Having a VO2 Max test on Tuesday looking for suggestions.. - Page 2

Its probably just a semantics thing. I'm using a slightly different vocabulary than you are. The way it was explained to me - if you are a person who starts burning up more carb calories v/s fat calories very early in the test, say Zone 2, you need more low intensity training. If you go out and always do a lot of training in the higher zones your body won't make the adaptations (or it least it will happen very, very sloooowly) that it needs to start burning up more fats v/s carbs at lower intensities, thus you need more lower intensity (base) training. I actually blew up my rear rim during the test... so I did not get to complete the whole thing (I was about 2 - 3 min from finshed by her estimate), but she got to see what she wanted to know, which was whether or not to move me out of base training into build.

Did the test and here are the results. Overall I'm where I thought I would be VO2 max wise with LT and AT actually close to what I "felt" while riding. Quick background on me. Only riding for about 4.5 years, "seriously" for about 2(seriously meaning 8 to 12 hours a week, 4 to 5K miles a year) This year is my first year racing USCF as a cat 5, weigh in at 179 from 205 when I started (bodybuilding background) Hope to hit 175 soon.

VO2 4.83L/min or VO2 59.4ml/kg/min

RER at AT = .92 (What is RER?)
RER at VO2 Max 1.9
HR 180(I've seen 183 on rides)

Watts at AT = 210 w/ HR of 155. It seems I am also in need of more base training-Doesn't surprise me at all since I tend to work up in my HR ranges.
Watts at LT = 270 w/ HR of 164

Watts at VO2 Max 330 though I did about 20 seconds at 360 before stopping.

Comments? Suggestions? And thanks.

Without Googling it, I think that RER is VCO2/VO2. If so, that would make RER at rest the same as the respiratory quotient.
That's a pretty reasonable VO2max. Shame that you hadn't lost ~300-400g beforehand, for then you would have broken 60!

__________________
"All that we see and seem is but a dream, within a dream..."

Should have used the bathroom before hand. LOL I was hoping for 60, but will be there soon!

Maybe it's just semantics, but I'm confused anyway. All the abstracts I've read in the PubMed or corresponding places couple the fat vs carb utilisation with different enzymes or mitochondria or capillar etc amounts, and all of those are best trained with the FTP or LT level of training. So where does that originate, that lots of base is required? Or is it simply referring to people who really just have been a couple of months in training mode, and for whom the base level in practise is as effective as any higher level?

__________________
These are layman's opinions, expressed in language no self-respecting scientist woul be using.

How much did the test cost?

Something to keep in mind, LT can only be estimated during a VO2max test because Lactate lags by a significant amount. i.e. you need a much slower ramp to get good readings, so slow that you can't hit VO2max during an LT test.

If your LT is really 270 (i.e. you can hold >270 for an hour) you should be in very good shape to obliterate the cat 5 field (depending on where you live and race skills of course - plenty of guys with high thresholds that do very poorly in cat 5 because they can't sprint or read a race)

I still stand that you could have gotten all the information you need for training (i.e. HR @~LT) with just an HRM, and even better information if you had a powermeter (BTW the 24h PT went for $380)

I don't know the finer points - what I've said is the information provided me by my coach and I'm not a physiologist. As with anything each person is an individual so how much base training you personally need is going to be different from me and someone who is already very fit is likely going to need less, I would think. I do know is that it can work. I've watched team mates of mine who struggled in years past become a lot stronger this year by being patient and putting in the slower miles during the winter (not always trying to do the team rides and keep up with the naturally faster people). They haven't necessarily been sedentary before this, they just haven't been training smart enough. In any case would you disagree that it is smart to not train at high levels all year round? No one wants to burn out.

Cost = 150. Thanks for the heads up on the LT. It seems I remembered something along those lines form my Ex Phys days. I've been using a general TT HR of 165 and per the test LT for me was 164 to 167. The biggest thing the test showed me that is my aerobic base need some work, with my 'AT' coming in at 210 watts/HR of 155. The tester suggested doing a little more work in zone 2 i.e. 124 to 150bpm. I do tend to go out with certain HR's in mind and then feeling good blow them off and train up. To be honest this was something I've wanted to do for awhile and it was a goodtime. Overall I think it will help my training. However, I will keep looking for a power meter!

Would you say Cycleops has the best one going right now? Or are there others. I have a polor 720 that does accept power data, but I would need to buy the power adaptor for the chain. I have heard they are not real reliable though?.

Firstly, I think you're missinterpreting the test. But first a question: what lead the tester to believe that your 'AT' is at 210w? Typically zone 2 is a waste of time unless you've got a lot of time on your hands.

Used powertaps are IMO, the best bang for the buck. I had two power sensors for the 710 but ended up selling the whole shmeal to pick up some powertaps. I now have 2 PT's, train & race and two heads and I've so far shelled out like $1200.

AT in his terms is the point at which the body switches from using mostly aerobic to a use of anerobic metabolites as well. That point in the test for me was 210W. Aparently 60 watts is a large gap between AT and LT? LT being VT since we were not taking blood lactate tests.

I just don't buy that "You have to do enough base miles before going for higher intensity" concept, specially as noone really can't say how is this "enough base miles" state defined and measured. Specially, as this approach seems to come from personnel making these VO2max or LT testing. How they define that? Or could it be, that they really can't see anything special in the results, but as the people participating the tests will like to have some kind of results or recommendations from the tests, they give advice which doesn't at least make any harm: Do more base training. OTOH, might not make much not good either, but that's another story.

__________________
These are layman's opinions, expressed in language no self-respecting scientist woul be using.

VT <> LT

I'd say this test gave you a reading of your VO2max only. The LT and AT figures are pretty worthless. Do you really think you can hold your VT power for 60 minutes? If not, it's well above LT. LT power can typically be held for well over an hour.

Stop wasting your money on worthless tests. Buy a PM, buy "Training and Racing with a powermeter" and get faster.

It made sense to me..... If my body is burning up mostly carbs when I'm going at lower intensities when it comes time to ramp it up and go for a break or go for a sprint I'm not going to have anything left... On the other hand if during all the slower parts of a race I'm buring up a lot of stored fats when it comes time to do the harder efforts I'll be able to have that ready energy and I'm not going to poop out so quickly. Having enough base training means I'll be able to go harder longer.
It comes with other perks too - its easier to lose/maintain weight, I can do rides that are long and moderate effort without getting that starving must eat everthing in the house feeling and I'm not sore after most races.

As far as measurment goes I got a chart that shows fat calories as a percentage of total calories burned throughout the test. "Enough" base miles is reflected on there.

In any case I don't think that its a bad idea to do base training in Nov/Dec/Jan - do you disagree that you stand a chance of pretty good burn out if you ride all out all year round?

I don't really understand what your problem is with the numbers? Could please explain it? Because I guess I'm slow and not getting it. I'm ok with the fact that you think a VO2 max test is useless, but I really do want to understand why.

Ventalatory Theshold(Tvent) Quoted from Guidlines for exeercise testing and prescription by Lea & Febiger fourth edition.

During graded exercise test, the power output or rate of oxygen uptake at which ventilation departs from linearity is known as the ventilatory threshold(Tvent). Under many circumstances, Tvent coincides with the onset of blood lactate accumulation(OBLA)

So I can see where LT could be divised from VT. You asked If I thought I could maintain the numbers I was given. Well I have been using 165bpm for my 40K TT Heart Rate so I guess HR wise I can. 164 is just about 88% of my Max HR and thus about where it should be, I.e. we learned 85 to 90% of max HR

Look, I really appreciate your help here I just want to understand why my numbers are messed up so I can ask some questions and get the right answer.

I passed on a opp. to get a free Vo2max test done this winter at a local university. Ramped test on an ergometer + a treadmill test 2-days later. I didn't bother just because I didn't want to risk pulling something on the treadmill and I couldn't see what much value in the Vo2max number. Sustainable power is really all that matters.

Already converted.

__________________
rmur