If the search function was functional I'd have checked that route first.

Thanks for any informed replies.

Hugh

- Thread starter earthman309
- Start date

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

If the search function was functional I'd have checked that route first.

Thanks for any informed replies.

Hugh

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t-296051-15-1.html

basically a few things i pieced together after asking myself the same question.

robkit said:

http://www.cyclingforums.com/t-296051-15-1.html

basically a few things i pieced together after asking myself the same question.

Robkit,

Thanks for the link to your post. If I'm reading it correctly it looks like you are saying 366 watt output requires the use of 5 liters of O2 or 73 watts per liter.

I'd love to have Andy C. chime in on this one.

Hugh

ie 400 watts: VO2 max =0.01141 x 400 + 0.435 = 5 liters a minute

with an efficiency of 80 watts/liter O2. Note: VO2 max is protocol dependent,

a faster ramp will give higher VO2 maxes.

However, most cyclists don't have an efficiency of 80 watts/liter O2

The more highly trained the cyclist, the higher watts/liter will be. Over

>78 is considered elite (according to Asker Jeukendrup), 68-74 is more normal. According to the Padilla study on 24 world class cyclists, Miguel Indurain's watts/liter was 89 watts/liter (6.4 liters, 573 watts at Wmax), and at Wobla (521 w , 5.84 liters). Indurains maximal oxygen consumption was

a mere 80 ml/kg/min. In the same study, 23 other world class cyclists were found to have watts/liter efficiencies of close to 90 watts/liter O2 at W Lt, W obla and W max. The ramp for this study was 35 watts every 4 minutes,1 minute recovery (at what wattage I wonder?) const 75 rpm.

-Bikeguy

Is it possible that the constants in that equation were intended to be rider specific? I ask this because Andy recently posted some of his own figures in the same format under another thread and they looked like this:bikeguy said:Hawley and Noakes equation: VO2 max=0.01141 x Wmax +0.435

acoggan said:FWIW, my power-VO2 relationship as measured back in 1982 was:

VO2 (L/min) = power (W) x 0.0116 + 0.67

whereas in more recent years it is typically:

VO2 (L/min) = power (W) x 0.0105 + 0.66

I figure VO2 max= 0.0128 Wmax + 0.435 is a good approximation for a more

typical rider with a efficiency of 72 W/liter. A bigger + const gives worse efficiencies at lower Wmaxes. I'd figure bigger riders would need a bigger + constant, since their bigger body consumes more O2, regardless of if they are at rest or cycling.

-Bikeguy

VO2 (in mL/min) = 2 x power (kpm/min) + 300-400 mL/min

Since 1 W = 6.12 kpm/min and 1 mL = 0.001 L, the above translates to:

VO2 (in L/min) = 0.01224 x power (kpm/min) + 0.3-0.4 L/min

The above equation, however, is for an individual pedaling a classic Monark mechanically braked ergometer, which tends to underestimate actual power output (input) at the pedals due to frictional losses in the drivetrain. Moreover, trained cyclists tend to be somewhat more economical than untrained individuals, although the difference isn't great and in fact this conclusion is controversial. Be that as it may, typically the slope of the relationship between power and VO2 is closer to 0.0105-0.0115 when you test a trained cyclist pedaling a modern electrically braked ergometer.

Note also that:

1) unless VO2 is measured directly, any estimates of VO2max from an incremental exercise test are only going to be accurate to w/in +/- ~10%, since not only do you not know the individual's economy, they will go to a power requiring 105-125% (usually 110-120%) of their VO2max before fatiguing (i.e., stricitly speaking a 'MAP' test doesnt really measure maximal aerobic power, but maximal aerobic power plus anaerobic capacity). Moreover, the ultimate power you reach in such a test will be protocol dependent, even though your actual VO2max is not.

2) use of a constant conversion factor of, say, 80 W/L/min is convenient when doing rough calculations, but the precise value will vary even in a single individual, simply due to the positive y-intercept of the VO2-power relationship. Indeed, this is the major factor explaining why trained cyclists such as Indurain appear to be very economical: when you can sustain a power of >500 W for prolonged periods of time, the impact of your resting metabolic rate (or the cost of unloaded pedaling) on the instantaneous slope of the power-VO2 relationship (which is what that ratio reflects) is far less than in an untrained person who might only be able to sustain 200 W in a steady-state or quasi-steady-state manner.

be considerably larger than a 70 kg person, so the +const should increase for larger individuals.

As for the efficiency increase in trained individuals, don't pin it on the y intercept being positive and thus having less effect the higher watts go (partially does reduce it, but not a good explanation). In the Padilla study, the 23 other cyclists on average had a Watts/liter values of 90 even in the aerobic (W Lt zone) which were higher than Indurain, despite their avg Wmax being 478 watts, considerably less than Indurain's 573.

The Coyle study of LA documents the efficiency increases from 1999 onwards.

In my own latest VO2 max test, 1 month ago, I showed a remarkably consistent 76 watts/L through 150 w to 400 w, with a slightly higher value at 300 w. Last year, my efficiency was about 2 W/ liter less at higher powers, and 4 watts/L less in the low 150-200 w comparing the entire range of power outputs to this years, i.e comparing 150 to 150 watts, and so on.

-Bikeguy

bikeguy said:Coggan, I'd assume the resting oxygen consumption of a 120 kg person would

be considerably larger than a 70 kg person, so the +const should increase for larger individuals.

I agree, it should be (which is why the ACSM formula gives it as a range), but obviously that's not the only factor.

bikeguy said:As for the efficiency increase in trained individuals, don't pin it on the y intercept being positive and thus having less effect the higher watts go (partially does reduce it, but not a good explanation). In the Padilla study, the 23 other cyclists on average had a Watts/liter values of 90 even in the aerobic (W Lt zone) which were higher than Indurain, despite their avg Wmax being 478 watts, considerably less than Indurain's 573.

The Coyle study of LA documents the efficiency increases from 1999 onwards.

In my own latest VO2 max test, 1 month ago, I showed a remarkably consistent 76 watts/L through 150 w to 400 w, with a slightly higher value at 300 w. Last year, my efficiency was about 2 W/ liter less at higher powers, and 4 watts/L less in the low 150-200 w comparing the entire range of power outputs to this years, i.e comparing 150 to 150 watts, and so on.

Again, I agree: cycling economy (efficiency) tends to be greater in those who have been training on a bike for a long period of time versus those who have not. I was just trying let people know that 1) not every exercise scientists believes this is true (cf. the exchange of letters-to-the-editor between Ed and Asker Juekendrup, Dave Martin, etc.), and 2) how you express the data is important when attempting to compare different individuals. In particular, since the ratio W:L/min goes up with increasing intensity (as it must, since there is a positive y intercept), comparing that ratio in two individuals who are exercising at markedly different absolute intensities can lead to spurious conclusions.

Based on this, my 52 kg wife who just did a 27 minute computrainer time trial averaging 191 watts would have a VO2 max of over 50ml/kg., as she can certainly output a higher wattage in a step test than 27 minutes continous.

0.01141 * 191 + 0.435 = 2.61L 2610ml/52 = 50.27l/kg for 27 minutes

"so that efficiency is 72 watts/liter is probably a better approximation (in general)."

or alternatively 191watts/72w/l = 2.6527777l 2653/52=51ml/kg for 27 min

My reason for inquire realy relates to our impression that my wife may have a significantly greater potential run capacity than has been demonstrated at this time. Her running race performances translate to a Daniels V dot of ~40.

Thanks so much for the wonderful replies,

Hugh

earthman309 said:"Hawley and Noakes equation: VO2 max=0.01141 x Wmax +0.435"

Based on this, my 52 kg wife who just did a 27 minute computrainer time trial averaging 191 watts would have a VO2 max of over 50ml/kg., as she can certainly output a higher wattage in a step test than 27 minutes continous.

0.01141 * 191 + 0.435 = 2.61L 2610ml/52 = 50.27l/kg for 27 minutes

"so that efficiency is 72 watts/liter is probably a better approximation (in general)."

or alternatively 191watts/72w/l = 2.6527777l 2653/52=51ml/kg for 27 min

My reason for inquire rely relates to our imoression that my wife may have a significantly greater potential run capacity than has been demonstrated at this time. Her running race performances translate to a Daniels V dot of ~40.

Thanks so much for the womderful replies,

Hugh

Of course, the other explanation is simply that your Computrainer is miscalibrated - how old is it?

acoggan said:Of course, the other explanation is simply that your Computrainer is miscalibrated - how old is it?

Andy,

Its about a year and a half old. We used an ancient Nintendo version from the "dawn of Computrainer" for many years but upgraded to the new improved system to run on a PC. I know that Computrainer sells a "lab version" now with a load device that has undergone a more rigorous calibration routine. (Same unit more data points).

We have VO2 max test available locally for a rather reasonable cost. That would be a quick way to give a bit of additional data.

Thanks so much for the input.

Hugh

I'm familiar with that as it told me my Vo2max was ~85 ml/kg/min! when I did my first CCA step test on my CT back in fall 2002.acoggan said:

I thought "that's strange. How I'm not on USPS? "

I reported the error sometime last year when it was discussed on Wattage (to Dr. Thibault).

rmur

The formula that I found takes into consideration "Hawley and Noakes equation: VO2 max=0.01141 x Wmax +0.435" plus the weight in Kg

It's found here on this site in an user friendly calculator: milesj.com/cycling.vo2estimator.html

Also, for any runners another calculator by the same site is found here: V O 2 M a x

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 2

- Views
- 1K

- Replies
- 5

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 4

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 0

- Views
- 214

- Replies
- 6

- Views
- 2K

- Replies
- 0

- Views
- 140

- Replies
- 3

- Views
- 2K