That table is worthless. It doesn't go beyond 79 years.scootadaz wrote: 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+
this was my initial thoughtGarnett wrote:Just came onto the forum looking for information on the same persiting erroron the c2 website.
Is it as simple as them getting "highly trained" and "Not Highly Trained" the wrong way around in their formula? - that's what it looks like to me.
Did Concept2 ever respond?
Take 2 individuals with the same VO2 Max one "highly trained on the erg" and the other "untrained". Which one would you bet on? One would think that the trained athlete is able to fully tap in his potential and have a much better time that the untrained athlete. Isn't it why training is for?If you think about what highly trained/not highly trained implies in terms of performance ceilings, Hagerman's formula makes sense. Take a hypothetical 100 kg male with a 6:30 2k. Plug in "highly trained" and the C2 calculator suggests rower A's VO2max is 59.5 ml/kg/min. Plug in "not highly trained," everything else the same, and the calculator comes up with 48.5. To my mind, what this implies is that if rower B really is "not highly trained" and is still factually capable of a 6:30 with a comparatively low VO2max, he's probably able to improve his performance dramatically by training. If he becomes "highly trained." he will wind up with a significantly higher measured VO2max than that 48.5 and almost certainly will be a lot faster than 6:30. Why is this surprising or counterintuitive?
(the current world record is at 5:36.6 for the concept2 website it is held by an olympic champion rower -Rob Waddel-, I'd like to see it beaten by an untrained athlete... I'll be even more eager to see what that athlete is capable of once trained!). The hypothetical "highly trained" athlete and the putatively "untrained athlete" we've been comparing have the same stipulated 2k time. The point is precisely that the former has actualized most (or possibly even all) of his oxygen-processing potential, while the latter almost certainly hasn't.tsourbier wrote:Take 2 individuals with the same VO2 Max one "highly trained on the erg" and the other "untrained". Which one would you bet on? One would think that the trained athlete is able to fully tap in his potential and have a much better time that the untrained athlete. Isn't it why training is for?
Bit depending on general fitness, but I think not many toprowers did not pull sub 6.40 on a first go. Untrained does not mean unfit.JerekKruger wrote:My guess would be the two data sets the formula is derived from don't overlap that much. How many novice rowers with little to no rowing experience (the definition given) are going to pull sub 6:40, and how many elite, national and top college level rowers (again the definition used) are going to be slower than 6:40? Similarly I suspect relatively few of the not highly trained rowers are going to have had VO2 maxes above 50 whereas for the highly trained rowers over 50 might have been fairly typical. That the formula breaks down when you go outside of the typical values of the original data sets is not all that surprising to me.
Sure, I'm not saying none of the not highly trained set went sub 6:40, but I think it's relatively safe to say most wouldn't have. Back when I was a novice rower at uni only one of my fellow rowers pulled sub 6:40, and he was a varsity level middle distance runner. Most the rest of the novices pulled low 7s with a handful of sub 7s as well. Similarly I saw a video of an Imperial College Novice 2k test where the best time was in the low 6:50s or high 6:40s.hjs wrote:Bit depending on general fitness, but I think not many toprowers did not pull sub 6.40 on a first go.
Indeed, and in fact the calculator doesn't use the term "untrained" but rather uses "not highly trained" and actually specifies "novice rower with little or no rowing experience". I'd be surprised if many of them hadn't already done some other sports before.Untrained does not mean unfit.
Yep, in some people it doesn't seem to respond to training at all apparently, and in most a 10-20% increase over your untrained level is as much as they can expect.Vo2 max is also relative poorly trainable, its mostly a matter of talent.
If the formula is said to predict 2k time from VO2 max then it can be reversed to estimate 2k time from VO2Max, this makes it easier to judge if it makes sense or not.NavigationHazard wrote:The hypothetical "highly trained" athlete and the putatively "untrained athlete" we've been comparing have the same stipulated 2k time. The point is precisely that the former has actualized most (or possibly even all) of his oxygen-processing potential, while the latter almost certainly hasn't.tsourbier wrote:Take 2 individuals with the same VO2 Max one "highly trained on the erg" and the other "untrained". Which one would you bet on? One would think that the trained athlete is able to fully tap in his potential and have a much better time that the untrained athlete. Isn't it why training is for?
