Increase VO2MAX?
Replies
-
@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. 🙃2
-
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.4 -
NorthCascades 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.0 -
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.2 -
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.1 -
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.
Just to repeat this, as it seems to have been overlooked and people are putting some weight in what their wearbles are telling them. Wearables are notoriously off on measuring SpO2. I have personally confirmed this as I've twice double-checked SpO2 against whatever pulse oximeter they use in Cardiac ICU; once from a Garmin VivoSmart 4 and again with an Instinct Solar. According to my ICU nurse, the VivoSmart was telling me I should be dying (64%) while the ICU pulse oximeter concurrently said 97%. And the Instinct Solar had me below 75% most of the time vs 96% from the PO. So, while you're going through all the mental gymnastics of maximizing your health based off what your wearable is reporting, remember that the wearable is "ball-park" accurate at best.
1 -
It sounds like you are set in your ways as to what amount and intensity of exercise you are willing to do, based on concepts you learned a long time ago. These methods, as many others have mentioned here, are not going to get you to what you state as your goal, and your device and generic apps are not going to get you there either. You seem to be following methods for fat loss and muscle tone, but neither of those is your stated goal. There is nothing wrong with low intensity cardio, but it has to be done for a much longer period to contribute toward building a good cardio base.
That base is also simply a starting point which then needs to have structured higher intensity workouts added in order to for your body to trigger change. You simply are not putting enough of a workload onto your cardiovascular system to stimulate any significant change. If you don't want to follow the advice of the many here who have given excellent tips and keep reverting back to what has gotten you to where you are today (which sounds like solid health and fitness) or adding incrementally more of the same, then you are not going to see a change. You also may just not have the genetic makeup to ever get to elite levels, no matter how much training you do. But you'll never find out if you don't change your program to something designed for your goal. I'm not sure why you only want to make small changes to your routine when you are seeking a significant change from your body.2 -
OP, you clearly have a working program in place that has delivered great weight loss and health management results. In reading over the later posts, a couple points mentioned by @ritzvin and @johnrsinger452 may be helpful if you decide to really focus on VO2 improvements.
There are lots of online training plans for endurance athletes that lay out 80%low intensity, 20% higher intensity programs designed to increase fitness. These plans would give you a path forward from your current base to a fitness level that would be appropriate for high intensity work.
So, if you choose to build cardio fitness to the appropriate level, here are some examples of high intensity work that I like:
Swimming (pool). a)sets of 25 yard sprints with 10 second recovery b) sets of 100's, with odd 100s fast, even 100s moderate. 10 sec recovery c) 4 x 400s, building speed within each one(first 100 easy, last 100 all out) 20 sec recovery
Bike indoors: Any high intensity spin class would be good. I do similar work on my bike trainer at home. Few different routines. a) Once your functional threshold is known, 2minute intervals toggling just above to just below threshold. b) any type of functional threshold performance work (FTP), such as 2 x8minute test, 20 minute test,
ramp test, etc.
Bike outdoors: hill repeats, or fartlek efforts (Increase pace for varying amounts of time/distance)
Running. Track work. a) after a warm up jog, then alternating laps (1/4mile) with odd laps at threshold pace (5k race pace) and even laps at recovery pace (1/2marathon pace). b) Fartlek routines c) "Popsicle Stick" intervals which is carrying a small marker and running for a fixed time, say 2 minutes. Drop the marker. walk back to start. Repeat this 4-8 times with the goal of moving the stick farther each time.
Running - Other: Stairs. Running up long sets of stairs, or a similar hill, such as a berm, then jogging back down.
Finally, I understand that this stuff may not be of interest to you. These workouts are taxing and often very uncomfortable. (e.g. FTP test). With that said, they give a view of what level of effort is typical for those looking for big jumps in cardio/VO2 fitness.
1 -
YellowD0gs wrote: »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.
Just to repeat this, as it seems to have been overlooked and people are putting some weight in what their wearbles are telling them. Wearables are notoriously off on measuring SpO2. I have personally confirmed this as I've twice double-checked SpO2 against whatever pulse oximeter they use in Cardiac ICU; once from a Garmin VivoSmart 4 and again with an Instinct Solar. According to my ICU nurse, the VivoSmart was telling me I should be dying (64%) while the ICU pulse oximeter concurrently said 97%. And the Instinct Solar had me below 75% most of the time vs 96% from the PO. So, while you're going through all the mental gymnastics of maximizing your health based off what your wearable is reporting, remember that the wearable is "ball-park" accurate at best.
The blood saturation sensor has exactly zero to do with the way uptake is estimated.
You measure oxygen utilization with a gas mask and a machine that does a chemical analysis of the stuff going into your lungs and the stuff coming out. Nobody in this thread so far seems confused about whether that's happening or not. 🙂
There are a bunch of formulas for estimating VO2max, they've been around for decades. Based on things like how fast you can run a mile, and other performance tests. There are formulas you can look up for turning pace or power and heart rate into VO2. Firstbeat, who make the software in our watches, improve on this by being choosy about what data they put into that formula. (They published a white paper on how their software works.) For most people, it's generally within a few points of the truth.
Again, this has absolutely nothing to do with SPO2. A juror in the OJ trial said she didn't trust DNA evidence because she took a pregnancy test that was wrong once. Taking an SPO2 test that was wrong doesn't mean no measurement can ever be right. 🙂2 -
Wait, I think I see what's going on.
SPO2 is how saturated your blood is with oxygen, how close it is to capacity. At the moment and place it's measured.
VO2max is how much oxygen you're capable of transporting to all of your body.
Quick thought experiment: your blood is 100% saturated. Your HR is 100 bpm. Then you go up hill and it's 150 bpm. Now you're delivering more oxygen to your muscles even though the blood itself is 100% saturated in both cases. 🙂2 -
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?NorthCascades 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.
@tsazani, @yirara brings up several good points. I assume you've set the correct value for your maximum heart rate and that it's being measured accurately. 🙂 I'm also assuming it must be using your walking activity to estimate your VO2max? If so you might try doing a walk at the very end too and compare notes? @yirara is right about this. I've never used the walking VO2 test, I can't say anything from experience there. My experience with the VO2max feature is with cycling, I'm on the bike an hour and a half at a time on average, the software has lots of data to chew on.0 -
When I do my VO2MAX test on my Polar watch I lie down, relax, and don't move at all.. Basically meditating.
There is zero previous exercise. The test takes 5 minutes.
It's just making an assumption based on your resting heart variability then.
As you would probably guess making an estimate of maximum intensity capability from a test performed at your minimum intensity is the least accurate method of all those available.
Garmin watches and devices do it differently to Polar and involve someone doing a sub-maximal exercise routine or just making assumptions from running pace vs HR or for cycling, power meter reading vs HR. Middling accuracy with actual measurement by breath analysis being the best.
But of course getting an improving trend is a perfectly valid goal and the big advantage of watches is the easy repeatability.2 -
"But of course getting an improving trend is a perfectly valid goal and the big advantage of watches is the easy repeatability."
Exactly. I am extremely pleased with the results of my diet and exercise programs. I WON the game!
For 30 years I ate SAD and tried to exercise my way out of it. Nuts. I was overweight (highest BMI = 29.5) diagnosed with T2D in 2005 (highest A1c = 6.7) stressed out and miserable. Taking 7 different meds at one time for this.
5 years ago I did a 180. Started eating a LCHF / keto diet (aka healthy Atkins diet) and did / do minimal volumn low intensity exercise.
Today I'm at my ideal weight (BMI = 23.5) My diabetes is reversed (A1c = 5.1). And I was able to stop those 7 meds.
This is why I'm extremely reluctant to change my basic approach to diet and exercise. But I'm willing to SLOWLY increase exercise volumn and intensity.
My 3 rules for exercise.
1. Don't get hurt
2. Don't get hurt
3. Don't get hurt
Couldn't agree more with your rules. Those 3 exercise rules are exactly the same as mine. I learned this the hard way....twice.0 -
"Couldn't agree more with your rules. Those 3 exercise rules are exactly the same as mine. I learned this the hard way....twice."
I WISH I could say TWICE. Nope. Overtraining and injury are the main reasons I started using a Polar watch in 2012. I need a BRAKE. My natural tendency is to OVERTRAIN.
With no BRAKE I start to exercise. Increasing the intensity. Then I start feeling the endorphin high (really it's an endocannabaniod high but who cares?). It makes me want to go harder and faster. Or do that last rep that injures my back or shoulder. Or force a yoga stretch that messes up my knee or lower back?
Understand that mindset and it is common among my friends. That is why I use a coach and we track my fitness and fatigue. He said to me recently: "My main job with endurance athletes is to protect them from themselves".1
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 392.9K Introduce Yourself
- 43.7K Getting Started
- 260.1K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.8K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 415 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.9K Motivation and Support
- 7.9K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.6K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.5K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions