Scott -
You've probably heard the term, "VO2 Max" from top athletes because it's a useful indicator of your
physical fitness level at any given time, so there is some benefit to "knowing your numbers." The
issue of "what do I do with that information once I get it" has been debated by physiologists and
athletes for years, and I'm sure it will be for some time to come. But most athletes (including the
professional and Olympic athletes with whom I've worked) have not been disappointed as a result of
getting that information. It provides a serial measure of your fitness level in a reasonably
objective, standardized way.
In terms of measurement of VO2 (oxygen consumption) and whether it's a standard component of
testing, I can't speak for every other facility. In our lab, we almost always do VO2 Max testing
with athletes; but it's not universal, therefore you should ask the facility at which you're
considering having your stress test done, if they do it.
Regarding another post, which included:
> It is a Pandora's box. Notwithstanding a previous post here that affirmed getting tested, it
sounded
> like a bit of an infomercial. This sounds like the Anerican way of doing things though.
Sorry, but I had to respond - at least briefly. I can't explain that individual's perspective
because I don't share it. I'd rather find out if I have a potentially serious problem before heading
out on an exercise session from which I might not return. I'm not sure if the poster has had any bad
clinical experiences, but it sounds like they're really opposed to the concept of allowing someone
to find out if they have a problem that is not overtly manifesting itself. As I mentioned, you can't
always tell what's going on inside your body simply by how you feel. Please understand, that is not
a scare tactic or advertisement, although to someone who has had a bad experience, it might sound
like one. Just my thoughts, for what they're worth.
When I was younger, had a greater fear of the unknown, and THOUGHT I knew more than I ACTUALLY know
(it's funny how SOME of us "wise up"), I might have supported all of the tired clichés and
sophomoric phrases used in the post (i.e., "you're a typical _fill in the nationality of your choice
here_") in order to make a point. But since I've aged a bit, I'm more appreciative of the fact that
we have the knowledge and technology to take a proactive approach to identifying and circumventing
potentially serious health problems. We experience enough pain and suffering in life without
consciously hiding from facts. Remember, facts are still facts, whether or not we're aware of them.
But being aware can save a lot of grief - if we take appropriate action.
Finally, re:
> You REALLY want some info on your heart, go get an angiogram.
I'm sure that was meant in jest. Since an angiogram is an invasive procedure, it seems ludicrous to
even mention its use as a first step toward identifying risk. Hey, I have an idea: how about
reaching a happy medium - maybe getting a stress test? It sure sounds a lot less invasive to me.
Scott, I probably won't respond again, I have no desire to get into a philosophical debate with
someone else (although I must admit that posting my responses to the above mentioned post DID
energize me a bit). If I wanted a debate, I'd converse with my brother, who teaches philosophy and
is equipped for such a contest. Plus, he doesn't try to use invalid premises in his discussions.
What I DID want was to provide some useful information. I hope I did.
Again, I wish you all the best and much success in your athletic endeavors. Now go out there and
find a lab; get a test; and start exercising!
"scott" <
[email protected]> wrote in message
news:J9NVb.6416$5M.198220@dfw-
read.news.verio.net...
> Frank, thanks very much for your insightful response. I'm truly not a person who 'looks for
> trouble', or imagines health problems. Your
response
> confirms that I'm on the right track. Thanks also for providing the key phrase: Absolutely
> Maximal'. I know that often using key phrases like this makes a big difference in getting exactly
> what is requested.
>
> PS: I've heard the phrase 'V02 Max' from some ultra-endurance racers (actually from last year's
> Subaru team). Is the V02 max part of a cardiac stress test, or would it be separate, focusing
> more on pulmonary function? Or is it even a useful piece of information at all?
>
> Thanks Again, Scott
