Increase VO2MAX?

tsazani

My current exercise program is 45 min 4 days per week. Done at around 70% MHR.

10 min warm up cardio (walking)
15 min resistance
10 min yoga
10 min recovery cardio (swimming).

My VO2Max is 34 which is good for my age. I'd like to get it to 41 which is elite for my age.

Is my exercise program enough to get me there?

sijomial

Is that a tested VO2 number or an estimated number?
Is that a tested MHR or an estimated MHR?

But no - your exercise is very low intensity and low volume, that's not the way to get to elite levels.

NorthCascades

3 hours per week of exercise might get you to "elite" if you have the best genes in history, but for normal people big challenges require huge commitment.

Djproulx

I don't focus on VO2 Max, but I can give you an idea of my workload and numbers as a reference.

If memory serves, my highest numbers were achieved during 2018. I put down a VO2 max of 52 and a cycling VO2 Max of 50. I was injured in 2019 and my fitness plummeted due to 15 months of almost no activity. As of today, my VO2 max is 45 and my cycling VO2 max is 49. This data comes from my Garmin device feed into Garmin Connect. I don't use Connect for anything other than transferring data to another software app that tracks fitness.

My cardio and aerobic fitness comes from 9-16 hours of swimming, cycling and running weekly. Typical week schedule is 3 sessions in each discipline with weekends being longer sessions, such as a long bike/short run on Saturday and a swim/long run on Sundays. Monday is my rest day.

I am a "middle of the pack" performer in long course triathlon races. I will be 64 in November.

MikePfirrman

I don't even do as much as @Djproulx -- not even close. But I'm doing around 6.5 hours of cardio a week and two plus hours of lifting a week in supersets that get my HR up there. I do an hour a day and 90 minutes on Sunday. That doesn't include the five to seven miles I walk on Saturday (my off day) or the 4 miles at golf on Thursday (or the leisure bike rides I take).

You're doing (roughly) 20 minutes of lighter cardio 4X a week. I find that, at minimum, I need to do four days a week of slow steady state work, one day of hard intervals and one day of anaerobic threshold work in order to improve my VO2 Max at all. Any less than that and my cardio fitness just isn't there. I'm likely around your age too (I'll soon be 57). It helps to know your rough max HR first. I wouldn't do a max test with as little of cardio as you do. It might be dangerous, to be honest. But you need to know that first in order to know how hard to push, at the very least, one day a week.

I'd start with increasing your cardio efforts to at least 3 hours or more a week. That's a good starting point.

Djproulx

OP, I agree with the comments (from some very knowledgeable folks) that more volume and intensity would be needed to move the needle on VO2 Max.

With that said, I find that VO2 max is not a particularly useful data point for me. Is there a specific reason for pursuing VO2 max improvement as a goal?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

Djproulx

I'll look to others to respond as well. My answer to you is "It depends". If your primary goal is to increase cardio fitness and drive an uptick in VO2 max, then more cardio work is needed. If you are after the benefits of resistance training, such as increased strength and muscle tone, that is also great. With that said, increasing strength training by 15 min per day will not lead to the uptick in VO2 max that you mentioned in your first post.

As @MikePfirrman noted, in order to really improve VO2 max, you'll need both volume and intensity. His comment about knowing your max HR and then building a safe structured plan that includes doing some higher intensity work is rock solid advice.

naomi8888

I'm not an expert on this but I'd say rather than extending your workouts you need to push into your peak cardio zone. I find spin classes best for this as you can increase resistance and cadence. I usually do three a week. Be sure to spend the majority of time in the peak zone - you have to work hard!

I'm younger than you (early 40's) and female so not sure how it relates but my Apple Watch gives me a pretty consistent VO2 max of 47.1

sijomial

tsazani wrote: »

Great answers. Thanks. I'll also be 64 in November.

My diet is spot on. I'm working on sleeping longer and hopefully better.

I like exercising 4 days per week. I'd like to keep it like that.

I do "the big three" cardio, resistance, and flexibility in every session..

I was thinking of doubling the volumn of resistance training. From 15 min to 30 min per day. My exercise time would go from 45 min to 60 min.

You say I should do 180 min more cardio per week instead? That's 45 min more per day. 45 min to 90 min of exercise per day.

My resistance training is hard. It looks like HIIT on my Polar Flow App. My cardio and yoga are easy. They are done in the blue "fat burning zone".

So...45 min more easy cardio and yoga per day?

Or...15 min more hard resistance training per day?

Or...some volumn increase in both?

VO2 max is (one) measure of CV fitness - you are looking in the wrong place to improve cardio fitness by doing more strength training.
That your strength training gives a spiky HR trace is pretty irrelevant - HR rises during strength training for reasons other than oxygen uptake (the fitness aspect you say you want to improve), it's not an aerobic exercise. Also if your VO2 estimate is coming from a fitness wearable then your estimate is being influenced by that trace and it really shouldn't be.

It's your cardio that drives improvements in VO2 max. Both volume and especially intensity would need to go up massively. You could certainly stick to 4 days a week but what you do in those 4 days would have to completely change.
e.g. As a keen cyclist I'm averaging about 8.5 hrs/week but hit my fitness peak in June doing 13 hrs /week including many rides with very intense efforts. Still didn't get my Garmin estimated VO2 max out of excellent into elite zone.

There is a huge disconnect in your goal and your training:
Short easy cardio - not going to do much for your goal.
Strength training - not going to do much for your goal.
If you look up training plans / sessions designed to boost VO2 max you will mostly see repeated very intense intervals. But in our 60's it's wise to build up to that and I advise building your duration and endurance first rather than focus on what sounds not a particularly useful aspect of fitness to you.
If you reveal what form your cardio takes people could point you towards training resources or plans.

My questions about whether your numbers are estimates or measurements is pretty important to validate your numbers but I'd agree with @MikePfirrman that a maximal effort test would be unwise with your current routine. It took me days to recover from my VO2 max and max HR test in a sports science lab as you push to the point of collapse. You can get a better than the often hopelessly inaccurate age related max HR fairly easily though.

yirara

Nope, you won't really increase your vo2max this way. Also wearables are notoriously off, especially when you happen to do short cardio sessions and your maximum HR settings are off. Hey, I can get my garmin watch to 40 no issue by doing short, faster cardio sessions that are too short to get my HR up to anywhere near longer workout HR. This is just tweaking data to show what you want to see without the benefit of it.

It's of course very individual, but I find that uploading my running data to Runalize gives me a good estimate of VO2max, comparable to an actual exercise test. But: again the maximum heart rate needs to be set correctly (it's likely not 220-age!) and each session needs to be at least 30 minutes long to get an actual working out HR and not a 'I'm still warming up and my HR is not at working out level yet' HR.

SnifterPug

The treadmills at our gym give a VO2max measurement. There is a specific routine they go through to get you to particular heart rates and they measure how fast and at what incline you go before you get there. I used them with a chest strap HR monitor. I'm sure it's not the most accurate, but it is at least consistent and with a chest strap monitor is probably the best I am going to get.

Anyway....

Back in November 2016 I thought my CV fitness was OK. Did my first test. Got only 28 which was below average for my age then (48)

By March 2017 I had got it up to 38. By April 2018 I had got it up to 46 which is roughly where it now tends to sit.

My main CV activity is boxing. To increase the reading I did pretty intense CV four times a week. Mostly boxing, sometimes tabata intervals on the rowing machine. I was working up to being able to do a full set of 12 boxing rounds on the heavy bag (3 minutes work, 1 minute rest - so an exercise time of 47 minutes just on CV). By the time I had got to the 38 reading in March 2017 I think I was getting about 8 rounds before I got so red, sweaty and exhausted that I had to stop. By the 46 reading I was able to do the full 12. Heart rate was peaking to 90% + in most rounds. (I use a Myzone HR monitor which adjusts your max HR upwards if you can maintain red zone for too long, so again it's probably the most accurate I'm going to get without going over the top)

I have to agree with the others that easy cardio is not the way to go to increase VO2max, but you need to build up to the sort of intensity needed.

heybales

@SnifterPug
Those treadmill routines for calculating VO2max can be actually pretty decent. It was likely using one of the common ones.
https://exrx.net/Testing/CardioTests

@tsazani
Your low level stuff can help increase the cell mitochondria using the oxygen, but as they improve, you have to up the intensity.
Just like weight on the bar, you wouldn't expect improvements if the weight never went up asking the body to improve.
Slightly longer sessions at a true 80-85% of HRMax would be the least change I could see helping.
That shouldn't wipe you out so bad as to ruin the next workout, or recovery from the last.

Intervals can work too.
Despite the name in the weblink - this is about SIT actually.
https://exrx.net/Sports/HIIT

From other info on that method I've read - the benefits are short lived if you don't either keep up that routine (which likely won't fit well with leg lifting), or do enough intense LISS to provide body reason for keeping the improvements.
So after that routine may want 1 LISS a week at 85-90% HRMax (LT has probably improved too so this is still in aerobic zone), 1 session of SIT, couple of recovery LISS like you do now.
Place those well with the lifting schedule (like no SIT day before or after leg lifting day) and you may find little to no interference.

During my tri training I became master of big improvements with minimum time investment I didn't have.
Then again I do seem to have a CV system that improves quickly and mainly type I muscle to work with, so genetics matter too.

NorthCascades

tsazani wrote: »

Great answers. Thanks. I'll also be 64 in November.

My diet is spot on. I'm working on sleeping longer and hopefully better.

I like exercising 4 days per week. I'd like to keep it like that.

I do "the big three" cardio, resistance, and flexibility in every session..

I was thinking of doubling the volumn of resistance training. From 15 min to 30 min per day. My exercise time would go from 45 min to 60 min.

You say I should do 180 min more cardio per week instead? That's 45 min more per day. 45 min to 90 min of exercise per day.

My resistance training is hard. It looks like HIIT on my Polar Flow App. My cardio and yoga are easy. They are done in the blue "fat burning zone".

So...45 min more easy cardio and yoga per day?

Or...15 min more hard resistance training per day?

Or...some volumn increase in both?

You have to choose what's important to you. You can keep a moderate exercise load, or you can have "elite" fitness. You can't have both.

Yoga and strength training will not affect your VO2max much, if at all. These are healthy activities, but they don't stress your oxygen transport system. Just like running won't improve your bench press but been still be healthy.

MikePfirrman

NorthCascades wrote: »

tsazani wrote: »

Great answers. Thanks. I'll also be 64 in November.

My diet is spot on. I'm working on sleeping longer and hopefully better.

I like exercising 4 days per week. I'd like to keep it like that.

I do "the big three" cardio, resistance, and flexibility in every session..

I was thinking of doubling the volumn of resistance training. From 15 min to 30 min per day. My exercise time would go from 45 min to 60 min.

You say I should do 180 min more cardio per week instead? That's 45 min more per day. 45 min to 90 min of exercise per day.

My resistance training is hard. It looks like HIIT on my Polar Flow App. My cardio and yoga are easy. They are done in the blue "fat burning zone".

So...45 min more easy cardio and yoga per day?

Or...15 min more hard resistance training per day?

Or...some volumn increase in both?

You have to choose what's important to you. You can keep a moderate exercise load, or you can have "elite" fitness. You can't have both.

Yoga and strength training will not affect your VO2max much, if at all. These are healthy activities, but they don't stress your oxygen transport system. Just like running won't improve your bench press but been still be healthy.

Agreed. And VO2Max, as others have mentioned, isn't the end all, be all of fitness. It's simply a measure of genetics, how much volume you do and training smart. You look great -- quite frankly, thinner and more fit visibly than I do (I need to lose around 10 lbs!).

You seem to have a nice mix that works for you. I'd question why you even care, except as a measure against others. You sound healthy.

Most that care about VO2Max on here are doing some sort of cardio competitions or endurance racing. That's really the only main reason to train your VO2 Max, not as some indicator to compare with others your age.

cwolfman13

tsazani wrote: »

Great answers. Thanks. I'll also be 64 in November.

My diet is spot on. I'm working on sleeping longer and hopefully better.

I like exercising 4 days per week. I'd like to keep it like that.

I do "the big three" cardio, resistance, and flexibility in every session..

I was thinking of doubling the volumn of resistance training. From 15 min to 30 min per day. My exercise time would go from 45 min to 60 min.

You say I should do 180 min more cardio per week instead? That's 45 min more per day. 45 min to 90 min of exercise per day.

My resistance training is hard. It looks like HIIT on my Polar Flow App. My cardio and yoga are easy. They are done in the blue "fat burning zone".

So...45 min more easy cardio and yoga per day?

Or...15 min more hard resistance training per day?

Or...some volumn increase in both?

What you're doing is great for overall health, but it's not going to lead to an elite level of fitness. Even at my peak I'd say my cardiovascular fitness was very good, but I wouldn't say it was elite and I was cycling a combination of long steady state work and interval work training for endurance rides and races and I was putting in a good 8 hours or so per week just cycling. That didn't include my resistance training or yoga which do next to nothing for cardiovascular fitness though they are very good for you and yoga in particular is great for recovery.

If you want a high level of cardiovascular fitness, you're going to have to do a lot more cardio and throw in some higher intensity work.

Right now I'm not doing all that work I used to do and my fitness level is nowhere close to where it was a couple years ago, but I'm content to be maintaining my overall health and just enjoying being recreationally active...but I'd have to bump up my work and actually train again to get back to where I was in 2014-2018.

NorthCascades

VO2 = volume of oxygen. Max = maximal or maximum. How much oxygen you can transport through your body.

For people who are "untrained" the limit can be in the muscles, not being able to use all the oxygen they get. But for most people the working muscles can use all the oxygen you can deliver and then some. The limit is in your ability to pull the stuff out of the air, and pump it through your body. That's why it's called cardio, you might be using your legs but you're stressing your heart to provide for them. 🙂

That's also why yoga doesn't improve your VO2max. Yoga is fantastic for balance, flexibility, functional strength, and just comfort art using your body. It doesn't make you gasp for breath because it doesn't require tons of extra oxygen.

You can look at the total amount of oxygen you're using, but almost everyone normalizes it by body weight which is more useful in most contexts. So when you say yours is 34 but you want it to be 41, that means milliliters of oxygen per kilogram of you, per minute. Now you can't change how long a minute is or how much a milliliter is, but you can get rid of some KGs of you and improve the score. 🙂

Unknown

This content has been removed.

NorthCascades

Djproulx wrote: »

OP, I agree with the comments (from some very knowledgeable folks) that more volume and intensity would be needed to move the needle on VO2 Max.

With that said, I find that VO2 max is not a particularly useful data point for me. Is there a specific reason for pursuing VO2 max improvement as a goal?

This sentiment was repeated a few times in this thread by a few people. Because it's pretty much a consensus. I thought some context might be useful. 🙂

OP is working at 70% MHR. Some people lift 90% of their one-rep max. On the bike, I do intervals at X% of my threshold power. Nobody really goes out and does exercise at whatever % of their VO2max. People also don't say "I'd like to do another 20 minutes but my VO2 is only N so I shouldn't." Your VO2max just isn't relevant to anything you're going to do in the moment while you exercise. It is a truth universally acknowledged.

Your VO2max turns out to be the best predictor of whether you'll be around next year. It's literally better to be on dialysis than to have a very low VO2. 😳 Because, again, it's heart and lung function, if that's good you aren't dying of CV disease or a lot of other things. It's normalized by weight which is obviously implicated in many health conditions. High VO2max means good health is many ways. So it's a great goal! 😁

Since this is a weight loss site for a lot of people, I'll say again that losing weight is a really good lever to pull. Beyond that, I think more volume at less intensity is going to have more of a lasting effect than something like HIIT.

NorthCascades

tsazani wrote: »

Thanks all.

So far my Polar watch tells me my exercise is "productive".

When tells me I'm "maintaining" or "detraining" I'm going to add 10 min of rowing machine right after yoga.

Should I do this at 70% MHR? Or go for higher?

It sounds like your Polar watch probably licenses Firstbeat technology, because my Garmin watch does the same thing. 🙂 Firstbeat is good stuff. 🙂 🙂 Do you have the training load and load focus features?

Unknown

This content has been removed.

ritzvin

tsazani wrote: »

My current exercise program is 45 min 4 days per week. Done at around 70% MHR.

10 min warm up cardio (walking)
15 min resistance
10 min yoga
10 min recovery cardio (swimming).

My VO2Max is 34 which is good for my age. I'd like to get it to 41 which is elite for my age.

Is my exercise program enough to get me there?

Basically no cardio in there, so very unlikely. If you are looking to improve your cardio performance, you'll want to add some quality cardio sessions (rather than tossing a bit in during your weight training). One possible way to go about it would be to look up race training plans online for a structured program (be it running, cycling, swimming, or whatever). (These will typically have a combination of long lower intensity stuff and shorter higher intensity stuff).

ritzvin

..Also note that the VO2 estimate for a session can vary with external conditions affecting your performance on that particular day. (If you have difficulty processing freezing cold air or running in excessive heat... that will get reflecting by the estimate given by your fitness watch).

Djproulx

NorthCascades wrote: »

Djproulx wrote: »

OP, I agree with the comments (from some very knowledgeable folks) that more volume and intensity would be needed to move the needle on VO2 Max.

With that said, I find that VO2 max is not a particularly useful data point for me. Is there a specific reason for pursuing VO2 max improvement as a goal?

This sentiment was repeated a few times in this thread by a few people. Because it's pretty much a consensus. I thought some context might be useful. 🙂

OP is working at 70% MHR. Some people lift 90% of their one-rep max. On the bike, I do intervals at X% of my threshold power. Nobody really goes out and does exercise at whatever % of their VO2max. People also don't say "I'd like to do another 20 minutes but my VO2 is only N so I shouldn't." Your VO2max just isn't relevant to anything you're going to do in the moment while you exercise. It is a truth universally acknowledged.

Your VO2max turns out to be the best predictor of whether you'll be around next year. It's literally better to be on dialysis than to have a very low VO2. 😳 Because, again, it's heart and lung function, if that's good you aren't dying of CV disease or a lot of other things. It's normalized by weight which is obviously implicated in many health conditions. High VO2max means good health is many ways. So it's a great goal! 😁

Since this is a weight loss site for a lot of people, I'll say again that losing weight is a really good lever to pull. Beyond that, I think more volume at less intensity is going to have more of a lasting effect than something like HIIT.

This thread has generated some interesting discussion. @NorthCascades, I'm glad you made these points, since my comments may have led some to believe there is no value in understanding VO2 max. I realize that my perspective might be limited because my goals are to build endurance and get faster in races, so VO2 max improvements happen as a by product of my efforts to meet different goals.

That's probably not what most people care about. Your point about VO2 as a gauge for health is useful to keep in mind.

NorthCascades

@Djproulx I don't think your comments were limited at all. Especially in the context of an exercise forum. You made some excellent comments about genetics and workload that I still want to touch on. 🙂 If you do a lot of HIIT and your watch increases your score, great!, but 5 years from now you won't be able to tell that it happened unless you keep doing HIIT every week, so we need to talk more about the health picture. 🙃

sijomial

tsazani wrote: »

Thanks all.

So far my Polar watch tells me my exercise is "productive".

When tells me I'm "maintaining" or "detraining" I'm going to add 10 min of rowing machine right after yoga.

Should I do this at 70% MHR? Or go for higher?

I've no idea why you limit yourself to 70% of your estimated MHR but I'd be tempted to add in some harder efforts as a contrast to the rest of your routine.
There are health benefits to older athletes from high intensity work which would be complimentary to the rest of your exercise routine. "Fast After 50" by Joe Friel is a facinating book. (Even though I wasn't fast before 50!)

Concept2 has a VO2 max estimator based on your 2000m rowing time which might be an interesting comparison to your watch.
https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/vo2max-calculator

I had doubts about the actual number (think I hit a best of 53?) but declining time for the distance is a genuine performance improvement indicator.

yirara

NorthCascades wrote: »

tsazani wrote: »

Thanks all.

So far my Polar watch tells me my exercise is "productive".

When tells me I'm "maintaining" or "detraining" I'm going to add 10 min of rowing machine right after yoga.

Should I do this at 70% MHR? Or go for higher?

It sounds like your Polar watch probably licenses Firstbeat technology, because my Garmin watch does the same thing. 🙂 Firstbeat is good stuff. 🙂 🙂 Do you have the training load and load focus features?

It's ok what Firstbeat is doing. but it only works with a properly chosen maximum HR and with workouts that are long enough for HR to stabilize as it uses a function that includes effort and HR. The lower the HR for an exercise, the higher the calculated VO2max. If it's only a short exercise where HR never really got up properly then results can be very odd. I'm also not sure how threadmills and rowers are used in this as pace relative to HR is likely not taken into account.

Djproulx

sijomial wrote: »

tsazani wrote: »

Thanks all.

So far my Polar watch tells me my exercise is "productive".

When tells me I'm "maintaining" or "detraining" I'm going to add 10 min of rowing machine right after yoga.

Should I do this at 70% MHR? Or go for higher?

I've no idea why you limit yourself to 70% of your estimated MHR but I'd be tempted to add in some harder efforts as a contrast to the rest of your routine.
There are health benefits to older athletes from high intensity work which would be complimentary to the rest of your exercise routine. "Fast After 50" by Joe Friel is a facinating book. (Even though I wasn't fast before 50!)

Concept2 has a VO2 max estimator based on your 2000m rowing time which might be an interesting comparison to your watch.
https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/vo2max-calculator

I had doubts about the actual number (think I hit a best of 53?) but declining time for the distance is a genuine performance improvement indicator.

+1 for Friel's "Fast After 50" as a fascinating read.

Friel lays out the factors facing us as we age(depressing, I know, lol) then gives strategies to mitigate the impacts on performance. The real life examples and proven strategies are inspiring.

Unknown

This content has been removed.

MikePfirrman

sijomial wrote: »

tsazani wrote: »

Thanks all.

So far my Polar watch tells me my exercise is "productive".

When tells me I'm "maintaining" or "detraining" I'm going to add 10 min of rowing machine right after yoga.

Should I do this at 70% MHR? Or go for higher?

I've no idea why you limit yourself to 70% of your estimated MHR but I'd be tempted to add in some harder efforts as a contrast to the rest of your routine.
There are health benefits to older athletes from high intensity work which would be complimentary to the rest of your exercise routine. "Fast After 50" by Joe Friel is a facinating book. (Even though I wasn't fast before 50!)

Concept2 has a VO2 max estimator based on your 2000m rowing time which might be an interesting comparison to your watch.
https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/vo2max-calculator

I had doubts about the actual number (think I hit a best of 53?) but declining time for the distance is a genuine performance improvement indicator.

I've used that C2 calculator to estimate my VO2 Max times. But they have the Untrained and Trained backward. If you're "untrained", yours should be higher, not lower, because your times are lower due to efficiency. At my peak, my VO2 Max was around 50, which at that time, for a 53 year old, was impressive. It's not close to that now (around mid to low 40s. But I'm what would be "highly trained", so mine should now go down if you pick that option, but it goes up instead.

Unknown

This content has been removed.