Vo2max Estimation On Erg

[old] icstoo · Post by **[old] icstoo** » November 28th, 2005, 7:06 pm

Hi all, As most of us don't have access to hundreds of $ of test equipment, I was wondering whether you can estimate VO2max on the Erg? I know this has been asked before BUT the replies directed me to the Concept II website where the protocol given correlates Watts to VO2max. This doesn't make sense to me as first of all it doesn't account for weight and second of all it doesn't take into account Heart Rate. I know of some VO2max estimation protocols that use running/jogging exercises and record weight and HR to give an estimation of VO2max. Surely this information is necessary as it shows how hard a given weight of person is working to produce a given amount of watts? Anyone know of a good protocol? V. Confused :S

[old] H_2O · Post by **[old] H_2O** » November 28th, 2005, 7:37 pm

The significant quantity is not VO2max itself but rather vVO2max (velocity at VO2max) since this takes account of efficiency, technique and skill and is what determines your race performance. Training paces are also determined by vVO2max. So it's not clear why VO2max is the quantity you want to know. In the case of a rower vVO2max corresponds to Watts at VO2max. Weight plays a role only insofar as you might qualify as a lightweight or not.

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » November 28th, 2005, 8:18 pm

Hi Icstoo You have probably seen the formula VO2Max = 2kwattage*14.4 + 65 It's based on an all out 2k so you HR percentage is 100 if you succed in holding an even pace. The formula gives slightly too high values for some people in my limited experience. You can also do a submax test. This is even less precise. In this case you need to know your sport specific Max HR. You perform the test through rowing and measuring heart rates long enough to see it level at the fixed intensity for which the oxygen demand is assumed. After that you scale this oxygen consumption up to 100% of your heart rate in a special way. If you don't know your Max HR, you might as well find it doing an all out 2k and use the first formula. That way you'll get a 2k score as well which is was this sport is about for many. If you want to know your potential for weight carrying endurance activities you should divide the VOMax value by your weight. There also tables of for health concerns based on this weight related value so you need to divide by weight if you want to control your score in these.

[old] ljwagner · Post by **[old] ljwagner** » November 28th, 2005, 11:41 pm

If you can do a 1:25 500m, and a 6:38 2K, try a constant pace at 1:35/500m. You never hit your 1st 500m time, but I don't believe you will fade to a 1:44 avg the last 1500m. You should be able to do a 6:20 2K. You may even be able to go sub 6:00 for 2K, if you can sustain 1:29 / 500m. Life over LT builds up O2 debt that requires time at a lower pace to recover. Stay just below LT, and you may be able to last a good time at a high pace. That is how a track marathon is run at 5:00 mile for 2 hrs.

[old] icstoo · Post by **[old] icstoo** » November 29th, 2005, 5:54 am

Thanks for all the replies guys, really appreciated. The vVO2max stuff and the Concept II formula make more sense now. The only thing I don't get is that assuming 100% HRMax still doesn't take into consideration the level of the performer. What I mean is: you could take a very aerobically fit athlete and an aerobically unfit but bigger/stronger athlete and they could both get the same score. The less fit guy might need to work harder than the high VO2max guy but they could both get the same score. Without looking at how hard a person is having to work (ie. heart rate) I don't see how this can distinguish between the two. Sorry if I'm just being thick!

[old] Carl Henrik · Post by **[old] Carl Henrik** » November 29th, 2005, 6:25 am

That's a valid question! The absolute heart rate number does not matter though as long as both of them are 100% of MHR ( or whatever the subjects the formula is based on achieved during 2k). Differences in efficiency, capacity for duration at 2k O2 delivery in relation to VO2Max delivery and anaerobic energy delivery between differently constituted individuals means the actual VO2Max values will differ quite a bit. Perhaps it says +/- 10% where you read the formula? The formula given will only be in the ballpark and I think you may be suggesting that it could be refined to take into account the weight of mucsle mass for anaerobic delivery, total weight, rating and body part lengths for efficiency to get a model with better ability to match the actual VO2Max values. Sure, that could be done. For males the formula give slightly too high values, even for LWTs but more so for HWTs. For women it will be too low values probably. This is just generally speaking.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » November 29th, 2005, 9:47 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(icstoo @ Nov 29 2005, 01:54 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Thanks for all the replies guys, really appreciated. The vVO2max stuff and the Concept II formula make more sense now. The only thing I don't get is that assuming 100% HRMax still doesn't take into consideration the level of the performer. What I mean is: you could take a very aerobically fit athlete and an aerobically unfit but bigger/stronger athlete and they could both get the same score. The less fit guy might need to work harder than the high VO2max guy but they could both get the same score. Without looking at how hard a person is having to work (ie. heart rate) I don't see how this can distinguish between the two. Sorry if I'm just being thick! </td></tr></table> Hmm, how to help with this? You do realize that what you are saying could just as well be said: The very fit guy is maxed and the other has much room to improve. That is why they could appear to be "the same" for that particular instant, and they may well be the same, as far as O2 consumption goes. If they were the same bodyweight, and rowed at the same Stroke Rate, then would you make the same conclusion as to the different fitness levels?

[old] icstoo · Post by **[old] icstoo** » November 29th, 2005, 2:40 pm

Oooh my head hurts. Ok, take two guys of same weight and skill etc. One has a significantly higher VO2max, ie. is more aerobically fit so can absorb and utilise oxygen better. Consequently he will not have to work as hard to get x:xx time on the ergo, so his HR for that time will be lower. If we measured HR then we would see this (either that it was just lower, or that it was a lower percentage of HR Max) compared to the other guy. But if we don't measure HR then the protocol on the Concept II website says: you pull this split, therefore your VO2max is this. Incidentally, the velocity at VO2max stuff does make sense in this respect. I'm starting to feel stupid...

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » November 29th, 2005, 4:44 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(icstoo @ Nov 29 2005, 10:40 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Oooh my head hurts. Ok, take two guys of same weight and skill etc. One has a significantly higher VO2max, ie. is more aerobically fit so can absorb and utilise oxygen better. Consequently he will not have to work as hard to get x:xx time on the ergo, so his HR for that time will be lower. If we measured HR then we would see this (either that it was just lower, or that it was a lower percentage of HR Max) compared to the other guy. But if we don't measure HR then the protocol on the Concept II website says: you pull this split, therefore your VO2max is this. Incidentally, the velocity at VO2max stuff does make sense in this respect. I'm starting to feel stupid... </td></tr></table> The effort is assumed to be "Maximum possible 2k" for the formula to be as valid as it would ever get. If one althete is working less than the other to get the same time, then surely that athlete has more to give and therefore is not performing a Maximum effort, i.e. not at VO2Max. I'm pretty sure that the only sure way to find out is to do a step test with gas exchange analysis. I can also say that VO2Max can be reached before HR max, HR max can be reached with being at VO2Max, and that these type of tests are not pleasant. I've only done the direct test on a Cycle Ergometer and thought that doing it on a Rowing Ergometer would produce a higher capacity due to more muscles being involved. The formula for the Erg does produce a higher value than what I got on the Cycle (2k test during the same time period), but I have not seen a study that did both in the lab and compared them.