-
Willing to volunteer time as a moderator? We'd love to hear from you!
kease7 said:
What does this have to do with VO2 max?
Are you confusing hematocrit (Hct) with VO2?
Hct, is the %age of redcell volume to total blood volume
VO2max is the maximum volume of oxygen consumed, expressed in milliliters per unit time(usually minutes) and per unit mass (kg).
Le breton said:
It just says "cyclists". Could be everything from road cyclists to track sprinters. I don't think Chris Hoy or other sprinters pull that average up at all. The data doesn't "obviously" have to come from a weak cycling country.
Alex Simmons/RST said:
Agreed, I had 70 in my early 20s, 5'7",60 kg @ 8% bodyfat. I never made it above semi-pro level.
- Jul 18, 2010
- 1,273
- 23
- 10,530
- Aug 12, 2009
- 3,639
- 0
- 0
Neworld said:
I'll take a look and see what I can find out. Very few people will let you know what theirs is. One can extract quite a bit of info based on how fast a person climbs on a given day or their chrono, then analysing said individuals VO2max and blood paramters. It is how Lance, Ferrari and the whole crew knew in 99 he would win the Tour. They had the numbers from training and knew nobody at the Tour would beat him. Ferrari also supposedly told Lance that the Pirate would not beat him in a climb in 2001 just by analysing how the Pirate climbed in the first series of mountains. Ferrari was right.
indurain666 said:
I had a shade over 70 at 1m81, 69kg, 7% body fat and never really made a decent bash of it at national elite level. When the semi pros were around I went off the back pretty quickly.
I would speculate that you'd need mid 70's to make it as a semi pro....probably upper 70's low 80's for a lower tier pro. Mid 80's to be a decent pro. Upper 80's to win.
But three years later I run a 38 minute 10km, and did a half marathon in 89 mins....so the engine still works well.
- Apr 16, 2009
- 17,354
- 6,417
- 28,180
Shouldn't you take your experience with a grain of salt, Mongol?Mongol_Waaijer said:
Where would you be with a decent gear? Maybe at Pro-Level. Just speculating.
I have had my vo2max tested 5 or 6 times since my late 20s. The last time it was 68 when I was 48 years old and I weighed 185. It was always between 68 and 72. My weight runs between 190 and 180 and I am 5'10". I have run 20 miles in 2 hrs and and a 10km in 31:53. I have done a 40 km tt in 50:08. I climbed Mt Washington in 1:09 when I was 48. I rowed a 2000 in 6:43 the same year.
As my wife says BFD! I never made any money at it because I wouldn't dope.
P.S. The 20 miles in 2 hours was part of the 1983 Honolulu Marathon when I had to walk the last 6.2 miles, and finished in 2:56. Never ran another one after that.
As my wife says BFD! I never made any money at it because I wouldn't dope.
P.S. The 20 miles in 2 hours was part of the 1983 Honolulu Marathon when I had to walk the last 6.2 miles, and finished in 2:56. Never ran another one after that.
- Dec 30, 2010
- 391
- 0
- 0
Mongol_Waaijer said:
Hello Mongol_waaijer !
I was just reading your quote . YOu have pretty good lung capacity and without knowing your physical status . I am wondering ( since you were off the back quickly in cycling {with semi pro }, yet can run well ) ; could it be that your body is more suited to distance running than cycling ?
My second thought was , if you were racing in Holland , then it could be that the competition is just that much greater there than in most places at those levels since it is a national pastime / sport and mode to transportation .
My third thought was , how much did you train , I am assuming you were a cat. 1 or 2 , if semi pros were riding with you . If you were a true amateur and working for a living then training then racing against competitors that did a lot less working and a lot more training i suppose there is no harm done if you got dropped off the back . YOu did ok .
My last thought was , if you could run decent times as a marathon runner years later , could it be that you were not phsycologically suited for riding in the peloton .( running is quite a bit safer ) I have witness the last part for many years . Lots of people just cant ride in a peloton very well and end up going off the back , yet they are strong riders on their own .
Galic Ho said:
Wasn't there a story about how after '99, LA and Comical posted LA's VO2 online. Lemond looked at it and calculated that something was amiss, given Lance's body weight and stated VO2, he wouldn't have been able to climb as fast as he did. He communicated this discrepancy to Comical, and then supposedly very soon thereafter, LA's online V02 #'s were revised "upwards" so that everything matched up.
Good ole CTS. Pretty funny if true
gobuck said:
Interesting.
Since you mentionned Mt washington I looked up data I had collected on the wattage list at topica, but could not find them in 5 mn, so, googled it and found this, even more interesting
http://www.northeastcycling.com/Hillclimb_Analysis2.html#wash_v_age
Clocking 1:09 on Mt washington you must have been near the top if there was an >47 category
Anyway, if you had the same bike/body weight ratio as the guy who wrote that paper, who must have been about 78 kg and produced 309 watts average, you must have produced 318 watts ave, +2.5% loss in transmission -> 326 watts, ie 4.18 watts/kg.
Assuming you have an average mechanical efficiency for a cyclist, this gives about 52 ml/mn.kg for those 69 minutes. ( You did not say anything about wind on that day, so can't correct for it even if I should.)
So your "useful" VO2 for 69 mn is (was) about 77% of your VO2 max. Not great, but not bad either. A pro would approach 90% VO2 max for such a duration. At a useful VO2 of 88% of 68ml =61.2 ml, you could have climbed in the neighbourhood of 60 minutes! Almost as fast as Jeannie Longo in 2000 (she did 58:14). (I mention her because I have done a number of climbs which she also entered, so that she is a useful comparison point for me))
stainlessguy1 said:Hello Mongol_waaijer !
I was just reading your quote . YOu have pretty good lung capacity and without knowing your physical status . I am wondering ( since you were off the back quickly in cycling {with semi pro }, yet can run well ) ; could it be that your body is more suited to distance running than cycling ?
My second thought was , if you were racing in Holland , then it could be that the competition is just that much greater there than in most places at those levels since it is a national pastime / sport and mode to transportation .
My third thought was , how much did you train , I am assuming you were a cat. 1 or 2 , if semi pros were riding with you . If you were a true amateur and working for a living then training then racing against competitors that did a lot less working and a lot more training i suppose there is no harm done if you got dropped off the back . YOu did ok .
My last thought was , if you could run decent times as a marathon runner years later , could it be that you were not phsycologically suited for riding in the peloton .( running is quite a bit safer ) I have witness the last part for many years . Lots of people just cant ride in a peloton very well and end up going off the back , yet they are strong riders on their own .
You're exactly right - its all of those things and more.
I took up racing in my late 20's, after years just riding around. I quickly learned that on the windswept plains of the Netherlands fitness is less important to a certain extent than having the balls and bike handling skills to stay near the front. If you are near the back you could have a VO2 max in the top 5% of the peloton, but when gaps start to open up in front of you when the bunch is strung out in the crosswind you'd need to be Cancellara to start jumping between the echelons to stay in the race.
If you saw what Lars Boom did last Paris Nice think that, and then repeat several more times ;-)
I also got caught up in some crashes, and that made it even harder to fight for a place up front. I got so demoralised I would ride at the back and just hope something different happened.
For a while I did hit a peak of form, and was able to ride last wheel for hours in a classic, and kept closing the gaps and hanging on, and once in Belgium I jumped solo from third group to second in the finishing circuits, but most of the time I was alone in a wall of wind wondering if there had really been any point in starting. And the less said about the brutal criteriums here the better!
Running is less fun in many ways, but easier, less stressful and more rewarding. Certainly more compatible with working full time.
Le breton wrote: Interesting.
Since you mentionned Mt washington I looked up data I had collected on the wattage list at topica, but could not find them in 5 mn, so, googled it and found this, even more interesting
I used a SRM when I did Mt Wahington and averaged 357 watts. I climbed Thunder Ridge in Virginia and averaged 370 when I weighed 185 and 356 watts when I weighed 176,( low carb diet). I was about 40 seconds faster at the lighter weight. The day I did Mt Washington was the training day and the weather was perfect. The junior that I did it with did 1:10 that day and won the junior race with a 1:05 on a horrible day just 2 weeks later.
I never trained enough when I raced as a senior. I train twice as much now as I did then. I am trying to beat father time, and winning so far.
Nice analysis, but I think you need to add the bike weight, which would put me closer to 200 lbs.
Since you mentionned Mt washington I looked up data I had collected on the wattage list at topica, but could not find them in 5 mn, so, googled it and found this, even more interesting
I used a SRM when I did Mt Wahington and averaged 357 watts. I climbed Thunder Ridge in Virginia and averaged 370 when I weighed 185 and 356 watts when I weighed 176,( low carb diet). I was about 40 seconds faster at the lighter weight. The day I did Mt Washington was the training day and the weather was perfect. The junior that I did it with did 1:10 that day and won the junior race with a 1:05 on a horrible day just 2 weeks later.
I never trained enough when I raced as a senior. I train twice as much now as I did then. I am trying to beat father time, and winning so far.
Nice analysis, but I think you need to add the bike weight, which would put me closer to 200 lbs.
- Dec 30, 2010
- 391
- 0
- 0
Mongol_Waaijer said:
Smiles , well my hat is off to you for doing the classics and yes that wall of wind , when it blows it blows over there . It is so steady , i wish i was sailing there . Seems no matter which sport i do i am always cursing the wind . When i ride its always comming from the wrong way , and when i go sailing its either comming from the wrong way or none at all .
So i think you did good , very good , no shame in that .
- Jun 21, 2009
- 847
- 0
- 0
Mongol_Waaijer said:
i scored 69 when coming back from injury last autumn, got myself into a shape of what i would predict was about 72 before getting injured again, i was good for doing a 10k in the mid 34 then, so i guess you must have lost quite a bit of the engine mate.
obviously a 10k run is much more than just vo2max but in weekend warriors as ourselves there is usually a pretty consistent correlation between vo2max and how fast you run it
- Jun 21, 2009
- 847
- 0
- 0
Le breton said:
5000 benefits a lot. marathon not so much.
3000 the most.
however in my experience the correlation is consistent and quite good too for people who run.
however in the same test group as me was a footballer who scored 0,1 better than me but i beat him by a minute in a 3,5k xc race
gobuck said:
Well, in fact I didn't need to add the bike weight : it's implicitly included in the fact that I assumed that your (total weight/body weight) ratio was the same as the for the guy who wrote the paper given in reference.
His estimated total weight was 190 lbs (86.26kg), your est. total weight is 200 lbs (91 kg).
Using his data I would estimate your total energy expenditure as 200/190 times 1311 kJ = 1380 kJ. Since he used a Powertap and you a SRM, I add 2.5% (transmission losses) giving me 1414 kJ.
In fact you measured 357 watts times 69 times 60 = 1478 kJ.
Therefore there is a 4.5% discrepancy between both your devices (not attributable to wind apparently, maybe some attributable to wrong weight estimates 4.5% ~ 9 lbs (4.5 kg)
I found the notes I was looking for earlier.
For the paper I mentioned today, the cost of going up Mt Washington in 1h10:58 was 1311/86.26= 15.2 kJ/kg. Add 2.5% -> 15.6 kJ/kg.
From your data 1478 kJ/ 91 kg = 16.24 kJ/kg.
In my notes I found a guy who climbed in 77:19 with a Powertap and expanded 1262 kJ .Total weight 82.6 kg ie 15.3 kJ/kg -> 15.7 kJ/kg with the 2.5 % added.
Other figures I had for 2 more guys : 15.9 and 16.4 kJ/kg.
I also ran at the time a calculation with analyticcycling which gave me 15.34 kJ/kg (can't remember if that was with the 2.5% added ( I didn't write it down).
Keep winding back the clock
workingclasshero said:
50% correlation is what I got doing a rough estimate ( not done quite rigorously) from a scatter plot of marathon running time vs VO2max. Clearly the "useful" VO2 is different from VO2 max, in particular in a long race like a marathon. But the author of the article claimed an excellent correlation while showing a graph with a very poor correlation.
I scanned that plot and can send it to you if you wish.
Obviously, if you select a sample with people who are more "alike" the correlation will increase.
TRENDING THREADS
-
-
Paris-Roubaix 2025, one day monument, April 13 (men)- Started by Krzysztof_O
- Replies: 2K
-
-
Amstel Gold Race 2025, one day classic, April 20 (men's)- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 821
-
Ronde van Vlaanderen 2025, one day monument, April 6 (men's)- Started by Lequack
- Replies: 2K
-
Itzulia Basque Country 2025, April 7th-12th- Started by Samu Cuenca
- Replies: 1K
-
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram