VO2max Lab test Just for the Heck of it?

go to a college campus and have some kinesiology students do it for you. should be much cheaper than $100

otherwise, it's not worth it.

Definitely worth it. If you test low and have been running a lot, you can let your elite dreams die.

Only pay to have your VO2 max tested if you are simply curious about what it is. If you think it will give you some specific predictor of fitness or training insight, don't waste your time/money. VO2max values vary quite a bit athlete to athlete even at the elite level. Yes, higher VO2 max scores are correlated with faster times, but it's definitely not a 1:1 relationship. Even if your score was relatively low, it wouldn't necessarily mean you need more VO2 max training; that might just be the limit or optimal value for YOU.

But yeah, you could probably have it done at some university for less than $100. Depends on the university though.

reed wrote:

go to a college campus and have some kinesiology students do it for you. should be much cheaper than $100

otherwise, it's not worth it.

No research lab will offer that service for cheap. Only way is if some kids for a research project are doing VO2max tests. And then don't expect equipment calibrations to be great, interpretation of results etc.

VO2max tests can be fun just to see where you're at. Obviously it's just one corner of the triangle of performance. Some labs will offer lactate threshold tests- those are more meaningful, especially assuming that metabolic data is being collected simultaneously.

Jack M. wrote:

Only pay to have your VO2 max tested if you are simply curious about what it is. If you think it will give you some specific predictor of fitness or training insight, don't waste your time/money. VO2max values vary quite a bit athlete to athlete even at the elite level. Yes, higher VO2 max scores are correlated with faster times, but it's definitely not a 1:1 relationship. Even if your score was relatively low, it wouldn't necessarily mean you need more VO2 max training; that might just be the limit or optimal value for YOU.

But yeah, you could probably have it done at some university for less than $100. Depends on the university though.

I think that there is a correlation between VO2 max and performance in endurance sports (including middle and long distance running) across the population as a whole, but once past a certain point - where V02 is good enough to not to be the limiting factor - there is very little correlation. So if you took 100 people at random, all other things being equal there would be a broad correlation between V02 max and time for a (say) 5000m run. If however, you took 100 people who had run between (say) 13:00 and 13:30, the correlation between V02 max and time would be less strong (other factors like Vv02 - velocity at V02 pace - or running economy would be more relevant).

I did mine for free in a lab by contributing to a study on the energy costs of different ways of carrying water bottles for ultra-runners. They did a run to exhaustion to get a baseline, and on subsequent weeks did runs with water bottles carried in different ways.

I was 42 at the time, and came out at 72.3 ml/kg/min, so I imagine at one stage when a lot younger and fitter, I had a V02 max that was close to elite level, but I was never an elite level runner.

It might be of academic interest, but unless you are going to be regularly tested check the benefit of a training program, it's not going to help you a whole lot. Even in that case, a miler might get faster through the track season, while his V02 max drops somewhat. And in the case of Paula Radcliffe she got continually faster with her V02 max stalling out relatively young, due to improvement in other variables.

Cavorty wrote:

I did mine for free in a lab by contributing to a study on the energy costs of different ways of carrying water bottles for ultra-runners. .

I just threw up in my mouth.

VO2 Max doesn't mean anything

It's an oft-used and little understood term used by grad students to justify to their parents that their efforts and money have not gone to waste. University administrators have been duped by this sciolistic fog-machine, as well. How else could the waste of valuable resources, time and money, be covered-up with impunity? Parents and other intelligent, rational thinking adults could not possibly decipher this code. Do not try to yourself. You'll only make yourself look foolish reciting the catechism of the exercise-physio-geeks.

This nascent science of exercise physiology was born out of a failed genetics experiment in the early 60s; the breeding of an economist and a sociologist. The offspring from this pairing would say more and mean less than the combined blather of the two parents put together. Common sense would have told us how this experiment would have ended, but stubborn researchers pushed ahead, nonetheless.

The only numbers that matter are the ones that you receive at the end of the race. The most important of these is called place, and is represented as an ordinal. A '1' is the best indicator of your performance. If you get a '1' then you've done excellent. It's no small coincidence that '1' is a homophone for 'won'. Other excellent numbers to receive are '2' and '3'. Not nearly as good as a '1', but by tradition and convention the numbers '1', '2' and '3' are deemed to be the 'supreme ordinals'; that is to say, worthy of gold, silver and bronze, and are segregated from the other ordinals. The rest of the ordinals are represented by the formula: n + 1...(to infinity). There is a direct, inverse relationship between ordinal value and its worth. The closer to the supreme ordinals, the better you've done, the closer to infinity, the worse you've done.

One of the other numbers that matters much more than VO2 Max is time. Time is always secondary to place in it's value. Neither place nor time are given in the gerbil-wheel lab tests conducted by the exercise-physio-geeks. You will only receive them in the experiment that the real experts call competition. Time does not supercede place, but it is a way of comparing the place of two or more experiments from different venues and eras. The juxtaposition of time and place is the business of track statisticians, who, by the way, are also the progeny from the aforementioned failed genetics experiment.

Long ago, time was measured as a fraction of the earth's rotation in base 60: hours, minutes and seconds. It's still expressed as such, however, the predecessors to the exercise-physio-geeks have determined that time should now be measured in terms of the vibration frequency of irradiated Cesium atoms. Your watch has quartz crystals in it that will simulate this experiment for you (without the attendant radiation and disposal problems) and convert the results automatically, presenting them to you in the form of easily recognizable numerical glyphs. No complicated formulae to memorize!

Through complex mathematical machinations, physicists have proven that it is physically impossible for VO2Max to supersede either time or place in value. Physicist Richard Feynman once said, "VO2Max and five bucks will get you a cup of joe at Starbucks."

So far, in the history of sports, not one award has been given, nor has there ever been remuneration, for VO2Max results.

There are many other factors that are much more indicative of athletic performance, or the potential for performance, than VO2 max. I couldn't possibly begin to list them all: height, weight, hair color, skin color, shoe size, favorite TV show...the list is endless.

------

What is VO2 max?

Simply put, the oxygen consumption capacity of the body during exercise. It's value is expressed as: Volume of oxygen (O2) consumed, per Unit Body mass, per time interval or: milliliters O2/Kg body/minute. Check that out, two variables and one constant in the formula. Look at the denominator of the formula: Kg body mass. Want to improve VO2 max without training? Lose weight.

At rest, the human body has a VO2 of 3-4 ml/kg/min. According to the exercise physiologists: sedentary individuals have a VO2 max of 40-50. Trained recreational runners 55-65. Competitive runners 65-80, and elite runners 84-92. The truth of the matter is that there are no distinct boundaries separating these groups. Many recreational runners have higher VO2 max (80s) than competitive and elite runners. Many elite runners have lower VO2 max (70s) values than some of the recreational runners.

Take a sampling of runners with PR differences of just 2% in their specialties. For example, that would be three sets of athletes collected together like so:

1) 1500m (3:29.7-3:34.0)

2) 5000m (13:00-13:16)

3) 10,000m (26:57-27:30)

Now fly in exercise physiologists from around the world and geek-out: treadmills, oxygen ventilators, calipers, rectal probes! Collect the data, crunch the numbers and what do you get? Sets of highly-trained runners with similar PRs (2% differentials) with VO2 max values that vary wildly: 10 to 15 percent (sometimes more)! Runners with slower PRs having higher VO2 max. How is that predictive of performance?

As a broad generalization, I'll agree that trained runners will have higher VO2 max than the sedentary. That is called the common sense doctrine. Within sampling sets of like-performing athletes, there is no direct correlation.

92.5 Greg LeMond, professional cyclist

92.0 Matt Carpenter, Pikes Peak marathon course record holder

91.0 Harri Kirvesniem, Finnish cross country skier

90.0 Bjørn Dæhlie, Norwegian cross country skier

88.0 Miguel Indurain, professional cyclist

87.4 Marius Bakken, Norwegian 5k record holder

85.0 Dave Bedford, 10k world record

85.0 John Ngugi World XC Champion

84.4 Steve Prefontaine,US runner

84.3 "Physiologist in training," 15:12/30:55 runner

84.0 Lance Armstrong, professional cyclist

82.7 Gary Tuttle, US runner

82.0 Kip Keino, Olympic 1500 champion

81.1 Craig Virgin, twice World cross country champ

81.0 Jim Ryun, US miler WR holder

80.1 Steve Scott, US miler 3:47

79.4 "Runningart2004," 15:43 5k runner

78.6 Joan Benoit, 1984 Olympic Marathon Champion

78.5 Bill Rodgers, 2:09:27 marathoner

77.4 Don Kardong, 2:11:15 marathoner

77.0 Sebastian Coe. WR mile, 1500

76.6 John Landy, WR miler

76.0 Alberto Salazar, 2:08:51 marathoner

74.3 Amby Burfoot, US marathoner

74.4 Johnny Halberstadt, 2:11:44 marathoner

74.2 Kenny Moore, US marathoner 2:11:36

73.5 Grete Waitz, Norwegian Marathon runner

73.3 Bruce Fordyce ultramarathoner

73.0 Jeff Galloway, US snake oil salesman

73.0 Buddy Edelen, 2:14:28 world record marathoner (1963)

72.8 Jarmila Krotochvilova,Czech Olympian 400M/800M winner

72.3 Peter Snell, Olympic champion

72.0 Zithulele Sinqe, 2:08:05 marathoner

71.3 Frank Shorter, US Olympic Marathon winner

71.2 Ingrid Kristiansen, ex-Marathon World Record Holder

71.0 Paula Ivan, Russian Olympic 1500M Record Holder

70.3 Willie Mtolo, 2:08:15 marathoner

69.7 Derek Clayton, Australian ex-Marathon World Record holder 2:08:35

67.2 Rosa Mota, Marathon runner

----------------------------------------

RUNNING PREDICTS RUNNING BETTER THAN PHYSIOLOGY

Noakes, T. D., Myburgh, K. H., & Schall, R. (1990). Peak treadmill running velocity during VO2max test predicts running performance. Journal of Sports Sciences, 8, 35-45.

Marathon runners (N = 20) and ultra-marathoners (N = 23) were tested for VO2max, peak treadmill running velocity, velocity at lactate turnpoint, and VO2 at 16 km/h using an incremental (1 min) treadmill test.

Results. Race times at 10, 21.1, and 42.2 km of the specialist marathoners were faster than those of the ultra-marathoners, however, only the 10 km time differed significantly. Lactate turnpoint occurred at 77.4% of VO2max and at 74.7% of peak treadmill velocity. The average VO2 at 16 km/h was 51.2 ml/kg/min which represented 78.5% of VO2max.

For all distances, performance time in other races was the best predictor of performance (r = .95 to .98).

The best laboratory predictors were: (a) peak treadmill running velocity (r = -.89 to -.94); (b) running velocity at lactate turnpoint (r = -.91 to -.93); and (c) fractional use of VO2max at 16 km/h (r = .86 to .90). The predictive value of the lactate turnpoint measure increased as the distance increased.

The poorest predictors were: VO2max (r = -.55 to -.81) and VO2 at 16 km/h (r = .40 to .45).

Conclusion. There may be no unique physiological characteristics that distinguish elite long-distance (10 km or longer) runners as is often promoted. Other factors determine success in high level sports among exclusive groups of superior athletes.

Implication. Running performance is the best predictor of running capability in elite long-distance runners. Physiological laboratory testing gives less information than does actual performance. Even the fastest speed of running on the treadmill is a better predictor than any physiological measure. This suggests that for at least endurance-dominated sports, actual performances in a variety of performance-specific situations will give more useful information than that which can be obtained in any physiology laboratory test.

Science of Running: More on VO2 Max

http://www.scienceofrunning.com/2009/12/fallacy-of-vo2max-and-vo2max.html

------------------------------------------

As I've said in the satire above, "VO2 max doesn't mean anything."

Well, all the people listed there have a vo2max of at least 65.

Low-Income Runner here.

I heard there is a poor man's way of doing it. Something along the lines of racing a 5k then plugging in your time with your age in some formula. I'll try researching this and see what I can find. I met another low-income runner at local race not to long ago who told me about this.

Malmo, I think you are over simplifying it. If VO2max didn't mean anything, then you elite runners would have the same VO2max as sedentary and recreational runners. Yes, there are no distinct lines between the groups, but the trend is there, elite endurance athletes have the highest VO2max values. Ergo, VO2max matters. You need a high VO2max to be able to perform.

The other corners of the performance triangle are running economy and lactate threshold. While I agree that yes, VO2max is the LEAST important of these three, you still need a big ceiling. If your ceiling is 50 ml/kg/min at say X goal marathon pace, you either better the most economical runner in the world, or you're not going to achieve your goal time.

Back to the original point. Getting a VO2max test will NOT really tell you anything, except it's a fun number to know. You can not decipher any training purpose or race-grade matching from it. An economy/threshold test and tracking this across time as you try different nutrition and training is much more useful.

Updated list

97.5 Oskar Svendsen Cycling 18 year old from Lillehammer, Norway. The test was conducted in Sept 2012 at the University College of Lillehammer by physiologist Joar Hansen.

96.0 Espen Harald Bjerke Norwegian cross country skier

96.0 Bjørn Dæhlie Norwegian cross country skier though another source has him recording a best of 90 ml/kg/min.

93.0 Kurt Asle Arvesen Cycling .

92.5 Greg LeMond cycling

92.0 Matt Carpenter runner Pikes Peak marathon course record holder

92.0 Tore Ruud Hofstad Norwegian cross country skier

91.0 Gunde Svan Swedish XC-skier

91.0 Harri Kirvesniem Finnish cross country skier

88.0 Miguel Indurain cycling

88.0 Anders Aukland cross country skier .

87.4 Marius Bakken Norwegian 5k record holder

87.0 Jon Anders Gaustad cross country skier

86.4 Edvad Boasson Hagen road cyclist

86.0 Thor Hushovd cycling

86.0 Ole Einar Bjœrndalen biathlon

84.4 Steve Prefontaine runner from the US

84.0 Lance Armstrong cycling

Doing the test would have no impact on how I train or race. It would purely be for curiosity/fun/trying something new. I'm sorry I can't take your high horse and run over a hobby jogger on this one.

Like ClonedDuck is good into, VLamax (maximal glycolytic/anaerobic capacity) & Economy is the big parameters that's missing to understanding running (endurance) performance besides VO2max. Out of that "triangle" e.g anaerobic threshold can be determined, which in any event lasting more than ~10 minutes is a very good marker to estimate possible performance capability from. And other metabolic stuff actually practically useful for traning and race pacing & fueling

So if one feel they're doubtful about price vs actual usefulness of lab testning, I'd recommend actually shelling out even more to someone that measure the whole "performance equation" as described instead, than e.g "just" VO2max. Out of just a single such more complete test you get your strengths & weaknesses on paper, and you're going home with some quite good guesses on how actually to steer the traning to get better at the target discipline

thanks for the input! The test I'm looking at is a Lactate Threshold and VO2max assessment. I'm not sure where to find someone to do a full gait analysis to assess my mechanical efficiency.

Mr. Slippyfist wrote:

thanks for the input! The test I'm looking at is a Lactate Threshold and VO2max assessment. I'm not sure where to find someone to do a full gait analysis to assess my mechanical efficiency.

OP- where are you located?

Careful with the gait analysis.. they can get very spendy and while they can tell you everything they sometimes are very tricky to unpack. The biomechanists should do this for you, but the most you will probably get is a comparison of your movement/joint torque waveforms to a large set database. This will show how you compare to the population mean / 1 standard deviation throughout a gait cycle for the set parameters assessed.

Mechanical efficiency is a very scary rabbit hole in the running biomechanics literature, stick to running economy :)

ClonedDuck wrote:

Malmo, I think you are over simplifying it. If VO2max didn't mean anything, then you elite runners would have the same VO2max as sedentary and recreational runners. .

They probably do if you normalized the figures to 10% body fat and tested only sedentary people who were slow twitch fiber types.

I see 'sedentary people' (a very simplistic term) who are oveweight walking up hills with no problem. They are just slower. If they didn't have optimal oxygen uptake for their 'sedentary' lifestyles, they would be in real trouble. I concluded that they have normal healthy cardiovascular systems, but your precious VO2 max test would have to be modified to ther requirements (not yours) to find their actaul VO2 max. Using the same test that you use for elite athletes as lab geeks do, is just as simplistic as malmo's explanation, which was for illustrative purposes you understand?

I had one done and it wasn't very accurate. I'm nowhere near 70

It might be 70. Doesn't mean you are better trained though.

vVO2max is the important factor and it actually will rank the performers in ability