Author Topic: The TT limit of genetical truth??  (Read 2928 times)

Re: The TT limit of genetical truth??
« Reply #25 on: July 15, 2009, 05:36:26 pm »
A person with a VO2max score of 25 is not "reasonably fit" they are very unfit!

Average untrained young male will score 45.

Yes, but that's the difference between a single data point and an average.

A single person can be reasonably fit and still way below the average. They just have a low VO2 max.

V02 max isn't fitness, it's related to it, but they're two different things.

Anyway, further reading shows lots of inconsistencies in the studies. Some report no increase in VO2 max after training, some report up to a 93% increase in VO2 max with training.
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

Re: The TT limit of genetical truth??
« Reply #26 on: July 15, 2009, 06:15:15 pm »
The units are millilitres per kg body weight per minute.
And Darkness and Decay and the Coronavirus held illimitable dominion over all.

Re: The TT limit of genetical truth??
« Reply #27 on: July 15, 2009, 06:28:53 pm »
The units are millilitres per kg body weight per minute.

(Temporary) 1% improvement in VO2 max by going for a dump and a piss. :)
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

Manotea

  • Where there is doubt...
Re: The TT limit of genetical truth??
« Reply #28 on: July 15, 2009, 06:38:08 pm »
A few years back I went along for some VO2 testing with a mate who was thinking about taking up triathlon. Some may remember the request for volunteers to take part in a testing program which looked to replicate the effects of altitude and included a scientific visit to Everest, not us though. Anyway, I scored 38 (sob) and my mate was in the mid 60s. The next year he went to the triathlon world champs with the GB team as an age grouper. Lance was in the low 70s I believe.

Re: The TT limit of genetical truth??
« Reply #29 on: July 15, 2009, 09:38:01 pm »
Given my similarity in performance in endurance sport to Sr Manotea (he invariably keeps up with me and I've seen him ride away from me) I would estimate I'm probably about the same, if not slightly lower. This is slightly worse given that I have a couple of years on the Peter Pan-esque Sr Manotea.

Part of this reinforces my point. There's no doubt I'm above-average fitness, but I've probably below average VO2 max for my age, despite being reasonably "trained".
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

simonp

  • Omnomnomnipotent.
Re: The TT limit of genetical truth??
« Reply #30 on: July 15, 2009, 09:47:57 pm »
A person with a VO2max score of 25 is not "reasonably fit" they are very unfit!

Average untrained young male will score 45.

Yes, but that's the difference between a single data point and an average.

A single person can be reasonably fit and still way below the average. They just have a low VO2 max.

V02 max isn't fitness, it's related to it, but they're two different things.


Sorry, I don't agree - VO2max is a direct measure of aerobic fitness.  It's not the only measure of fitness, but it's probably the most important.  A VO2max score of 25 in anyone under the age of 60 is considered very poor.  They probably score badly because of being overweight as much as anything else, and can improve the score simply by losing weight as long as it's fat rather than muscle that is lost.

simonp

  • Omnomnomnipotent.
Re: The TT limit of genetical truth??
« Reply #31 on: July 15, 2009, 09:54:39 pm »
Greenbank, your score (whatever it is) will have improved simply because you have lost weight.

When I had a test in the 90s, when I was about 25, the result was 65.  This was not a direct measurement so I take it with a pinch of salt, but I only weighed 67kg at the time.  If nothing else changed, my score will have dropped to 60, because I'm about 5kg heavier now.

Annoyingly, I won't be having my new VO2max test for several weeks.

Re: The TT limit of genetical truth??
« Reply #32 on: July 15, 2009, 10:00:12 pm »
Who does them, and how much do they cost?  I'd like another excuse for being crap at TTing, as well as being very slightly asthmatic with excessive foot supination and a strong right leg bias.
And Darkness and Decay and the Coronavirus held illimitable dominion over all.

Re: The TT limit of genetical truth??
« Reply #33 on: July 15, 2009, 10:01:13 pm »
......

Part of this reinforces my point. There's no doubt I'm above-average fitness, but I've probably below average VO2 max for my age, despite being reasonably "trained".

Yes, me too - I've trained my nuts off for the last couple of years (in a proper structured way), but the power I can produce hasn't changed that much. I doubt I'm at my genetic limit as I just don't have unlimited time to train, but it's not that far away.

Neil

simonp

  • Omnomnomnipotent.
Re: The TT limit of genetical truth??
« Reply #34 on: July 15, 2009, 10:14:43 pm »
Who does them, and how much do they cost?  I'd like another excuse for being crap at TTing, as well as being very slightly asthmatic with excessive foot supination and a strong right leg bias.

£100 from Anglia Ruskin University, for which I will get:

Body composition: height, mass, skinfolds, surface area, girths
Lung function
Bloods screening
Power test (6s maximal cycles)
Incremental ramp test for determination of lactate, heart rate and VO2 responses.
Full report highlighting all of the above plus:
VO2max
Lactate/HR/power-based training zones
Training advice

The previous test I did was at a gym, and was just a ramp test measuring heart rate and then producing a VO2max estimate based on that.  I'm willing to believe they overestimated VO2max, the Anglia uni lot do testing for world class athletes so I expect the result to be representative.

There used to be a place at Addenbrooke's hospital but that's closed due to lack of funding.  I bet it can be done in London, try googling for vo2max testing london.  Top hit: VO2 Max Test which is also £100, I dunno about swindon, you could try googling there.

simonp

  • Omnomnomnipotent.
Re: The TT limit of genetical truth??
« Reply #35 on: July 15, 2009, 10:21:13 pm »
The power I can produce /has/ improved over the past couple of years.  In particular I've noticed this year that I can sustain high output for longer, with a lower heart rate.

This is probably because I wasn't doing so much cycling in the late 90s-early 2000s and had lost a lot of fitness.  I started picking up the mileage again in 2004, but only went crazy in 2007.


Re: The TT limit of genetical truth??
« Reply #36 on: July 15, 2009, 10:53:06 pm »
Greenbank, your score (whatever it is) will have improved simply because you have lost weight.

To a point, yes but there's a limit. If I starve myself down to 6 stone and serious ill health my VO2 max, when tested, would not be double what it is now. My peak is probably at about 10st, and that's not out of the realms of possibility, but that's still only a 16% increase in VO2 max due to weight loss.

I'd never be able to train to a point where I could do a 2h30 marathon. I simply don't have it in me. 4 hours would be relatively easy to train for, I can do prolonged periods on a treadmill at 10.5kph. It would just mean planning on 12kph for 3 hours with the inevitable tail-off near the end. If I really pushed myself (based on what I know about my running and fitness), dropped to 10st-ish, I could probably scrape a 3h30 hour marathon, maybe even 3h15m, but that would involve serious training, much more than I ever do on the bike.

I'd still get nowhere near the "Good for age" time for my age (according to London Marathon) which is near 2h45.
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

mattc

  • n.b. have grown beard since photo taken
    • Didcot Audaxes
Re: The TT limit of genetical truth??
« Reply #37 on: July 16, 2009, 09:18:14 am »
There's no doubt I'm above-average fitness, but I've probably below average VO2 max for my age, despite being reasonably "trained".

The problem here is that you and Simon need to agree on a definition of "fitness" and "trained".

I suspect Simon defines fitness as "High VO2 Max" ;)

(You also have to factor in adaptation - you can increase power at the pedals significantly without increasing VO2 Max, or any other measurable 'fitness' levels.)
Has never ridden RAAM
---------
No.11  Because of the great host of those who dislike the least appearance of "swank " when they travel the roads and lanes. - From Kuklos' 39 Articles

Re: The TT limit of genetical truth??
« Reply #38 on: July 16, 2009, 09:53:25 am »
Stop complicating my sweeping generalisations. ;)
"Yes please" said Squirrel "biscuits are our favourite things."

simonp

  • Omnomnomnipotent.
Re: The TT limit of genetical truth??
« Reply #39 on: July 17, 2009, 06:33:00 pm »
Quote
The ACSM currently recommends 20 to 60 min of exercise performed at 40/50-85% HRR or V˙O2R for most adults, where 40% is considered a threshold level for deconditioned individuals and 50% is a threshold for average adults.[2] There has been previous evidence suggesting that exercise of a higher intensity will result in greater gains in cardiovascular fitness.[32,33] However, only a few reports included a sufficient number of subjects to confirm that groups training at higher intensities experienced significantly greater increases in V˙O2max than groups training at lower intensities when the total volume of exercise was controlled. In this study, each of the exercising groups experienced a significant absolute increase in V˙O2max versus baseline values, and the absolute increase in the near-maximal-intensity group was significantly greater than that in the moderate-intensity group. Moreover, when the increases in V˙O2max were expressed as percent changes, the response in each intensity group was significantly greater than that in the lower-intensity groups.

This study is unusual in including a group that exercised with intervals at an intensity that approached V˙O2max. Such intervals have been included in training programs as early as 1977, when Hickson et al.[17] reported a 44% increase in V˙O2max after 10 wk of training that consisted of six 5-min intervals of bicycling at V˙O2max on 3 d·wk-1 plus 40 min of vigorous running on 3 d·wk-1. However, Hickson et al.[17] did not compare this training program with any other. Three recent studies have compared high-intensity interval training with lower-intensity continuous training in cardiac patients with total work controlled.[27,37,38] Significantly greater benefits were found in the interval group than the continuous group for V˙O2max,[27,38] ventilatory threshold and treadmill time to exhaustion,[37] and left ventricular performance.[38]

A study recently published by Helgerud et al.[16] examined the effects of 8 wk of aerobic endurance training at various exercise intensities in healthy, young-adult males. Groups performed running at a moderate-intensity (70% HRmax for 45 min each session), vigorous-intensity (85% HRmax for ∼24 min per session), and two maximal-intensity interval training regimens that both alternated 90-95% HRmax with 70% HRmax, one using multiple 15-s intervals and one using four 4-min intervals. Both interval training groups significantly increased V˙O2max, whereas neither continuous training group did. Using a previously published formula,[32] the moderate- and vigorous-intensity groups of Helgerud et al.[16] were exercising at ∼47% and ∼72% HRR, respectively, which are comparable to the current study. The failure of the continuous training groups of Helgerud et al.[16] to increase V˙O2max was probably due to their high baseline fitness, which averaged 58 mL·min-1·kg-1. Esfarjani and Laursen[11] recently compared interval training at V˙O2max with continuous training at 75% HRR in male runners. As in the study of Helgerud et al.,[16] the subjects' baseline V˙O2max was greater than 50 mL·min-1·kg-1, and only the interval group increased V˙O2max. Both of these studies differed from the current study in the population (only males vs both males and females; high vs average fitness) and the mode of exercise (running vs cycling).



simonp

  • Omnomnomnipotent.
Re: The TT limit of genetical truth??
« Reply #40 on: July 17, 2009, 10:25:11 pm »
Oh... apparently it's possible to estimate VO2max from your best Concept II rowing machine time for 2000m.  So I plugged in my weight and best time (from last year), and got: 53. (I put myself as trained, which reduces the score by 1.5).  Kind of the ballpark I was expecting.  I thought it'd be about 50, I'd have been disappointed with significantly less.

Will be interesting to compare that to the proper test next month.  The page (Concept2: VO2max Calculator) claims to be able to estimate VO2max with an accuracy of around 1-1.5%.

To get back to an estimated VO2max of 65 I'd have to get my weight back to 67kg, and be able to do a time of 07:00.  Or, with my current weight (72kg) a time of 06:45.  Ouch!  :o