Several months ago I had a treadmill-based VO2max test done, and the numbers that came out just don't seem anywhere near what I'd expect or had ever even heard of. Is it possible the following is feasible, and it just reveals some sort of outlier metabolism? If so, should I be proud or ashamed?! Or was it just simply a flawed test? Used the New Leaf system for this.
Biggest question: what can I glean from this for setting realistic training goals?
I feel these numbers are too tight a range and the range is skewed too high.
Zone 1 - 133-143
Zone 2 - 143-148
Zone 3 - 148-154
Zone 4 - 154-158
Zone 5 - n/a - (see HR Max. below)
HR Max. - 158
- after 1 min. recovery - 135
AT - 154
AT/Max% - 97
VO2 Max - 56
- after 1 min. recovery - 41
If it helps any, I used a HRM for a few recent foot races. My half marathon, run 1:34:XX , seemed to average between 138-142 bpm, and at a hilly 30k event I finished in 2:21:XX on around 136 bpm. Both PR races, [i]both run in Zone 1?![/i]
52 years old. Maybe that's it...
Trying to make sense of
Trying to make sense of this, your MAX HR is 158?
You AT, or Aet (is that lactic threshold or aerobic threshold)?
Your average HR for a 1/2 is 140, 18 beats below max?
I don't get how AT can be so close to MAX?
Thanks for the reply,
Thanks for the reply, vjohnson.
Yes, max. HR of 158 was measured with the dreadmill's increasing incline to failure. I was surprised it was so low; I feel quite fit, but thought I had more beats in me. Efficient pump, eh.
Resting HR is around 52 right now, FWIW.
I understood from the tester that this system's use of the term AT (ml/kg/min) was [i]anaerobic threshold[/i]. (This is the same as lactic threshold, where our systems start accumulating lactic acid, correct?)
BTW - it was the New Leaf system, which I have since heard is not the most reliable (ha!)
The ~140bpm for the 1/2 was my "anecdotal estimate" - I don't have a unit that allows me to upload absolute averages, this is just what I observed at glances down to the watch face through the race! I really need to join the 21st century...
I'd imagine the final 1-2 kms, where we ramped up the pace to the finish, saw a relative spike; I wish I could have looked down @ my numbers then, in the interest of science, but I was too wrapped up in race craft/not falling on my face ;)
No doubt that 18 beat range was somewhat accounted for at that point. I guess I was racing conservatively to make sure the legs made it to the finish w/o cramping. That gap, mind you, makes me think I am just as much of a wuss as the bullies in junior high said I was.
Going off of Joe Friel's
Going off of Joe Friel's Training Bible and assuming that your LTHR is 158(max HR that you could maintain for 30-minute time trial all by yourself), your zones should be as follows:
Run Zones
Zone 1 Less than 85% of LTHR <-- 105-134
Zone 2 85% to 89% of LTHR <-- 135-143
Zone 3 90% to 94% of LTHR <-- 144-151
Zone 4 95% to 99% of LTHR <-- 152-157
Zone 5a 100% to 102% of LTHR <-- 158-161
Zone 5b 103% to 106% of LTHR <-- 162-167
Zone 5c More than 106% of LTHR <-- 168-175
So now with the above zone, your PR in the 13.1 is in the upper range of Zone 2, which seems more reasonable to me.
Nice time(1:34:XX) by the way on the half mary
Everything about the tested
Everything about the tested results just feels off.
I can't imagine with your fitness 158bpm is really your max heartrate.
A lactate threshold that is at 97% of your max heart rate? Never heard of that.
Jeff's zones look much closer to what I would expect to see, but you probably paid good money to get yourself actual numbers, not Joel Friel out of the book generalized numbers.
Frankly, I'd take the results back to the testing center, get an appointment with the head of the department/center, and ask them to explain why you should conclude anything other than either the equipment was not working properly or the test was not administered properly. they should give you another test for free.
1/2 marathon average HR is
1/2 marathon average HR is usually around 5 beats above lactic threshold (AT). So you should have shown some results in the 155-160 range, if these numbers are accurate. Next time you run a 5K, get your average HR and get back to us. Race efforts are always the best way to zero in on this stuff.
So for arguments sake, lets say you "aren't" living up to the potential of your cardiovascular. Why? Lean Muscle Mass. Just something I see in athletes that are above 40. More and more muscle is lost, and thus can't stimulate the heart the way it should. Total generalization here, just something I see with folks that train the same all the time, and are loosing muscle mass, the can't just get there effort level up in line with the ceiling of their cardio.
Just something to look at and monitor, it can tell you if you are strength limited!!
vjohnson wrote:the can't
[quote=vjohnson]the can't just get there effort level up in line with the ceiling of their cardio.
Just something to look at and monitor, it can tell you if you are strength limited!! [/quote]
I am not sure what you mean here. Does this mean that you are strength limited (loss of muscle) if you can't get your HR up to where it should be based on your age?
jeffgre wrote:Going off of
[quote=jeffgre]Going off of Joe Friel's Training Bible and assuming that your LTHR is 158(max HR that you could maintain for 30-minute time trial all by yourself), your zones should be as follows:
So now with the above zone, your PR in the 13.1 is in the upper range of Zone 2, which seems more reasonable to me.
Nice time(1:34:XX) by the way on the half mary[/quote]
Thanks very much for going over this, Jeff. I'll definitely do up the Friel test in earnest and review all of this to draw up the most accurate ranges possible.
[quote=dkhartung]Everything about the tested results just feels off.
I can't imagine with your fitness 158bpm is really your max heartrate.
A lactate threshold that is at 97% of your max heart rate? Never heard of that.
Jeff's zones look much closer to what I would expect to see, but you probably paid good money to get yourself actual numbers, not Joel Friel out of the book generalized numbers.
Frankly, I'd take the results back to the testing center, get an appointment with the head of the department/center, and ask them to explain why you should conclude anything other than either the equipment was not working properly or the test was not administered properly. they should give you another test for free.[/quote]
Duly noted, dk - thanks very much for your opinions on this. I remember the tester sort of whistling when he saw the 97% come up, said it was exceptional. I remember feeling pretty studly at the comment, although I was almost ready to puke at the time.
[quote=vjohnson]
...So for arguments sake, lets say you "aren't" living up to the potential of your cardiovascular. Why? Lean Muscle Mass...
Just something to look at and monitor, it can tell you if you are strength limited!! [/quote]
Absolutely likely, vj - thanks for the reminder. I think regardless of the inaccuracy of the current ranges - which I will rectify - it is a wake-up call that I need to pump me some more lean muscle mass.
[quote=hamlet_cat][quote=vjohnson]the can't just get there effort level up in line with the ceiling of their cardio.
Just something to look at and monitor, it can tell you if you are strength limited!! [/quote]
I am not sure what you mean here. Does this mean that you are strength limited (loss of muscle) if you can't get your HR up to where it should be based on your age? [/quote]
If I understand correctly, hamlet_cat, yes, this is what vj is saying. I believe the best thing for me right now is to put in some time with resistance/weights to offset the wasting away I am experiencing in my <[i]ahem[/i]> advancing years. This way I'll have the muscles to recruit for what my cardio-vascular system is ready to supply.
Then [i]watch out[/i], everyone... I'll be punching my ticket to the big island before long ;)
just to toss in my $0.02, La
just to toss in my $0.02, La Threshold is a very tricky thing to pin down and it depends on how you measure it (OBLA, 4mM of blood lacate, etc). This can make a huge difference in what your numbers are. The training bible gives you a ball park based on "typical" and some data you provide. I'm not sure how you got your number but the first thing I would suspect is that your LaT is off. It does sound high. Even with the right equipment it can be tricky to get it accurately, and most labs that I've seen will figure it multiple ways and average and retest to see what things really look like. After all, we are concerned with change more than absolute numbers typically.
As for adding strength to your program, I think that 90% of age group triathletes would benefit from this in a big way. I know my times got way better when I did some power work.