretty impressive actually...my Garmin also nails my exercise calories burned, which is also awesome.
Bottom line, I really loved getting these tests done. They provided relief and a better understanding of where I stand over various metabolic and fitness questions I had.
Thanks for putting up with my rambles, but I wanted to share, and hope it wasn't too much of a bore to read!
Congrats on your incredible stats! I love numbers and goals to improve them too!1 -
So I'm an inch taller and ten pounds heavier than you, OP, and DEXA returned my RMR as low 1300s and that bears out for me with my experience watching my weight and food. I don't have a ton of muscle, perhaps that's the difference? And it's quite a difference if you think about it!0
-
pierinifitness wrote: »@RunnerGrl1982, thanks for sharing. I’m an analytical junkie and love data too. I found your sharing a great read.
Never really mastered an understanding of Vo2 Max, I’m more of a heart rate bpm junkie.
There reason your heart beats faster is to pump more blood, to deliver more oxygen to your body especially the working muscles. VO2max is the biggest/maximum amount/volume of oxygen you can deliver. Most people and labs normalize it to your body weight, so maybe you can deliver 4 liters of oxygen per minute, but "each" kilogram of your body gets 50 ml per minute. (A score of 50 ml/kg/min is very good.)
Your muscles can work without oxygen (anaerobic) as long as you eat enough carbs. But not for very long. What you can do with oxygen is one of the most important things in most types of cardiovascular exercise or sport, and is even important for lifting, but less so.
As you get fitter, your heart gets stronger to pump more blood. Your blood has more plasma to transport more oxygen. All kinds of stuff happens. That's why 150 bmp can mean vastly different things for different people. It's also a reason HRMs are so bad at estimating calories.3 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »So I'm an inch taller and ten pounds heavier than you, OP, and DEXA returned my RMR as low 1300s and that bears out for me with my experience watching my weight and food. I don't have a ton of muscle, perhaps that's the difference? And it's quite a difference if you think about it!
The difference is also OP's was calculated off what body was actually burning in the test.
Yours is still an RMR formula, but based on BF% instead of usual gender, age, weight, height.
And depending on the RMR formula used (some take into account gender, because of the metabolically active organs, a matching LBM between male and female doesn't mean matching RMR), the estimate could still be off.
It is a better place to start though, that can be for sure as you've noticed.3 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »So I'm an inch taller and ten pounds heavier than you, OP, and DEXA returned my RMR as low 1300s and that bears out for me with my experience watching my weight and food. I don't have a ton of muscle, perhaps that's the difference? And it's quite a difference if you think about it!
The difference is also OP's was calculated off what body was actually burning in the test.
Yours is still an RMR formula, but based on BF% instead of usual gender, age, weight, height.
And depending on the RMR formula used (some take into account gender, because of the metabolically active organs, a matching LBM between male and female doesn't mean matching RMR), the estimate could still be off.
It is a better place to start though, that can be for sure as you've noticed.
True. I should note, I was fasted for the test as well (per their directions) to make sure it was as closely accurate as possible.2 -
MelanieCN77 wrote: »So I'm an inch taller and ten pounds heavier than you, OP, and DEXA returned my RMR as low 1300s and that bears out for me with my experience watching my weight and food. I don't have a ton of muscle, perhaps that's the difference? And it's quite a difference if you think about it!
The difference is also OP's was calculated off what body was actually burning in the test.
Yours is still an RMR formula, but based on BF% instead of usual gender, age, weight, height.
And depending on the RMR formula used (some take into account gender, because of the metabolically active organs, a matching LBM between male and female doesn't mean matching RMR), the estimate could still be off.
It is a better place to start though, that can be for sure as you've noticed.
This. A DEXA scan does not measure RMR. It calculates it based on a formula which means it cannot be compared to a metabolic test.
2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.2K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions