just did my first vo2max test

bauerb said:

one thing I find interesting is that in my race last Saturday my average HR was 165. according to my tests today, that put me in an anerobic zone for the whole race. however during the race I never felt any leg burn, nor was I gasping for breath. I think a key difference is that in the race I was spinning with low resistance. the tests today are basically the opposite.

Makes you wonder the accuracy of the test you had and the HRM. If data don't match, then there's something seriously screwy about the system.

If your highest HR and VO2Max HR is 179 and you've done a race with average 165 (It must have been very short)...this shows that you have a lot of room for improvement.

New athletes may have very narrow HR zones above LT because of low stroke volume, higher HRs in aerobic zones. The ability to push HR further above comes with a deeper base (years) of fitness. At the same time, LT HR drops(converse, power developed improves) as your cardio-pulmonary systems become more fit.

Keep training, things will improve.

bauerb said:

actually it was a bunch of tests today done on a tacx trainer earing a face mask hooked to a "gas analyzer". produced all kinds of data from carb burn, fat burn, ozygen usage, power output, cadence, HR, vo2max, etc, etc. So what did I learn:
1. my bodyfat is unbelievably 21%. I say unbelievably because I am definately someone who would described as overweight. after discussing my training patterns, and getting a rudimentary education on fat burn vs glycogen burn etc, it seems pretty obvious I don't spend enough time in fat burn zone

there's no such thing as a fat burning zone.

Quoted post said:

2. my vo2max of 55, was pretty low. given my body profile etc. I am only at 70% of my theoretical max vo2. the good news is that with better structured training I can increase this number

this doesn't make any sense. How can anyone know what your theoretical VO2max is. (they can't).

Quoted post said:

3. my v02max HR was 179. I beleive this is the same as my LT HR. I'm sort of surprised it is this high, as 179 is the highest HR I have every recorded historically on my HRM.

Not that LT HR exists... but even if it did, it wouldn't be your VO2max HR

Quoted post said:

the tests today were tough as they are done with no breakfast and no warmup. for a 16 minute test I ended feeling pretty miserable. one thing I find interesting is that in my race last Saturday my average HR was 165. according to my tests today, that put me in an anerobic zone for the whole race. however during the race I never felt any leg burn, nor was I gasping for breath. I think a key difference is that in the race I was spinning with low resistance. the tests today are basically the opposite. now that I have some data, I can get on a better fitness program!

i don't know where you went for testing, but i seriously hope it didn't cost much.

Ric

LT HR and VO2Max HR are not the same. LTHR is lower. What % it is of VO2Max varies by individual. Your Vo2Max HR should be close to your MHR, but, again, not the same. If you take VO2Max test at say a fitness club, the protocol used often has the subject ramping to LT, then to VO2Max, fairly quickly, with no particular ramp protocol, and with no warm up. I'm no expert here, but to me this is the best way to get an abnormal result...i.e., you will "go anaerobic" prematurely, resulting in a lower LT HR result. You come away thinking "damn, I'm not in the shape I thought I was". This is very good for the club because now they can sell you that HR personal training package.

ric,

since you are a "world class coach", do I have to pay you to explain your otherwise useless comments? I post on these forums to learn, and your post isn't helping

You should have the individual who did the tests interpret their results for you.

Spunout said:

You should have the individual who did the tests interpret their results for you.

Exactly.

Alternatively, there's a ton of threads on these issues.

ric

bauerb said:

1. my bodyfat is unbelievably 21%. I say unbelievably because I am definately someone who would described as overweight. after discussing my training patterns, and getting a rudimentary education on fat burn vs glycogen burn etc, it seems pretty obvious I don't spend enough time in fat burn zone

As i said there's no such thing as a fat burning zone. It's true that at low exercise intensity, the greater proportion of energy expended is from fat oxidation, however, this makes no difference whatsoever to weight management. All that matters for weight loss is that you expend more energy than you consume. It makes no odds where the fuel comes from.

To lose fat, which is what i presume you're trying to do, you should exercise at the highest intensity you can manage for the time you have available and being able to recover to do this on a regular basis.

Quoted post said:

2. my vo2max of 55, was pretty low. given my body profile etc. I am only at 70% of my theoretical max vo2. the good news is that with better structured training I can increase this number

Smilies

this makes sense whatsoever. There is no such thing as a theoretical VO2max. Sack the moron who tested you, and ask for your money back.

Quoted post said:

3. my v02max HR was 179. I beleive this is the same as my LT HR. I'm sort of surprised it is this high, as 179 is the highest HR I have every recorded historically on my HRM.

i'm guessing from your description that this is your HRmax. It's not "LT HR" (which doesn't exist) and as for VO2max HR (i've never even heard of such a descriptor before). Would it be your HR at the end of a VO2max test (likely your HRmax, or the HR that occured when you reached the minimum power required to elicit VO2max (which by the sounds of things you weren't tested for and additionally no one would attempt to even come up with such a term)

The 'tech' who tested you, s/he should have explained it and been correct.

Ric

I don't think the problem here is the test, or the tech, I think it is my very limited understanding of the reams of data that were produced. I also think that that there are lots of ways to decribe similiar zones, thresholds, and other measures and it gets confusing when people use different terms to refer to essentially the same thing. I will have the full results emailed to me by the end of the week. I will see if I can post a graph or 2