all posts post new thread

Other/Mixed DIY VO2 Max Testing

Other strength modalities (e.g., Clubs), mixed strength modalities (e.g., combined kettlebell and barbell), other goals (flexibility)
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
mprevost

mprevost

Level 7 Valued Member
For 21 years (while in the Navy) I had a semi-annual aerobic fitness benchmark. Now that I am retired, I am continuing that benchmark at least annually as sort of a self check, to keep myself honest about my fitness. Provided that YOU ARE CLEAERED BY YOUR DOCTOR, an annual aerobic fitness benchmark is a nice addition to an overall fitness program. I like the 1.5 mile run as a standard. The distance is about right for a valid functional check of maximum aerobic capacity. Attached is a chart that I used extensively while I was the director of the human performance lab at the Naval Academy. Fortunately I had a large population of Midshipmen and active duty Sailors who were doing this benchmark test twice per year. I did countless VO2 max tests on my ParvoMedics True One Metabolic Cart (one of the best you can get), and was able to check the correlation between the attached chart and actual VO2 max measurements. The chart proved to be very good. So, a nice DIY VO2 max test is simply a maximum 1.5 mile run effort (get cleared by your doctor first), then look up your predicted VO2 max on the attached chart.

A VO2 max of 70s for males and 60s for females is elite. 60s for males and 50s for females under 40 would easily be a top 5% score. Over 40 years old, 50s and 40s for males and females respectively would put you in the top 5%.

You can do these on the treadmill but you need a 1% grade to simulate outdoor running.

We figured out that you would save 3-5 seconds per mile with a pound of weight loss.

We had 4500 Midshipmen at the Naval Academy. The average score for males was 9:12 ! We had Midshipmen capable of going under 7:00. For females the average was 11:40, with some capable of going under 8:00. Failing score was 10:30 for males and 12:30 for females. Lots of running at USNA.

Mike
 

Attachments

  • 1.5-Mile-VO2-Max.pdf
    33.1 KB · Views: 92
Hello,

@mprevost
Thank you very much for the chart.

A question / precision : the goal is to cover 1.5mile as fast as we can. However, is there a "pace" to have ? I mean here that do you have to run always at the same pace ? Can we start slowly and then accelerate ? Finally, does pace matter ?

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
Almost everyone starts out too fast. Ideal pace would be a nearly steady pace from beginning to end. If you have access to a 1/4 mile track, this is easier to achieve.
 
Here is how it should feel if you are pacing it steady, constant pace from beginning to end:

1/4 mile: I feel like I should be going faster
1/2 mile: I could go faster but maybe this is OK
3/4 mile: I am glad I did not go out any harder, this pace is right
1 mile: This really sucks. No way I could go any faster.
1.5 miles: I don't know if I can maintain this pace through the end. Make the pain stop.

It is quite an evolution from "I feel like I should be going faster" to "Make the pain stop" and it is all at a constant pace. Tons of fun. Most people reverse it and hurts too much within the first 200 yards, then they really slow down and underperform. This is because they start too fast. The idea is that the pace is constant but the "effort" or perceived exertion increases every lap (six laps of 1/4 mile each if using a standard track).

Mike
 
What sort of running training was being done at the time leading up to the tests?

Thanks.

-S-
 
Interesting thread, thank you @mprevost. Having recently had my VO2max tested in the lab, I can confirm that it pretty well matches for me. 1.5 mile run time 11:29 but that was a little over a year ago. VO2max lab test result was 47.3 last month, but that was on the bike, not running. So there are some variables there, but it does seem to be pretty close (11:30 = 44.4).

So would you say that most any working strategy for improving 1.5 mile run time will improve V02max, and vice versa? And if so, what are the benefits (other than being a faster runner); such as health and performance in other areas?
 
Steve Freides said:
What sort of running training was being done at the time leading up to the tests?

Thanks.

-S-
Click to expand...

For the Midshipmen? Those who were running VERY fast were members of the track and cross country team. The rest of the brigade mostly did their own thing. Some ran lots, some little. Interestingly, even the big 300lb football linemen had to pass the 1.5 mile run before graduating. As far as I know, they have had a 100% pass rate as long as anybody can remember.
 
Sean M said:
I'm a "newb" at this, but in reading about VO2 max on Wikipedia, how does this compare to the Cooper test: [(35.97 * distance covered in 12 minutes) - 11.29]?
Click to expand...
Cooper test is just as good at predicting VO2 max but it is harder to administer. With the 1.5 mile test, all you need is a start and a finish line and a clock. With Cooper, you have to measure distance covered, which is harder.
 
[QUOTE="So would you say that most any working strategy for improving 1.5 mile run time will improve V02max, and vice versa? And if so, what are the benefits (other than being a faster runner); such as health and performance in other areas?[/QUOTE]

I would say that is mostly the case. However, I am talking about relative VO2 max, which means aerobic power, relative to body weight. So losing or gaining weight will increase or decrease your VO2 max respectively. Also, run economy can improve, so you can get faster, with no improvement in VO2 max. Run economy improvements would generally not be too significant unless you were running big mileage though.

Probably little health benefits in going from a good to a very good VO2 max but going from poor to average would be significant. For me, it is a performance check. At 49 I feel some age related decline. At 40 I could run 8:45 for the 1.5 miles with no run training whatsoever. Now I have to work hard to get under 9:30. 8:5X is still possible but I have to train for it and go deep in the pain cave. I just want to keep that decline in check a bit, so I test to keep myself honest.
 
mprevost said:
Probably little health benefits in going from a good to a very good VO2 max but going from poor to average would be significant.
Click to expand...

Makes sense, thanks!
 
@mprevost I work in a facility where we run V02 testing via the Bruce protocol (constant speed/incline increasing every 3 minutes to exhaustion). Granted, I work with mostly 40+ individuals, many with chronic disease but have you ever used that test and how reliable was it (if at all) with other tests?
 
Bruce protocol is good if what you want to know is VO2 max. I was testing mainly runners, so I used my own protocol. I used a 1% grade (because this represents the same energy expenditure as running outdoors on a flat surface) and increased speed every minute to exhaustion. That way I knew something about fuel use and run economy across a range of running paces. You can't really get that with a Bruce protocol. Really, any protocol with a progressive increase in work rate is fine for VO2 max testing.
 
@mprevost Thanks for the chart and the info! I am very impressed with the average run times of the midshipmen. Your blog was one of my favorite reading destinations until recently when it disappeared.
 
Hello,

mprevost said:
Probably little health benefits in going from a good to a very good VO2 max but going from poor to average would be significant
Click to expand...
I guess progression is not linear. I mean that you progress faster starting from scratch to get a medium level. Then, you have to train far more to go from average level to high level. The "marginal gain" is more and more reduced.

Kind regards,

Pet'
 
pet' said:
I guess progression is not linear. I mean that you progress faster starting from scratch to get a medium level. Then, you have to train far more to go from average level to high level. The "marginal gain" is more and more reduced.
Click to expand...

Good point; I think this is true, and sort of like strength. So any intelligent training will help get a beginner to a moderate level with good return on their effort. Beyond that it takes more specialized training to get to a high level. And going beyond a high level to elite probably has more to do with 1) genetic ability, and 2) what one has been doing in the years or even lifetime leading up to the current time.
 
@mprevost : are you measuring heart rate as well during the test? Could this be done with the MAF heart rate, or is there no real correlation then, i.e. going too slow to stay within the MAF range?
 
You definitely do not want to stay within the MAF heart rate during the test ! You should be very near maximum heart rate at the end of the test. Monitoring heart rate during the test is optional but if you go really hard and push the last 1/4 mile as hard as you can, you will be very near maximum heart rate at the end.
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom