Estimated VO2 Max metric

[S B]

Just seeking some plain and simple views on this.

The metric for VO2MAX  - can it be an indicator of fitness?

If I use high octane  workouts such as Zwift races as the baseline, can the variation show up.. improved performance or if things go wrong, a deterioration?

Is it skewed by workout duration?

[Mark Liversedge]

Its based off power bests for 6mins (IIRC), so as such is no better than just tracking that.

I'd say testing for 3, 7 and 12 min bests is the easiest way to track performance changes.

They're concrete and can feed the CP model if you want to use that.

Mark

[S B]

:-)

On Friday, 29 September 2017 18:45:26 UTC+1, S B wrote:

[Ale Martinez]

El viernes, 29 de septiembre de 2017, 14:45:26 (UTC-3), S B escribió:

Just seeking some plain and simple views on this.

The metric for VO2MAX  - can it be an indicator of fitness?

 Estimated VO2MAX is computed from 5 min Peak Power relative to Athlete Weight using new ACSM formula: 10.8 * Watts / KG + 7 (3.5 per leg), so it can be indicator of fitness if you do 5' max efforts.

[Steve Mansfield]

FWIW I was tested in a lab, and using my 20 minute power in the above formula got me to within experimental accuracy.

http://www.hunterallenpowerblog.com/2013/06/how-to-calculate-your-own-vo2max_24.html

if I use 5 minute I get ludicrously high results

[Kai]

That site is totally wrong. It uses the ACSM formula with a 'wattage', which it seems to define as your 20 minutes power in a test.

Golden Cheetah uses the same formula, but uses 5 minute power. 

I can't find the original formula at the moment, the l, but I'm quite certain it does not use anywhere near 20 minute power. It was in this file, but site seems to be down:

http://blue.utb.edu/mbailey/pdf/MetCalnew.pdf

Any resemblance between the test and the described method using 20 minute power is just a coincidence.

Kai

[Karl-Axel Zander]

"3.5 per leg"? Reading up on the ACSM metabolic equation for leg ergometry in this slide: https://www.slideshare.net/hunchxx/met-calnew

says that 3.5(ml/kg/min) is resting metabolism, and the second 3.5 is "cost of unloaded cycling above and beyond resting metabolism". Comparing ACSM's arg ergometry formula, the second 3.5 isn't present because of "arm muscle mass is so small that there is no term for unloaded cyling". So the "3.5 + 3.5" in leg ergometry is "resting + sitting on a bike"

Maybe was the "3.5 per leg" a reference to this even though I don't see it - but an elaboration anyhow for those interested