vo2 max calculator illogical results

[cagambler]

With my weight (200 lbs) and best 2k time (7:11) as a non-highly-trained rower, it calculates to 46.59

If a highly-trained rower (i.e. more efficient from better technique) of my weight could also only row a 7:11, that would seem to indicate that he had a lower VO2 max. But the calculator instead generates a higher number, 54.18.

What am I missing in my thinking?

Thank you.

[bloomp]

The calculator isn't necessarily changing calculations for efficiency, but IMO it is factoring in the better health of a longer trained athlete. Not sure though.

[karldiesen]

Maybe it is for people that are highly trained, but not specially in rowing. A highly trained marathon runner will probably not show a very good time on the erg compared with an average big, tall, fat rower.

[Ben Rea]

I'm 165lbs with a 7:11.1 as well. I get a 54.7.

[sheehc]

The FAQ says "well trained" refers specifically to the rowing motion. The test subjects that the "well trained" is based on were top level college and elite rowers. My gut tells me the formulas are desperately skewed as you go to the extremes. Top level rowers will all be faster than 6:20, so as you move to slower paces the formula is probably inaccurate. Untrained rowers are probably not going to break 6:30 (yes, there are exceptions but they are generally endurance athletes who pick up the motion quickly), so as you go faster the formula is again skewed.

A few people on here have said their real life results matched up closely with the calculator. As far I'm concerned, it's a fun toy but utterly meaningless.

Edit: It's worth noting, the results are different than a year or two ago. I distinctly remember putting in elite lightweight numbers and being handed results that are not humanly possible (without setting world records). This is no longer the case. Take the whole thing with a grain of salt.

[konarzewski]

With my weight (200 lbs) and best 2k time (7:11) as a non-highly-trained rower, it calculates to 46.59

If a highly-trained rower (i.e. more efficient from better technique) of my weight could also only row a 7:11, that would seem to indicate that he had a lower VO2 max. But the calculator instead generates a higher number, 54.18.

What am I missing in my thinking?

Thank you.

I think you're quite right to be cynical. The whole premise that an untrained rower needs a lower VO2 max to perform the same as a trained rower is completely absurd. If, for the sake of argument, an overweight, unfit, untrained rower manages to sit on an erg and pull 6:00.0 for 2k, he will need to be genetically endowed with a phenomenally high VO2 max to compensate for his inefficiency and his non-lean body mass. Not the reverse. The link below doesn't distinguish between trained and untrained rowers, and is likely to be more accurate, although it admits a 10% +/- error.
http://www.machars.net/#

[anthonysemone]

C'mon, guys, VO2Max is a LAB value!! It has meaning (such as it does) only with respect to extended duration activity.

tony

[tsourbier]

I've exactly the same remark... sorry to dig out this sujet

I just started rowing (300k so far), i was curious about the tool and put in my data. In turns out to be fairly accurate if I logged as a "untrained athlete" my VO2 Max would soar from 58 to 68 if I were a "trained athlete". While my results is quite close to what a running V02 Max measured in a lab last year found (60), this seems not right at all...

To me an highly trained athlete would be able to race a 2k very close to his VO2 Max truly top speed with a minimum of wasted energy. The untrained would have more difficulty to truly reach his VO2 Max more trouble finding the right pace hence his way more likely to have a sub-optimal 2k time compared to an highly trained athlete plus we should take into account the waste of energy due to a less efficient rowing leading to more oxygen consomption for a similar speed as an highly trained athlete.

One can verify that for a male (I tried 80kg and 90kgs):
For all time superior to 8:20, the highly trained athlete has less VO2 Max
For 8:20 it doesn't matter
For all time inferior to 8:20 the highly trained athlete has a larger VO2 Max

One can verify that for a female (I tried 80kg and 90kgs):
For all time superior to 7:38, the highly trained athlete has less VO2 Max
For 7:38 it doesn't matter
For all time inferior to 7:38 the highly trained athlete has a larger VO2 Max

There is little logic to that

T.

[Cyclingman1]

I'm sorry there is a major confusion here. VO2 Max is NOT a measure of energy being expended. VO2 Max is a measure of one's aerobic capacity. Of course a highly trained athlete can do more on a lesser percentage of his/her VO2 Max. I'm sure most Olympic rowers are in the 70s for VO2 Max. To do a 7:11 2K, they wouldn't even breath hard let alone tax their aerobic capacity.

[tsourbier]

I'm sorry there is a major confusion here. VO2 Max is NOT a measure of energy being expended. VO2 Max is a measure of one's aerobic capacity. Of course a highly trained athlete can do more on a lesser percentage of his/her VO2 Max. I'm sure most Olympic rowers are in the 70s for VO2 Max. To do a 7:11 2K, they wouldn't even breath hard let alone tax their aerobic capacity.

All is linked Aerobic capacity would be useless if the muscles were not able to convert that oxygen into energy to move. VO2 max is therefor measured at full aerobic power.

That doesn't explain why at equal performance the estimated vo2 max of a not highly trained athlete is less than the one of an elite athlete. My belief is that the programmer poorly understood the concepts and mixed up the formulas. This mistake was carried over the years...

If we think about it for a second that would mean that training reduces your performance!

1) If we can use the 2k time to estimate vo2max we can estimate the 2k time from a known v02max
2) We know that vo2max is mostly due to genetic and cannot be trained a lot. an athlete just becomes better at using it

Using concept2 calculator will see that a 80kg male athlete with a 60 vo2 max would have a 6:33 predicted 2k time if not trained and after being highly trained his predicted time would drop to 7:16! That doesn't make for a good argument for training

The calculator only make sense if we switch the formulas.

T.

[hjs]

What misses is the anaerobic factor, which is roughly 10/25% in a 2k. Depending on muscle fiber etc.
And only having 2 options, well trained and untrained is also far from enough. Most people are proberly inbetween.

And the more trained one is the more efficient we use our oxigion/energy. So two people with the same 2k and weight, but with a different state of being trained do have different Vomax s. The less trained one should have a higher one.

All in all, a nice tool, but only a very rough calculation.

[tsourbier]

I sent an email to concept2 regarding that bug, I'll keep you posted if I get some feedback.

Just like the Cooper test for runners, these calculator provide just estimates. If you row a 6:00 2k we know that you must have some pretty good V02 Max But if you raw a 12:00 2k it is much harder to reach any conclusion... because we cannot be certain this was your max.

If you ever have the chance to get your VO2 Max measured you can reverse the formula to guestimate your potential on a 2k. It turns out to be fairly accurate for me.

My VO2 Max is around 60 for 79kg this predicts me a time between 7:16 (untrained) and 6:33 (trained) if I reverse the formulas. I did 7:14 for my first 2k and with some training I'm now at 6:49'7. That tells me that I may not be built for a sub 6 performance, but that I have a nice margin for improvement. That's what training is for

T.

[scootadaz]

Check your resting pulse rate after fasting for a couple of hours and laying down. There are better online calculators for working out your VO2 max, enter your HR/age etc into one of these. Cyclingman its good to see you back

http://www.shapesense.com/fitness-exerc ... lator.aspx



VO2max (mL•kg-1•min-1) Classifications for Women
Age (years)Poor Fair Good Excellent Superior
20 - 29 ≤ 35 36 - 39 40 - 43 44 - 49 50+
30 - 39 ≤ 33 34 - 36 37 - 40 41 - 45 46+
40 - 49 ≤ 31 32 - 34 35 - 38 39 - 44 45+
50 - 59 ≤ 24 25 - 28 29 - 30 31 - 34 35+
60 - 69 ≤ 25 26 - 28 29 - 31 32 - 35 36+
70 - 79 ≤ 23 24 - 26 27 - 29 30 - 35 36+
VO2max (mL•kg-1•min-1) Classifications for Men
Age (years)Poor Fair Good Excellent Superior
20 - 29 ≤ 41 42 - 45 46 - 50 51 - 55 56+
30 - 39 ≤ 40 41 - 43 44 - 47 48 - 53 54+
40 - 49 ≤ 37 38 - 41 42 - 45 46 - 52 53+
50 - 59 ≤ 34 35 - 37 38 - 42 43 - 49 50+
60 - 69 ≤ 30 31 - 34 35 - 38 39 - 45 46+
70 - 79 ≤ 27 28 - 30 31 - 35 36 - 41 42+



MENS RESTING HEART RATE CHART
AGE 18 -25 26 -35 36 -45 46 - 55 56 -65 65+
ATHLETE 49-55 49-54 50-56 50-57 51-56 50-55
EXCEL'T 56-61 55-61 57-62 58-63 57-61 56-61
GOOD 62-65 62-65 63-66 64-67 62-67 62-65
ABOVE AV 66-69 66-70 67-70 68-71 68-71 66-69
AVERAGE 70-73 71-74 71-75 72-76 72-75 70-73
BELOW AV 74-81 75-81 76-82 77-83 76-81 74-79
POOR 82+ 82+ 83+ 84+ 82+ 80+

WOMENS RESTING HEART RATE CHART
AGE 18 -25 26 -35 36 -45 46 - 55 56 -65 65+
ATHLETE 54-60 54-59 54-59 54-60 54-59 54-59
EXCEL'T 61-65 60-64 60-64 61-65 60-64 60-64
GOOD 66-69 65-68 65-69 66-69 65-68 65-68
ABOVE AV 70-73 69-72 70-73 70-73 69-73 69-72
AVERAGE 74-78 73-76 74-78 74-77 74-77 73-76
BELOW AV 79-84 77-82 79-84 78-83 78-83 77-84
POOR 85+ 83+ 85+ 84+ 84+ 84+

[Toshtham]

I am always sceptical about these calculators as, although I have a long history of endurance sport, I have a low resting heart of 43 and for my 47 years it is suggesting a Vo2 max of over 60.....no chance!

[Cyclingman1]

Age 40, Georgia State University Physiology Lab, 7 step treadmill test: RHR 35, VO2 Max 67ish. Now, 30 yrs later, RHR 48, VO2 Max, who knows? Guesstimate, maybe 50.

Just adding my $.02 every now and then.