So would anyone care to explain VO2... (Read 2242 times)


A Dance with Monkeys

    Right, and I've had real VO2max tests done on several occasions, as a volunteer research subject for the local university.
    By what method? Did it change? Was it true VO2max or did they just call it VO2max, which many people do incorrectly... Proper testing involves a method in which you exert the most you can give your current level of fitness, say using a Bruce protocol. Your inspired oxygen and expired carbon dioxide gets measured and a rate of oxygen usage is measured. Based on your VO2 for the exertion and changes to your HR during the effort, it is possible to extrapolate your potential VO2max based on methods that I don't have in my head right now.


    Right on Hereford...

      By what method? Did it change? Was it true VO2max or did they just call it VO2max, which many people do incorrectly...
      This was at an exercise physiology lab at the University of Colorado. I think they knew what they were doing. Both times I had VO2max values that were pretty similar, but my fitness and weight were about the same each time, as well. I am pretty sure my VO2max is higher now.
      Proper testing involves a method in which you exert the most you can give your current level of fitness, say using a Bruce protocol. Your inspired oxygen and expired carbon dioxide gets measured and a rate of oxygen usage is measured.
      Yes, that's an accurate description of the tests I went through.
      Based on your VO2 for the exertion and changes to your HR during the effort, it is possible to extrapolate your potential VO2max based on methods that I don't have in my head right now.
      Is this "potential" number something that any physiology researchers would use? If so, under what context? When would it be appropriate to use "potential" VO2max instead of measured VO2max? And I've still never seen a definition of VO2max like yours (the "potential" VO2max). All the VO2max definitions I've seen use real, measured values. And that particular VO2max (the real, measured one) can be improved--sometimes quite significantly--through training and weight loss. By the way, the whole reason I'm bothering with this thread is because a) it's a myth that VO2max can't be changed, and b) that myth is harmful to runners' potential. It can be used as an excuse not to train harder, just like many overweight people like to tell themselves that being heavy is genetic.
        By the way, the whole reason I'm bothering with this thread is because a) it's a myth that VO2max can't be changed, and b) that myth is harmful to runners' potential. It can be used as an excuse not to train harder, just like many overweight people like to tell themselves that being heavy is genetic.
        Why focus on an arbitrary number that has been proven mostly meaningless with terms to potential performance, and VO2(now) can only be improved by 10-50% going from untrained to trained? Why not focus on endurance, which can be improved by 10,000%? Or other factors such as running economy, lactate tolerance, belly fat flubber, etc?


        Right on Hereford...

          Why focus on an arbitrary number that has been proven mostly meaningless with terms to potential performance, and VO2(now) can only be improved by 10-50% going from untrained to trained? Why not focus on endurance, which can be improved by 10,000%? Or other factors such as running economy, lactate tolerance, belly fat flubber, etc?
          Exactly. Like I said in my first post in this thread...
          And anyway, it doesn't matter. VO2max varies greatly among elite athletes.


          A Dance with Monkeys

            I am pretty sure my VO2max is higher now.
            That is a belief. You need to back it up with data. Do you think science works based on opinion? Nossir. We should operate on empiric evidence. Also, if you stopped before your oxygen usage reached steady state (i.e., you stopped due to fatigue rather than due to a measurement in your gaseous exchange), the test was a submax VO2 test. If you get retested and are in better shape, you may be able to last longer on the test and reach a higher submax VO2, or even get to your VO2max.
            And I've still never seen a definition of VO2max like yours (the "potential" VO2max). All the VO2max definitions I've seen use real, measured values. And that particular VO2max (the real, measured one) can be improved--sometimes quite significantly--through training and weight loss.
            I use the term "potential" to be clear since apparently everybody thinks maximal to mean something other than maximal. The definition I am providing is THE definition, and it even matches the one your liked article provides. As do all reliable resources I have ever seen. I am not certain what about the term "maximal" implies something less than maximal. I do not believe that my current fitness or abilities are maximal. Do you believe that of yours?
            By the way, the whole reason I'm bothering with this thread is because a) it's a myth that VO2max can't be changed, and b) that myth is harmful to runners' potential. It can be used as an excuse not to train harder, just like many overweight people like to tell themselves that being heavy is genetic.
            On what basis? I'm still waiting for your links to research (rather than some PhD's opinion). The "myth" is not harmful if people understand the difference between VO2max and VO2 for a give activity. You want to talk about harm? Combining these two very different entities into a single thing is far more harmful. Smile
            xor


              For the record, this thread is not about the runningahead user named 'bliss'. Ok, bye. Wait. One more thing. As a half marathon and marathon runner, all of this VO2 Max stuff is interesting but not immediately helpful to me. I won't get to my V02Max because I hit my lactate threshhold first. Since we know that LT can be diddled with, I think I'll stay focused on that.

               

                The pain in my head... it hurts. Anyway. I haven't missed the point on the whole MAX thing, at least I don't think I have. All the same can anyone explain why there are, in some disciplines like kettlebell training for example, things called VO2max training protocols. I believe these are "pitched" as a way to increase VO2max. Do I understand then that the actual aim of these is to increase the work you can be accomplishing for a given VO2 or, put in other words, the decrease the VO2 you will have for a given workload (say x# of reps in y# minutes with z#weight). Or is the actual aim of these a whole lot of mythological bull puckey? That is a serious ? I just read it and realized it looked sarcastic.
                The Graduates - a community of post C25K runners!

                Started Running 21 April 2008

                2008 Running Goals
                • Finish C25K 22 Jun 2008
                • Run 5K 43:29 29 Jun 2008
                • Complete a 10K fun run
                  RB2 Max Reached a while ago. RB2 = Running Bollocks and Bullshit.


                  Just Be

                    That is a belief. You need to back it up with data. Do you think science works based on opinion? Nossir. We should operate on empiric evidence. Also, if you stopped before your oxygen usage reached steady state (i.e., you stopped due to fatigue rather than due to a measurement in your gaseous exchange), the test was a submax VO2 test. If you get retested and are in better shape, you may be able to last longer on the test and reach a higher submax VO2, or even get to your VO2max.
                    Haha. Finally!! An answer to my question about submaximal V02!! Big grin


                    Dave

                      I'm embarrassed that I even ever posted to this thread. My first incorrect answer still makes the most sense to me.
                      I ran a mile and I liked it, liked it, liked it.

                      dgb2n@yahoo.com
                      Scout7


                      CPT Curmudgeon

                        The pain in my head... it hurts. Anyway. I haven't missed the point on the whole MAX thing, at least I don't think I have. All the same can anyone explain why there are, in some disciplines like kettlebell training for example, things called VO2max training protocols. I believe these are "pitched" as a way to increase VO2max. Do I understand then that the actual aim of these is to increase the work you can be accomplishing for a given VO2 or, put in other words, the decrease the VO2 you will have for a given workload (say x# of reps in y# minutes with z#weight). Or is the actual aim of these a whole lot of mythological bull puckey? That is a serious ? I just read it and realized it looked sarcastic.
                        I'm now going to violate my own rules, so pay attention. The instances you reference are pretty much marketing gimmicks. Most of those programs work because your body gets more efficient at lifting a specific weight in a specific movement. It's the same as running. The advice "Run lots" works because you become more efficient at a repetitive task. Your body develops new neural pathways, the muscles become more efficient, etc. We are complex systems. Lab testing, and most marketing, focuses on specific things, because it's impossible to focus on everything at once. OK, back to my hole.


                        Baby bean!

                          So do you think this thread has made V02 max easily understandable by the original poster? Or do you think she's now as confused as I am? (Insert easy joke here)
                          Yeah...I stayed away for awhile after page 2 Wink

                          Goals:
                          Finish C25K

                          I'm slower than a herd of turtles stampeding through peanut butter, but I run.


                          Just Be

                            Question from the peanut gallery - why does anyone give a flying jump at a rolling donut about Vo2max, submax, midmax or anything else. If you are trying to gauge your potential, run, run more and then run again while making it fast, slow and in between. Run races and see the results - compare - do again.
                            It's basically at this point all for the love of science! Knowing the most accepted fact and attempting to get others to understand that fact can sometimes be a lengthy process and only becomes an act of futility when the student finally refuses to learn.
                            Scout7


                            CPT Curmudgeon

                              It's basically at this point all for the love of science! Knowing the most accepted fact and attempting to get others to understand that fact can sometimes be a lengthy process and only becomes an act of futility when the student finally refuses to learn.
                              I'm highly doubting the fact that anyone here learned anything from this thread.


                              Prince of Fatness

                                I'm highly doubting the fact that anyone here learned anything from this thread.
                                This and the toilet comment were the only two posts in this entire thread that made any sense to me.

                                Semi-retired.