vo2 max query

Seres

Hi i got my VO2 max done there Yesterday and my result came out at 70 , which i was told was very high score for a female . Im skeptical of the result because i dont think it could be that high . If i have a high score should i not be performing better ? what are the other possible factors i need to look at to improve ? The tester seems to believe my limiters are psychological and my training is not focused enough on the correct HR zone . I would agree that i not a particularly confident runner but i dont think that affects my running that much . Thanks

clear thinking

That would firmly put you in the world class bracket. Get a coach asap.

Seres

clear thinking wrote: »

That would firmly put you in the world class bracket. Get a coach asap.

Thats why im so skeptical !!!! It sounds just so ridiculous and unbelievable . My times dont reflect that score . I think i will need to get another test done .

kingQuez

Got mine tested a couple of years ago out of curiosity and it came back with a fairly high score, so was also quite sceptical. Keep meaning to go get it done in a university to verify it and get some of the data I'd actually be intersted in re: fat usage.. but in reality it doesn't make much difference to training/racing. The zones it suggests I train in to improve it further would kill me (insufficient time to recover well from efforts with a "Real" life), and plenty of folk wiht lower scores can storm past me in races. I think it indicates how efficient/fit your body is, not how good you are at sport X.

dna_leri

Seres wrote: »

Hi i got my VO2 max done there Yesterday and my result came out at 70 , which i was told was very high score for a female . Im skeptical of the result because i dont think it could be that high . If i have a high score should i not be performing better ? what are the other possible factors i need to look at to improve ? The tester seems to believe my limiters are psychological and my training is not focused enough on the correct HR zone . I would agree that i not a particularly confident runner but i dont think that affects my running that much . Thanks

Seres - I would not recommend getting another one done. If it's lower, will you do a third to see which was right?
I have never had a VO2 max test, mostly for this reason, that I don't know what I would do if it was high or low.
Can I ask where you got it done and did you get other data like AT ?

My advice is train as if it was true. Train to the limit of your ability. Believe you can compete against the best on race day.
If you avoid injury and string together a few good training cycles, you will find out if it is real.

PS you are probably righht to have some doubts based on these reported results but I am also sure you have not yet run to your potential.
73.5 Greta Waitz
71.2 Ingrid Kristiansen
67.2 Rosa Mota

brutes1

Jee-zus seres that is a phenomenal result ! It indicates your potential , the question is can you transfer that into training and racing .
Its at the higher end of those I have heard of but know I know one recent Irish standard XC female runner who has tested in VO2 max tests in the very high 60s, so its well within reason .
And judging by your results in races , as dnaleri says if you can get the right and consistent training done etc, I think you are eminently capable of getting more out of yourself and national standard results and placings.
I think running you get out what you put in, many athletes out there have the potential the difference in races times etc is getting training done and being able to do so in the first place

walshb

I am not all that sure that the V02 test is completely accurate as regards your ability to run fast and for long. It's a good predictor. I watched one of those "I used to be fat" programmes and there was a very obese lad who was tested, and the doctors said that his lung function and capacity were phenomenal. He scored very high. Not sure what the figure was. I guess it's mainly down to your genetics. I would add that it is some indicator of your cardio stamina level.

YFlyer

Seres wrote: »

Hi i got my VO2 max done there Yesterday and my result came out at 70 , which i was told was very high score for a female . Im skeptical of the result because i dont think it could be that high . If i have a high score should i not be performing better ? what are the other possible factors i need to look at to improve ? The tester seems to believe my limiters are psychological and my training is not focused enough on the correct HR zone . I would agree that i not a particularly confident runner but i dont think that affects my running that much . Thanks

There is also running economy to consider.

Was the test on a treadmill or exercise bike?

Sure look at Lance Armstrong first attempt at the marathon.

ergo

that's some result for anyone, male or female
was it done on a treadmill I presume (or bike) and a test to exhaustion?

to alternatively verify it you could do a bleep test and see where you come in

some info on that here - it may not be as good for striaight line-running athletes vs field sport ones though http://www.brianmac.co.uk/beep.htm

agree though, there's also running economy to consider
a while back a group of ten of us did Vo2max tests - the oldest, least fit smoker scored the highest but was not the "fittest" and didn't score the best on the bleep test

Seres

dna_leri wrote: »

Can I ask where you got it done and did you get other data like AT ?

My advice is train as if it was true. Train to the limit of your ability. Believe you can compete against the best on race day.
If you avoid injury and string together a few good training cycles, you will find out if it is real.

I wont name the company that did it here for fear of discrediting them, it might only have been my test that was off . I got my AeT and AT results also and i have my recommended heart rate zone to train in . The heart rate seems correct.
The biggest problem for me at the moment is staying injury free .

YFlyer wrote: »

There is also running economy to consider.

Was the test on a treadmill or exercise bike?

Sure look at Lance Armstrong first attempt at the marathon.

Was done on a threadmill , i agree maybe my running economy is very poor

ergo wrote: »

that's some result for anyone, male or female
was it done on a treadmill I presume (or bike) and a test to exhaustion?

to alternatively verify it you could do a bleep test and see where you come in

some info on that here - it may not be as good for striaight line-running athletes vs field sport ones though http://www.brianmac.co.uk/beep.htm

agree though, there's also running economy to consider
a while back a group of ten of us did Vo2max tests - the oldest, least fit smoker scored the highest but was not the "fittest" and didn't score the best on the bleep test

bleep test sounds good .

Seres

i suppose if my heart rate seems right i can rely on the HR zones to train in ? Do many people do this ? have never done this before myself .

theboyblunder

Even if your result is 10% out it would still be phenomenal.

Maybe you could ask to see their hard data just to be sure.

Congrats on winning the genetic lottery and please get training with renewed confidence!

clear thinking

Just to add, if your maternal line had athletes then it's proobably a good confirmation as mithocondria follows the maternal line (BBC docu & new scientist a few weeks back)

The key is your coaching. Are you doing phases, setting specific targets for short medium and long term, managing injuries, managing tiredness, working the sessions you dont like etc. etc?

If you are not sure still go out and nail 15 minutes of a run flat out somewhere you are comfortable running and that is flat and after a bit of a taper.

If economy is an issue then that is remedied by the right training.

TRR

clear thinking wrote: »

Just to add, if your maternal line had athletes then it's proobably a good confirmation as mithocondria follows the maternal line (BBC docu & new scientist a few weeks back)

That would suggest that mitochondria from different individuals are better performing than others. The only situation that I know of where this is true is where individuals have mitochondrial defects. Mitochondrial genes evolve incredibly slow so I don't think you would see better performing mito relative to populations.

The number of mitochondria per cell is related to athletic ability however and can in theory be increased with training. You are correct about mitochondria being passed maternally and if you follow the line far back enough you find we all came out of Africa. Go further back and you find the mitochondria was once a free living bacteria that fused with an archae bacterium

Back OP. vo2 is a blunt instrument. I've been tested numerous time in the TCD lab by the same tester and have seen massive swings in scores. First time I did it I scored over 70 also. Have never got close to that again but I'm running faster now compared to when I first got it done. The tester wasn't surprised with results and gave me the reasons for the swings but I can't recall what they were. Lactic threshold is a better indicator IMO, especially for shorter distances and can help guide pace for longer races like marathon.

thirstywork2

You must have got it done by those cowboys that do them.Go to DCU or Bernard Donne in Trinity.Did you have a harness on when doing it?

Seres

thirstywork2 wrote: »

You must have got it done by those cowboys that do them.Go to DCU or Bernard Donne in Trinity.Did you have a harness on when doing it?

I not going to read too much into the result , ill try training in the HR zones and see how i get on , at the end of the day good times will tell what im up too . Maybe the machine needed to be calibrated or something . If i was to get it done again like that id go to one of the Universities . No harness , just HR strap and oxegen mask strapped on .

brutes1

These guys have some info on HR training, towards the end of page, never tried it myself but a couple of guys swear by the science of it.

http://www.inishowenac.com/training-schedule/68-periodization-schedules-all-members.html

pconn062

I hope this means you are back from injury Seres and that you will start logging again, I really enjoyed reading about your training. Best of luck.

clear thinking

TRR wrote: »

That would suggest that mitochondria from different individuals are better performing than others. The only situation that I know of where this is true is where individuals have mitochondrial defects. Mitochondrial genes evolve incredibly slow so I don't think you would see better performing mito relative to populations.

I know its getting slightly off topic, but I would assume mitochondrial dna has changed just as much as other dna over 3bn years and would result in some mitochondria being better than others?

TRR

clear thinking wrote: »

I know its getting slightly off topic, but I would assume mitochondrial dna has changed just as much as other dna over 3bn years and would result in some mitochondria being better than others?

It's something I never thought about but yes I suppose it could have an impact. Time frame for human mito evolution would be a couple of hundred thousand years. Just realised I also made a silly typo. Mito DNA evolves quicker than nuclear DNA not vice versa. Might see if there is anybody has looked into mito performance.

Edit they have, and mito polymorphisms do seem to be linked to athletic performance so apologies to clear thinking, I jumped the gun.

Link 1

Link 2

aero2k

Hi Seres,

I had my VO2max tested at least 6 times between '98 and '01, each time by Bernard Donne in TCD. The results varied from 60.1 to 76.4. One interesting thing was a reduction between Feb and May '00 when I would have been getting fitter - probably a sign of improving economy.

The result on its own is not much use - in my case the 76.4 was accompanied by a threshold power output of about 250 watts - not the 400 watts you might expect to see in a top cyclist with a similar VO2max. (I don't mean I was a top cyclist, I'm just saying VO2 is only one piece of the picture).

If you go to a good lab they'll tell you %VO2max @ threshold which is probably more useful for a long distance runner. Also, comparisons in aerobic response from one test to another might tell you if you're getting the results you want from your training.

Finally I did follow the suggested training regime and I got a good improvement in performance, so it's not a bad idea to do a test if you like data (krusty). I'm getting all nostalgic now for the days when I could breathe 200 litres /min - time to book another test! (I just need to learn how to run again first....)

eldiva

that score for a VO2max is achievable for any athlete. However an athlete can't focus there training entirely on VO2max. You would also have to look at running economy, lactate threshold, Onset of Blood Lactate.

You would also have to look at the protocol they used, if its just increasing the speed by 2mph until you max out or increase the gradient by 1%.

I've done a bit of this in college and would be happy to help you out with any information if you want

eldiva

were you tested for blood lactate levels actually?

Maars

VO2 is only the tip of the iceberg.
What is more significant is your vVO2 - your velocity at VO2 max(you should have this as part of the output from your V02 test). And then your tlim@vVO2 which is the length of time you can run at that velocity(you'd need to test that on another day).

Veronique Billat has written plenty of stuff around those topics; I think she may even have coined the terms. Well worth a read if you have the time and interest.

I've had a number of VO2 tests done myself and probably the biggest contributor to changes in the results was bodyweight. So it can be worth watching the absolute rate in litres of oxygen per minute (l/min) as opposed to the relative rate(per Kg of bodyweight).