V02 Max and 2k wattage relation

Carl Henrik · Post by **Carl Henrik** » May 24th, 2006, 4:03 pm

Hello there,

I just thought I would share this relation:
V02 Max = 1682+9.7 * (2k-wattage) [ml/min]

It's supposedly based on elite male rowers. I found it on rowersworld forum, but could not follow it back to the source.

It might prove more accurate for men who have trained hard four times a week or more for a year (in comparison to the Concept2 formula which is for everyone: http://www.concept2.co.uk/guide/guide.p ... ical_tools) and want a bragging number. This is only a guess by me.

Extreme world class rowers will come out at 7.3l which seems right. The concept formula would have Siejkowski at 8.5l which is a bit much, isn't it. Anyone knows VO2 values for Siejkowksi, Waddell and Shurmei?

I know Xeno was at 7.32l (http://www.gorow.com/profile.htm) and Lassi Karonen is at 7.2l (swede with a whopping 15:20 for 5k, http://web.comhem.se/~u92500802/p_sedansenast.htm). Estimated values by the formula are only 6.6 and 6.8 respectively though.

The formulas intersect at around 344 w, so if you are at that value it does not matter which one you use. If you are above, the concept2 formula will boost your value so that you may think you are fitter than you are.

With the restrictive formula (above 344w) I'm estimated to 5.13l/min which give 71 ml/min/kg if I want to compare to runners or other.

Carl Henrik · Post by **Carl Henrik** » May 25th, 2006, 11:11 am

Some more notes on V02 Max tests.

From what I've read on the net has happened to people, depending on lab the value can differ by one liter! That's crazy much. Do some labs not know how to operate the equipment? Or are there budget, "uncalibratable" stuff out there?

Anyway the main story I want to tell in this post is about when I was tested in a top class lab. I was fairly new to rowing and pulled 4.7l, with my last interval at 325w. There was another guy there as well. He was long time rower, 15cm taller and 15 kg heavier. He pulled close to me in oxygen, 4.9l during his last interval, but ended up with 404w. Efficiency? More Anaerobic power? hard to say, but there are big differences between indivuals.

zenpharaohs · Post by **zenpharaohs** » May 27th, 2006, 12:39 pm

Carl Henrik wrote:Extreme world class rowers will come out at 7.3l which seems right. The concept formula would have Siejkowski at 8.5l which is a bit much, isn't it. Anyone knows VO2 values for Siejkowksi, Waddell and Shurmei?

Matthew Pinsent is supposed to be 8.5l, and that is often said to be the highest recorded VO2max of anyone, ever. He has done a 5:47.9 2k.

So I wouldn't be too surprised if Siejkowski and that sort of fellow had over 8 liters.

michaelb · Post by **michaelb** » May 27th, 2006, 3:25 pm

Is the relationship between VO2 max and 2k time really that simple? The higher your VO2, the faster you can go; the faster you go, the higher your VO2 max. It has been a long time since I have done math, but that line would not even be a curve, each watt is worth 9.7 mls?

I would think there would be something else that would or could affect performance, so that someone with a lower VO2 max could at least in theory beat someone with a higher one (but by this formula, the faster person always has the higher VO2 max, at least for that race).

Carl Henrik · Post by **Carl Henrik** » May 27th, 2006, 3:57 pm

Michael,

The relation is not a description of how the body works but merely a handy way to get an approximate value for either wattage or V02 Max.

There is a very strong correlation (80-90%?) between V02 Max and wattage though between individuals, so if one person has higher of the first, he tends to have higher of the other as well. On average between the tested athletes every extra 9.7ml 02 at max intensity meant a wattage increase by 1. The correlation is not 100% though, so switching the person you are looking at to someone with higher V02 Max may mean you are looking at someone with a lesser wattage, but it's not likely.

If you are only examining yourself at different aerobic development faces, then the correlation between wattage and V02-Max will probably be even closer to 1.

I think some of my examples showed that the given relation is lacking very much, even though it should be better than the C2 one for people in the right category.

zenpharaohs · Post by **zenpharaohs** » May 29th, 2006, 3:25 pm

michaelb wrote:Is the relationship between VO2 max and 2k time really that simple?

No, there is a whole world of other things that can change the picture. Your lactate processing ability is probably the biggest factor.

For example, if you have a guy who has done pure sprint running training and done a program of intense Olympic weight lifting, that guy can develop a big mass of muscle that has not much strength endurance. So he can produce lactate at a huge rate compared to the rate at which he can process it. Because of his high muscle mass, he can actually have a big VO2max. But it will not translate into a fast 2km time because his problem keeping lactate level down will kill his endurance.

But if you have an endurance trained rower, then the lactate processing will be good, and a big VO2max means a fast 2km time.

starboardstroke · Post by **starboardstroke** » June 9th, 2006, 1:26 pm

Carl, what methods do they use to test VO2 max? We did something once in a lab where you could estimate your VO2 max, but I want a more accurate reading of mine.

NavigationHazard · Post by **NavigationHazard** » June 10th, 2006, 12:33 pm

Typically you perform exercise while wearing some device that allows respired gases to be analyzed, either a mouthpiece or some sort of facial mask. Here's what it looks like on a treadmill:

TomR · Post by **TomR** » June 10th, 2006, 3:00 pm

The C2 site has a VO2 max calculator.

http://www.concept2.com/05/training/competition/vo2.asp

Plug in your numbers, and it estimates your VO2 max per lbs (or kg) of bodyweight. According to the write-up, it's reasonably accurate.

Tom

AtlantaCyclist · Post by **AtlantaCyclist** » June 13th, 2006, 2:55 pm

The VO2 max calculator doesn't make sense to me. For the same inputs (gender and weight), you get considerably different results depending on whether you are a "highly trained competitive rower" or "not highly trained." The "highly trained" gives a higher VO2 max value.

This is counterintuitive to me. If you take two people with identical characteristics (age, gender and weight) and they both row the same time for a 2000 meter piece, why does the highly trained individual have a higher VO2 max? He would have experience, muscle memory, better technique and more knowledge regarding pacing - this should make him more efficient (same output, fewer inputs) than the newbie. Efficiency is an important concept in cycling and it helps less talented athletes compete with those possessing more talent.

Thanks in advance for any insights.

Carl Henrik · Post by **Carl Henrik** » June 13th, 2006, 3:48 pm

AtlantaCyclist,

Good point! It is a counter intuitive difference. One explanation I can think of would be that the aerobic/anaerobic ratio increase with training. For the same score the trained person would have a higher oxygen consumption.

It leaves you wondering where all that anaerobic energy producing muscle mass is at though with the rookie, because they weigh the same. In fact, he would be likely to have less muscle mass if not being a competitive rower because competitive rowers have less fat percentage than average people. Perhaps he is very short. But then inefficiency would further increas his amount of energy demanded, with some part being aerobic. And as you point out, efficiency due to training is lower as well, meaning he would further have a higher total consumption of energy.

I'm skeptical.

I think the ratio reasoning that the difference may be based on does not hold weight fixed, but assumes that if a rookie pulls 6:30 he is big and muscular and therefor will have a lower oxygen consumption than the elite type of light weight pulling the same score.

The weight input was created in a later stage to get the popular weight related value that most other endurance and health interested are aware of. By doing so they locked out the dynamics behind the ratio reasoning but still kept the formula creating a difference that has no grounds in the research referenced. Follow the reference link and you will indeed see that only non weight related measures are dealt with there.

NavigationHazard · Post by **NavigationHazard** » June 13th, 2006, 6:10 pm

Actually, it looks as though the calculator directs you to one of several regression equations depending on how you answer the hw/lw, gender, and trained/non-trained questions. Apparently these were fitted to data collected and grouped by Fritz Hagerman. Here's the source code:

1. Well-Trained Competitive Rower? 
a. If Yes, go to racers formulae 
i. Ask for gender, weight, and 2k time 
ii. Convert 2k time to minutes 
iii. Calculate absolute VO2 (liters) using these formulae: 
1. if Female, lightweight (<=135 lbs) 
a. Y (L/min)=(-1.5)x + 14.6 where x= 2k time in minutes 
2. if Female, heavyweight (>135 lbs) 
a. Y (L/min)=(-1.5)x + 14.9 where x= 2k time in minutes 
3. if Male, lightweight (<=165 lbs) 
a. Y (L/min)=(-1.5)x + 15.1 where x= 2k time in minutes 
4. if Male, heavyweight (>165 lbs) 
a. Y (L/min)=(-1.5)x + 15.7 where x= 2k time in minutes 
iv. Calculate weight in kg: W=(lbs/2.2) 
v. Calculate relative VO2 (ml/(kg-min) as follows: 
1. VO2max= (Y*1000)/W 
vi. Option: we could then use age and gender to tell them how they stack up, using the norms that Fritz attached 
b. If No, go to fitness formulae 
i. Ask for gender and 2k time 
ii. Convert 2k time to minutes 
iii. Calculate absolute VO2 (liters) using these formulae: 
1. if Female 
a. Y (L/min)=(-.93) + 10.26 
2. if Male 
a. Y (L/min)=(-.9)x + 10.7 
iv. Option: we could then use age and gender to tell them how they stack up, using the norms that Fritz attached

Note the differences in the equations....

Carl Henrik · Post by **Carl Henrik** » June 13th, 2006, 7:18 pm

NavigationHazard wrote: Note the differences in the equations....

Wow, yeah, crazy.

Carl Henrik · Post by **Carl Henrik** » June 14th, 2006, 6:28 am

I think C2 needs to get a better predictor or at least remove that one.

- You can't predict vo2max within 1% error, so the write up is a lie, the variation between individuals at the same 2k time has to be bigger than that. Note the strange writings about this! "for every one second split there is an approximate +/- 1.0 to 1.5% error factor". Come again? It seems to be a cover up for that it's the time that only varies by a split second (1-1.5%) depending on actual v02 max. This means the V02max estimation would vary by 5% though.

- There are non continuous jumps in the estimation which is just confusing and wrong. try going from 164 to 165 pound for a highly trianed rower to see what I mean.

- The jumps are more than 1% contradicting the claimed accuracy

- There seems to be underlying assumptions (regarding time brackets for being highly trained) in conflict with many entered values

- The interpretation of some of the formulas are contradictive with reality (how can it cost the same amount of oxygen to go from 5:50 to 5:40 as it does to go from 7:20 to 1:10?, 47.5watt vs 18.8watt, more than 2.5 times the amount of oxygen for this would not surprise)

- Oxygen uptake is not expected to have a linear relation with time, yet such a relation is forced, when the regular way of doing it is relating oxygen to power.

- Choosing highly trained and getting a higher V02 may miseducate people and is very confusing and wrong behaviour.

-The list could probably go on...

Concept2 Forum

V02 Max and 2k wattage relation

V02 Max and 2k wattage relation

Re: V02 Max and 2k wattage relation