I know that several posters don't like the accuracy of the equation, but there will ALWAYS be error in a predicting values from a regression equation developed from a different sample of results.... that's why it's a PREDICTION. EverClever, the equation provides an estimate with body weight already included, that's why the units are in ml/kg/min. So, for example:

(.2 x 193.12) + (.9 x 193.12 x 0.01) + 3.5

=

(38.62) + (1.74) + 3.5

=

43.86 ml/kg/min

This is an ESTIMATE of VO2 at a running speed of 7.2 mph. As previously mentioned, running economy would shift your actual VO2 at 7.2 mph either above (worse economy) or below (better economy) the estimated value. Also, if you want to see your absolute VO2 estimate then all you need to do is multiply by mass and divide by 1000

(43.86 ml/kg/min)*(76.4 kg)*(1 L/1000 ml)

=

3.35 L/min

In addition you can play around with how changes in body mass might influence performance. Let's pretend that 43.86 ml/kg/min is indeed your true max, along with our 3.35 L/min absolute VO2max estimate. You can back estimate how much your vVO2max would improve if you lost some fat but kept everything else constant. So for example, let's say you dropped down to 158 lbs (71.8 kg) with clean eating and you lost all 10 lbs of fat with everything else staying the same (I'm just playing with numbers. I do not know what your body composition is and whether or not it is possible). Then your new relative VO2max would be:

(3.35 L/min)/(71.8 kg)*(1000 ml/1 L)

=

46.66 ml/kg/min

This would be a 4.6% improvement in VO2max. Then you can predict the speed that would correspond to the VO2 estimate by solving for the unknown (U). I'll let you try if you want to play around with numbers a bit:

(0.2 x U) + (0.9 x U x 0.01) + 3.5 = 46.66

I always thought it was fun to play around with these variables, even though they are only estimates. Of course we do continue to lose some accuracy as we continue to make assumptions, but it's fun if you like playing with numbers!