sorry, i must admit that i posted prematurely before going back and reading original post which does indeed include a formula. The formula would truly be an estimate. VO2 max is dependent on cardiac output, oxygen uptake by muscle, and the blood's oxygen carrying capacity. Of course, the measuring of VO2 max does not necessarily need to address any of these but rather what the maximal oxygen consumption is for an individual. I am very interested to see how this formula was derived. In the lab VO2 max is determined by estimating the point at which one converts from aerobic to anaerobic metabolism (anerobic threshold). I am curious if your lab determined VO2 at UK correlates with your 1.5 mile calculated VO2 OB Juan. I will have to do some research on the 1.5 mile test and respond at later date.
I can not speak for Chris, OB Juan, but I assure you that no formula is needed to determine how out of shape I am.
What's your VO2 max? Calc. your real respiratory condition.
Is it really BS? (maybe one of them is more efficient, or in better running shape) Either way it makes alot of sense if you take a minute and think about it. Its all about how your body responds to intense workouts, actually intense workouts for a certain duration of time. Why not swim 800 yards instead of running 1.5 miles?OB Juan wrote: Your theory about the two runners is BS. Obviously a V02 max is a maximal effort, therefore if one of your runners is slacking it is not a V02max.
What's the matter chris and matt did you try it and find out your not in shape?
I'm sure I would do fine on the running 1.5 miles seeing how I run about 20 miles a week. But ask me to swim 800 yards, and I would be screwed. It all comes down to what your in shape to do. Would the running or swimming give me a more acurate VO2 max? Either way, it seems like your trying to spray about the fact that you 'think' your in shape. So maybe you should try the 800 yards swimming and see how you do, or biking x-miles. Its all relative.
-
soccerfast007
- Posts: 86
- Joined: Thu Jun 01, 2006 5:28 pm
Greg Lemond has one of the highest recorded VO2 Max = 92.5 which is more than double the average. Wikipedia contends that world class rowers have the best physical endurance, and thoroughbred horses typically have an average of 180. So if a person says "you're a horse" say "thank you" and know that you have a larger than average oxygen intake ability, and probably one other thing that is larger than average, unless you're a girl, in which case it is probably just that first thing.
Trivia is great, these questions will be on jeopardy, and yes, there will be a test. Quote stewy "thank you for your donations."
Trivia is great, these questions will be on jeopardy, and yes, there will be a test. Quote stewy "thank you for your donations."
"well Sco doesn't have my peripheral vision" - mason allen reminding us all that our peripheral vision often overlooks creepy crawlers and flying things.
OB Juan wrote:Your theory about the two runners is BS. Obviously a V02 max is a maximal effort, therefore if one of your runners is slacking it is not a V02max.
What's the matter chris and matt did you try it and find out your not in shape?
Last time I tried to run a mile (didn't make it to 1.5mi), it took about 15 minutes, running for less than half the distance, then limping home. I'm limited not by VO2max, but by my knees. Admittedly, I am out of shape and my VO2max probably does suck, but you'd have to put me on a bike or rollerblades to test me.chriss wrote:Is it really BS? (maybe one of them is more efficient, or in better running shape)
Ok, one post to address three questions:
First Matt-
The estimate coorelates quite accurately. I did a graded exercise test in the UK Physiology lab early 2006 and then ran the mile and a half outside in April 2006 (time 10:36). As you'll notice on the first post the results of 52 and 50.3 have a 3.3% margin of error.
Chris: typically there a four method of calculating V02 max, the 1.5mile run a 1.0 mile walk, upper body ergometer test, and the graded exercise test, the last two require a lab facility with specialized equipment to measure blood gases and CO2 production in respiration as well as staff, timers, a calibrated treadmill (or ergometer) and the appropriate personell to deal with the situation if the participant loses conciousness (which does happen often enough). The 1.5 mile run is effective and accurate. If you wish to use an 800meter swim go ahead but your results will be inaccurate because of your unfamiliarity with swimming and poor efficency, a huge factor contributing to error (Big error). BTW you'll need to conduct the test on yourself or others about 100,000 times to calculate a reasonabe constant, though 1,000,000 times would probably afford you an reliable and accurate constant to use in your equation. Have fun dude!
Last-
If you cannot run a 1.5mile distance you can still estimate your V02 max, it's just less reliable and more difficult to achieve a true V02 max. Use the 1 mile walk test. Look up the Rockport walking test on the web and use that formula. you'll need more data like gender, age, body mass, and finish heart rate but it can be done. It's just more cumbersome
First Matt-
The estimate coorelates quite accurately. I did a graded exercise test in the UK Physiology lab early 2006 and then ran the mile and a half outside in April 2006 (time 10:36). As you'll notice on the first post the results of 52 and 50.3 have a 3.3% margin of error.
Chris: typically there a four method of calculating V02 max, the 1.5mile run a 1.0 mile walk, upper body ergometer test, and the graded exercise test, the last two require a lab facility with specialized equipment to measure blood gases and CO2 production in respiration as well as staff, timers, a calibrated treadmill (or ergometer) and the appropriate personell to deal with the situation if the participant loses conciousness (which does happen often enough). The 1.5 mile run is effective and accurate. If you wish to use an 800meter swim go ahead but your results will be inaccurate because of your unfamiliarity with swimming and poor efficency, a huge factor contributing to error (Big error). BTW you'll need to conduct the test on yourself or others about 100,000 times to calculate a reasonabe constant, though 1,000,000 times would probably afford you an reliable and accurate constant to use in your equation. Have fun dude!
Last-
If you cannot run a 1.5mile distance you can still estimate your V02 max, it's just less reliable and more difficult to achieve a true V02 max. Use the 1 mile walk test. Look up the Rockport walking test on the web and use that formula. you'll need more data like gender, age, body mass, and finish heart rate but it can be done. It's just more cumbersome
Obcessed is what lazy people call those of us who are dedicated!
[/quote][Chris wrote] I'm sure I would do fine on the running 1.5 miles seeing how I run about 20 miles a week. But ask me to swim 800 yards, and I would be screwed. It all comes down to what your in shape to do. Would the running or swimming give me a more acurate VO2 max? Either way, it seems like your trying to spray about the fact that you 'think' your in shape. So maybe you should try the 800 yards swimming and see how you do, or biking x-miles. Its all relative.
Hey chris put your money where your mouth is, get areliable source to time your best 1 time effort in a mile 1.5 mile run and have them post the results.
Obcessed is what lazy people call those of us who are dedicated!
OB I think that you are still not seeing my point.
As far as getting someone reliable to time me and post my times, I have no urge. After swimming competively for 16 years competition does nothing for me. I was only trying to point out that I think the estimate is flawed.
I am saying that the test is biased towards those who run on a regular basis. Take a swimmer and a distance runner and use your estimation. The runner will have a way better VO2 max by your estimate, but in reality their VO2 max's are probally not that far apart.chriss wrote:Not tired is relative. Its about being able to push yourself hard, while keeping your heart rate down.
So let me rephrase. Ones heart rate is 140, and the others is 240. Shouldn't their VO2 max's be different? Not by the calculationn given at the start of the discussion.
As far as getting someone reliable to time me and post my times, I have no urge. After swimming competively for 16 years competition does nothing for me. I was only trying to point out that I think the estimate is flawed.
[Chris Wrote]So let me rephrase. Ones heart rate is 140, and the others is 240. Shouldn't their VO2 max's be different? Not by the calculationn given at the start of the discussion
I am saying that the test is biased towards those who run on a regular basis. Take a swimmer and a distance runner and use your estimation. The runner will have a way better VO2 max by your estimate, but in reality their VO2 max's are probally not that far apart.
My logic is not flawed,realize that aerobic respiration is aerobic respiration regardless of activity that establishes it as the biological method of respiration which your body utilizes oxygen and energy at the cellular level. Swimming the 800 is an aerobic event (assuming it takes longer than 4 minutes), running 1.5 miles is an aerobic event. The runner and the swimmer are utilizing caloric energy via aerobic respiration to provide cellular energy to continue to function at the established maximal level of exertion. the human body is only capable of functioning at a given rate depending upon it's ability to produce useable energy to sustain exertion. once the body can no longer keep up you have established Vo2 max. Running is used to do the estimate because most people can run. a competitive 800m swimmer is probably well adapted to running and your comparison is not valid (People inertly know how to run, we learn it at a very young age).
As for your remark about a HR of 140 vs an HR of 240, I initially ignored it because maximum HR is calculated from a maximum possible HR of 200bpm. If you can get your heart rate much above that for any sustained period (30 seconds), I'll see you in the cardiac ward at the hospital, if you survive. Doing so would be and case of Tachicardia and if sustained would be very damaging to the cardiac muscle tissues
Obcessed is what lazy people call those of us who are dedicated!
Huh? Better double-check your math. 10'36" = 10.6 minutes. -> 49.1mL/Kg/minOB Juan wrote:ie: a 10' 36" 1.5 mile run = 3.5+483/10.31 = 50.35mL/Kg/min
Oh. Wait. 49.1 and 52. That's a 5.6% error.As you'll notice on the first post the results of 52 and 50.3 have a 3.3% margin of error.
(normally I wouldn't be so petty, but if you're claiming such a high degree of precision and accuracy...)