|
|
|
|
andersjr
Oct 21, 2009, 2:18 PM
Post #1 of 15
(5855 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 1, 2005
Posts: 141
|
OK, I searched, and all I found was a bunch of posts almost 7 years old. Here are some questions I have:
1) What is your resting heart rate?
Mine is about 58 BPM, which should put the rest of this in perspective.
I can run 1.9 miles in 12 minutes, which translates to about a 56 VO2 Max.
My average running HR is 166 BPM, with a 175 Max HR.
Yesterday I wore a heart rate monitor for my bouldering session, I had a max HR of 184. I am a chronic breath holder, and this max HR came during a rep when I "refused" to breathe (I am working on the whole inhale, exhale thing. Its hard!).
I just wanted to see what kind of "shape" the climbing community is in. I know climbers come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, and someone with a resting hr of 90 could probably outclimb me, I just want to know what we are collectively as a group.
edited to fix vo2 max. Equation from Wiki:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max
(This post was edited by andersjr on Oct 21, 2009, 2:41 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
jjanowia
Oct 21, 2009, 2:51 PM
Post #2 of 15
(5839 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2005
Posts: 126
|
I think it matters how it is calculated. When I was at the top of my bike racing game a few years ago, I got a calculation of 72 mL / kg / min in a lab where I got the test for free in exchange for taking part in an uncomfortable study.
I was told that values estimated using a stationary bike via Conconi tests tend to return higher #s relative to running because of the muscle groups recruited.
Also was told that XC ski tests return even higher values because even more muscle groups are involved.
My best 10k run was 39:58 (OK, not that great, I know) which works out to the formula being 50 mL / kg / min. I would be surprised if my max VO2 actually declined by 30% in the three years since I've switched from being a bike racer to more of a runner (and climber).
My point: these tests must be taken with a grain of salt, and if persons get their VO2 max tested differently, the results may not be ordinally comparable with the Cooper formula from wikipedia.
Caveat: I'm an economist, with no physiology training.
|
|
|
|
|
andersjr
Oct 21, 2009, 2:57 PM
Post #3 of 15
(5833 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 1, 2005
Posts: 141
|
jjanowia wrote: I think it matters how it is calculated. When I was at the top of my bike racing game a few years ago, I got a calculation of 72 mL / kg / min in a lab where I got the test for free in exchange for taking part in an uncomfortable study. I was told that values estimated using a stationary bike via Conconi tests tend to return higher #s relative to running because of the muscle groups recruited. Also was told that XC ski tests return even higher values because even more muscle groups are involved. My best 10k run was 39:58 (OK, not that great, I know) which works out to the formula being 50 mL / kg / min. I would be surprised if my max VO2 actually declined by 30% in the three years since I've switched from being a bike racer to more of a runner (and climber). My point: these tests must be taken with a grain of salt, and if persons get their VO2 max tested differently, the results may not be ordinally comparable with the Cooper formula from wikipedia. Caveat: I'm an economist, with no physiology training.
Thanks for the reply. That is real world information that I needed to hear. This is kind of a "just for fun" type of deal to see what types of ranges there are. And a sub 40 minute 10 K, That's pretty freaking good.
|
|
|
|
|
roy_hinkley_jr
Oct 21, 2009, 3:16 PM
Post #4 of 15
(5828 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 8, 2005
Posts: 652
|
Yep, you really can't compare VO2max values unless the same protocol (and arguably the same lab) are used. Even then, it's a poor predictor of performance. Ditto with resting heart rate. There's a pretty good discussion of this in "Climbing: Training for Peak Performance."
|
|
|
|
|
suprasoup
Oct 21, 2009, 5:10 PM
Post #5 of 15
(5780 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 7, 2005
Posts: 309
|
A couple of years back, a group of us in the ABQ Road Runners decided to measure our VO2max at the start of the season and then again at the end of the season. All tests were done at the Athlete's Edge. What stuck out in my mind was that despite almost all of us showing improved performance at the end of the season, VO2max values were all over the place. Some of us showed marked improvements in VO2max while others showed no signs of improvement. whatsoever.
Beginning:
RHR: 42
VO2max: 68
Average Mile: 5min 32 sec
End:
RHR: 38
VO2max 79
Average Mile: 4min 22sec
Edit: Cooper Test VO2max: 78.2
(This post was edited by suprasoup on Oct 21, 2009, 5:17 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
overzealous
Oct 22, 2009, 8:58 PM
Post #6 of 15
(5699 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 24, 2004
Posts: 257
|
andersjr wrote: OK, I searched, and all I found was a bunch of posts almost 7 years old. Here are some questions I have: 1) What is your resting heart rate? Mine is about 58 BPM, which should put the rest of this in perspective. I can run 1.9 miles in 12 minutes, which translates to about a 56 VO2 Max. My average running HR is 166 BPM, with a 175 Max HR. Yesterday I wore a heart rate monitor for my bouldering session, I had a max HR of 184. I am a chronic breath holder, and this max HR came during a rep when I "refused" to breathe (I am working on the whole inhale, exhale thing. Its hard!). I just wanted to see what kind of "shape" the climbing community is in. I know climbers come in all sorts of shapes and sizes, and someone with a resting hr of 90 could probably outclimb me, I just want to know what we are collectively as a group. edited to fix vo2 max. Equation from Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VO2_max
First off, your peak running pace is a really poor indicator of V02 Max. There are tons and tons of other factors that go into a middle distance run like that, be they biomechanical (leg length, distance covered per stride), physiological (anaerobic endurance, pace at lactate threshold), or mental (pain tolerance)
Also, Vo2 Max measured on a treadmill is generally higher than measured on a stationary bike (due to the additional O2 demand of the additional recruited muscles in the upper body). You can also obtain an even higher, "supermax" vo2 reading by taking someone to a max on a versa climber or other gear that spreads the muscular effort around more.
Google scholar is your friend, climbers don't generally have especially high Vo2 Maxes, since average aerobic capacity is more than enough for standard vertical rock climbing (now if you get into alpine then the story changes). HR is elevated disproportionally to O2 demand during hard efforts (such as bouldering), there are a number of good candidates for the explanation for this, but we're not certain what it is yet.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Oct 23, 2009, 5:29 AM
Post #7 of 15
(5661 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
jjanowia wrote: I was told that values estimated using a stationary bike via Conconi tests tend to return higher #s relative to running because of the muscle groups recruited. Also was told that XC ski tests return even higher values because even more muscle groups are involved.
In reply to: My point: these tests must be taken with a grain of salt, and if persons get their VO2 max tested differently, the results may not be ordinally comparable with the Cooper formula from wikipedia.
Your VO2 and VO2max values are also entirely activity-dependent.
Heart rate correlates more linearly with cardiac output than with VO2max.
The other problem with most VO2max tests (both crude and more sophisticated) is that they rely on age-predicted HR maxes factored into their equations. I personally find these predictions to be BS.
My experience testing and training people (and that of people I've talked to who do sophisticated field work in VO2max testing) is that age and training status don't have as much bearing on VO2max testing values as you would imagine. I've tested people who were in mediocre shape and even smoked cigarettes and still had fantastic VO2's, and scenarios vice versa.
suprasoup wrote: What stuck out in my mind was that despite almost all of us showing improved performance at the end of the season, VO2max values were all over the place. Some of us showed marked improvements in VO2max while others showed no signs of improvement. whatsoever.
There is some indication in the research I think that there is a limit to how high a VO2max can go for an individual, regardless of training.
|
|
|
|
|
jape
Oct 23, 2009, 12:27 PM
Post #8 of 15
(5635 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 22, 2009
Posts: 51
|
I had an hrm on when doing looooong traverses the other day. I was in the 130 range when i fell (several times). Perceived maximum effort: 100%.
Resting hr: 50-55
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Oct 23, 2009, 2:07 PM
Post #9 of 15
(5623 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
Why do VO2max tests rely on the predicted maw heart rate? Don't you get actual data on max heart rate when doing the test? All the test I've done went to failure, and pretty darn close to my observed max heart rate. I can definitely attest that my VO2max did not change much with training, but my power output at VO2max did.
I was a test subject for a physiologist who told me he had done VO2max and power output at VO2max test for many professional cyclists and elite runners. He claimed that these test values correlated very well with their best times for their event, especially if the event was not a mass start event (e.g. running alone or time trialing). Meaning that they correlated to their speed better if you removed the elements of tactics, pacing/drafting, mental aspects of reading a race...
|
|
|
|
|
andersjr
Oct 23, 2009, 3:01 PM
Post #10 of 15
(5611 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 1, 2005
Posts: 141
|
i appreciate all the info and opinions
|
|
|
|
|
timmay
Oct 23, 2009, 3:57 PM
Post #11 of 15
(5586 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 10, 2004
Posts: 18
|
Actual VO2max tests don't rely on predicted max heart rate. They do use predicted max heart rate as a gauge to see whether the test qualified as a valid test (one of three criteria). What aerili was refering to was predicted VO2max tests. Basically, when making those tests, they correlated what people got at the end to an actual test. There is a lot of error associated with each of these predicted tests.
In a lab that I teach, I was using two different prediction tests and the average VO2 for my class differed by 6ml/kg/min which is quite a large difference, especially for a class of 35 students. Therefore, take predicted test VO2max results with a grain of salt as there is a lot of error inherent in these tests and some tests historically overestimate VO2 and some underestimate VO2.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Oct 23, 2009, 4:20 PM
Post #12 of 15
(5578 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
csproul wrote: Why do VO2max tests rely on the predicted maw heart rate? Don't you get actual data on max heart rate when doing the test? All the test I've done went to failure, and pretty darn close to my observed max heart rate. I can definitely attest that my VO2max did not change much with training, but my power output at VO2max did.
What test was used on you?
Very few tests used in the field are done to failure. Too much liability. Also more time-consuming typically.
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Oct 23, 2009, 4:28 PM
Post #13 of 15
(5572 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
aerili wrote: csproul wrote: Why do VO2max tests rely on the predicted maw heart rate? Don't you get actual data on max heart rate when doing the test? All the test I've done went to failure, and pretty darn close to my observed max heart rate. I can definitely attest that my VO2max did not change much with training, but my power output at VO2max did. What test was used on you? Very few tests used in the field are done to failure. Too much liability. Also more time-consuming typically.
|
|
|
|
|
aerili
Oct 23, 2009, 6:41 PM
Post #14 of 15
(5552 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 13, 2006
Posts: 1166
|
csproul wrote: Basically the protocol was to increase power output in a stepwise fashion until we couldn't continue any longer, while collecting gas exchange and HR data (and blood in one case). I have done this in two different laboratories. I have also done a study using a portable gas collection system that was done outside, and this was not performed to failure, but the max HR data was used from the previous tests.
Yeah, I figured it was some form of indirect calorimetry.
I have also done such tests, and I have seen the portable versions (which look rad!), but this is totally not standard testing procedure out in the field whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
csproul
Oct 23, 2009, 6:52 PM
Post #15 of 15
(5547 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 4, 2004
Posts: 1769
|
aerili wrote: csproul wrote: Basically the protocol was to increase power output in a stepwise fashion until we couldn't continue any longer, while collecting gas exchange and HR data (and blood in one case). I have done this in two different laboratories. I have also done a study using a portable gas collection system that was done outside, and this was not performed to failure, but the max HR data was used from the previous tests. Yeah, I figured it was some form of indirect calorimetry. I have also done such tests, and I have seen the portable versions (which look rad!), but this is totally not standard testing procedure out in the field whatsoever.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
