VO2 max testing and other fitness testing

Most things that you can do have good and not-so-good points about them. Maybe this is a good about testing -- Let's say you have been training well for some time and others with whom you train are beating you in races with some consistency. This may lead to you believing you are either lacking in ability or not so great in the race department (lack of confidence or whatever). So you get tested and find out you have a great deal of physiological ability and may, in fact be better than some others who are beating you regularly in races. Could those test results possibly give you a boost of confidence, and maybe even lead to some better performances? If not, then so be it, but if there is a chance they could help, it might be worth the effort. Not unlike having a low hemoglobin count and some better diet or supplements could boost you up a notch. Would you want to know those test results,or just struggle along with poor race results never knowing if you have any ability, or if there is something that could help improve performance. You could make it even simpler and get on the scales and see you are considerably over weight, and no doubt some fat loss would help performance. But, maybe there is not a need to test (get on the scales), and just keep wondering if you could be any better.

jtupper,

When you test athletes, what testing parameters do you look at to determine current fitness and possible potential? Obviously VO2 max is one. Any others? Do you feel a muscle biopsy to test for a mix of fast/slow twitch muscle fibers is valid to determine possible "best distance" potential?

jtupper, what was Ken Martin's VO2 max when you ran him into the ground?

I would echo jtupper's comment and add another.

Testing provides a quick, easy way to get data that helps show changes with training and doesn't beat you up as much as a race.

For example, coming off of a base phase, I might not really want to race but would like a landmark of where I'm at relative to my starting point. I can do this is 15 minutes some morning and still go out and get miles in that afternoon.

Testing under lab conditions also provides a stable environment from which you can compare results. In racing you have other factors like environmental conditions that impact time and competition can also impact time. For those that race for place, the competition can mean running slower but winning.

Testing can also be used to see where improvement comes from (depending on the event). For instance, a mile time gets better. Is that because of improvement anaerobic capacity or improved aerobic power?

Testing can also be used to see if training were effective. I like this use of it (although coaches I think fear it on some level). For instance, I finally convinced a coach to pre-test/post-test his athletes following a block of training. I could not convince him that the training he was doing was not improving anaerobic capacity. So we did a modified Wingate test. Sure enough anaerobic capacity improved slightly, but with a maximal aerobic power test (VO2max without the met cart) to measure maximal aerobic power (this was in a cyclist) I showed that he had really improved MAP. Just using the stopwatch would not have differentiated that.

R2d2 again wrote:

jtupper, what was Ken Martin's VO2 max when you ran him into the ground?

Hey R2d2, what the christ have you ever done in your life?

Running economy (VO2 at several, progressively faster submax steady-state runs) can tell a lot. Interestingly there appears to be a positive correlation between VO2max and economy (aerobic demand of running), which means the high maxes tend to be associated with poorer economies -- thankfully, because this means those high-max runners may not always be the winners. I've seen variation in run economy of over 20% -- about how much VO2max varies among the top athletes. Also, with several speeds of running in the submax (economy) tests you can see if you tend to get more economical as the speed gets faster (more likely for the 800/1500 types), or less economical as the speed of running increases (typical for the marathon types who do less of the fast training). I amnot in favor of biopsy data just to see what fiber type you are. Useful in some research studies but not just to monitor what an individual has. Blood work at various stages of a season can be very useful, however (particularly get some readings when you are feeling really good in training and racing so you have a good reference point for future tests). R2D2 -- Ken had a good max. as I remember somewhere between 70 and 90. You know how memory fades when you get over 100.

jtupper and luv2run,

Good points I did not consider. I think that most coaches do time trials. I know my coach has us do a 3k at max effort after the base phase to establish our paces for interval work during phase 2 of training. He utilizes Daniels' VDOT schedule based on our time. After that he simply uses our 3200m races as indicators of fitness.

Can you recommend any labs in California that do a great job of accurate testing?

For purposes of determining training intensities I think the performance times are the way to go, and not worry about the lab stuff. All too often labs put out poor data. And using lab results is always risky because running on a treamill to determine economy is off because of the lack of air resistance that you will face outside when running over ground. Treamill results will give you unrealistic training intensities, unless you know how to make the necessary adjustments.