VO2 Max test - full zone breakdown plus fat/carb burn rates
Discussion
I've posted this elsewhere, but it's probably more relevant for this group.
I did a VO2 Max test on Friday, I know it's the gold standard cardiovascular/cardiorespiratory assessment, but I've never been overly bothered. I've always relied on other metrics, plus 'feel', plus at 53yrs old I wasn't sure how useful it would be, but a friend arranged it and arranged a slight discount (£100) so I went along.
However, it was really insightful! Aside from the VO2 Max figure itself, we all got a report showing exact zone HR thresholds, where we all with from aerobic to anaerobic, fat vs carb fuelling etc. And then a consultation to talk us through it all.
Possibly the best £100 I've spent on my own fitness, definitely recommend if you have any element of geek about your cycling.
We used these guys: https://myvitalmetrics.com. Sites in London and Manchester. Can't recommend them highly enough.
I did a VO2 Max test on Friday, I know it's the gold standard cardiovascular/cardiorespiratory assessment, but I've never been overly bothered. I've always relied on other metrics, plus 'feel', plus at 53yrs old I wasn't sure how useful it would be, but a friend arranged it and arranged a slight discount (£100) so I went along.
However, it was really insightful! Aside from the VO2 Max figure itself, we all got a report showing exact zone HR thresholds, where we all with from aerobic to anaerobic, fat vs carb fuelling etc. And then a consultation to talk us through it all.
Possibly the best £100 I've spent on my own fitness, definitely recommend if you have any element of geek about your cycling.
We used these guys: https://myvitalmetrics.com. Sites in London and Manchester. Can't recommend them highly enough.
Interesting stuff, thanks for posting. How did they assess the fat vs carb burn rates in the last graph? Unusual to see that fat burn would go up, then down, then back up again over a range of power ouptuts; you'd expect it to have a linear build, up to the point of switch to pure carb energy system usage.
Did you find the numbers were about where you expected in terms of zones etc?
Did you find the numbers were about where you expected in terms of zones etc?
Voguely said:
Interesting stuff, thanks for posting. How did they assess the fat vs carb burn rates in the last graph? Unusual to see that fat burn would go up, then down, then back up again over a range of power ouptuts; you'd expect it to have a linear build, up to the point of switch to pure carb energy system usage.
Did you find the numbers were about where you expected in terms of zones etc?
It's all part of the test. Exactly how, I don't know. It is unusual to have such a flat fat burn (and flat and immediate carb burn). It's not, apparently, unusual for it to drop and pick up again. The others that died the tests all did that with the fat. Mine was a little unusual in having carb burn almost immediately, and such a flat fat burn that extended all the way to the anaerobic level.Did you find the numbers were about where you expected in terms of zones etc?
I do intermittent fasting though, and they suspected it was a benefit of that.
And yes, the HR zones were roughly where I thought, all very roughly 10% higher.
Yes it's a ramp test, but just go until you reach max VO2 (when the graph line starts to go down) and the RER figure gets to 1.1, it's not to a set 17 stages. Some get to more, some less. I think 22 is the max.
Start at 55w then goes up in 15w increments. Power isn't really part of it, you reach the inability to breathe enough before your legs give up so it levels the score between different bikes etc. My legs were fine, I wasn't reaching max power for my legs, but I just couldn't breathe, and everyone was the same, a bit like climbing above 2000m. That's what it is testing.
But yes, I am small. c60kg. I've not done an FTP test for a while. Last proper one was 305w in Summer 2024. Zwift calculations say its around 275w.
Start at 55w then goes up in 15w increments. Power isn't really part of it, you reach the inability to breathe enough before your legs give up so it levels the score between different bikes etc. My legs were fine, I wasn't reaching max power for my legs, but I just couldn't breathe, and everyone was the same, a bit like climbing above 2000m. That's what it is testing.
But yes, I am small. c60kg. I've not done an FTP test for a while. Last proper one was 305w in Summer 2024. Zwift calculations say its around 275w.
TheHeadhunter said:
Yes it's a ramp test, but just go until you reach max VO2 (when the graph line starts to go down) and the RER figure gets to 1.1, it's not to a set 17 stages. Some get to more, some less. I think 22 is the max.
Start at 55w then goes up in 15w increments. Power isn't really part of it, you reach the inability to breathe enough before your legs give up so it levels the score between different bikes etc. My legs were fine, I wasn't reaching max power for my legs, but I just couldn't breathe, and everyone was the same, a bit like climbing above 2000m. That's what it is testing.
But yes, I am small. c60kg. I've not done an FTP test for a while. Last proper one was 305w in Summer 2024. Zwift calculations say its around 275w.
that makes no sense. Start at 55w then goes up in 15w increments. Power isn't really part of it, you reach the inability to breathe enough before your legs give up so it levels the score between different bikes etc. My legs were fine, I wasn't reaching max power for my legs, but I just couldn't breathe, and everyone was the same, a bit like climbing above 2000m. That's what it is testing.
But yes, I am small. c60kg. I've not done an FTP test for a while. Last proper one was 305w in Summer 2024. Zwift calculations say its around 275w.
I suspect your actual FTP is somewhere around 230/240, on a calibrated trainer or outside with dual source.
z4RRSchris said:
TheHeadhunter said:
Yes it's a ramp test, but just go until you reach max VO2 (when the graph line starts to go down) and the RER figure gets to 1.1, it's not to a set 17 stages. Some get to more, some less. I think 22 is the max.
Start at 55w then goes up in 15w increments. Power isn't really part of it, you reach the inability to breathe enough before your legs give up so it levels the score between different bikes etc. My legs were fine, I wasn't reaching max power for my legs, but I just couldn't breathe, and everyone was the same, a bit like climbing above 2000m. That's what it is testing.
But yes, I am small. c60kg. I've not done an FTP test for a while. Last proper one was 305w in Summer 2024. Zwift calculations say its around 275w.
that makes no sense. Start at 55w then goes up in 15w increments. Power isn't really part of it, you reach the inability to breathe enough before your legs give up so it levels the score between different bikes etc. My legs were fine, I wasn't reaching max power for my legs, but I just couldn't breathe, and everyone was the same, a bit like climbing above 2000m. That's what it is testing.
But yes, I am small. c60kg. I've not done an FTP test for a while. Last proper one was 305w in Summer 2024. Zwift calculations say its around 275w.
I suspect your actual FTP is somewhere around 230/240, on a calibrated trainer or outside with dual source.
FTP and VO2 Max test results are not as closely linked as you perhaps think.
A VO2 max ramp test often produces a lower peak power than FTP for a variety of reasons, you don't go past where your VO2 max peaks (they used the RER to confirm that)
VO2max Ramp Tests Use Very Short Stages, you fail at the Limiting System, Not at Threshold Power. It is measuring max aerobic ceiling, not your threshold.
Ramp tests increase power every 1 minute, this means you’re working above threshold very quickly, and failure is caused by any (or all) of the following:
Cardiovascular max capacity
Maximal oxygen delivery/utilization
Accumulated anaerobic cost
Breathing rate limitations
You never get time to settle into a steady state, so the power you reach has little to do with what you can hold for long periods which is what your FTP is.
It is common for more endurance style riders to have higher FTP relative to VO2 max and lower anaerobic burst. They will typically have more Type I fibres, high endurance/efficiency, lower anaerobic power and stronger threshold performance. They will hit a cardiovascular ceiling in a ramp test before legs “fail” as you would in an FTP test.
Conversely sprinter-type riders often achieve higher ramp-test peaks relative to FTP because they can push more anaerobic power when the test gets really hard.
The guys I did the test with were all similar styles of riders, more endurance that explosive power. Our tests all peaked at a similar stage and all below our FTPs (they knew theirs more than I do). The more sprinter style rider (but still not a powerhouse) had the closest peak power to FTP, but still 10w below.
A VO2 max ramp test often produces a lower peak power than FTP for a variety of reasons, you don't go past where your VO2 max peaks (they used the RER to confirm that)
VO2max Ramp Tests Use Very Short Stages, you fail at the Limiting System, Not at Threshold Power. It is measuring max aerobic ceiling, not your threshold.
Ramp tests increase power every 1 minute, this means you’re working above threshold very quickly, and failure is caused by any (or all) of the following:
Cardiovascular max capacity
Maximal oxygen delivery/utilization
Accumulated anaerobic cost
Breathing rate limitations
You never get time to settle into a steady state, so the power you reach has little to do with what you can hold for long periods which is what your FTP is.
It is common for more endurance style riders to have higher FTP relative to VO2 max and lower anaerobic burst. They will typically have more Type I fibres, high endurance/efficiency, lower anaerobic power and stronger threshold performance. They will hit a cardiovascular ceiling in a ramp test before legs “fail” as you would in an FTP test.
Conversely sprinter-type riders often achieve higher ramp-test peaks relative to FTP because they can push more anaerobic power when the test gets really hard.
The guys I did the test with were all similar styles of riders, more endurance that explosive power. Our tests all peaked at a similar stage and all below our FTPs (they knew theirs more than I do). The more sprinter style rider (but still not a powerhouse) had the closest peak power to FTP, but still 10w below.
Definitely something not right with those numbers, you won't be reaching VO2max whilst riding below threshold! A ramp test should be until exhaustion, the last few minutes should be particularly horrible. The whole point is to measure the maximum amount of oxygen that you can deliver/utilise - you could liken it to a balls-out 3-4min steep climb effort, rather than a 25m TT (threshold). I wonder if that lab are more used to less-fit people! The test protocol is certainly a bit odd starting at only 55watts.
edit: we were evidently typing at the same time. There is no situation, and I mean absolutely zero, where your FTP will be higher than you VO2max.
edit: we were evidently typing at the same time. There is no situation, and I mean absolutely zero, where your FTP will be higher than you VO2max.
Edited by addey on Tuesday 18th November 12:46
addey said:
Definitely something not right with those numbers, you won't be reaching VO2max whilst riding below threshold! A ramp test should be until exhaustion, the last few minutes should be particularly horrible. The whole point is to measure the maximum amount of oxygen that you can deliver/utilise - you could liken it to a balls-out 3-4min steep climb effort, rather than a 25m TT (threshold). I wonder if that lab are more used to less-fit people! The test protocol is certainly a bit odd starting at only 55watts.
See my above post.TheHeadhunter said:
addey said:
Definitely something not right with those numbers, you won't be reaching VO2max whilst riding below threshold! A ramp test should be until exhaustion, the last few minutes should be particularly horrible. The whole point is to measure the maximum amount of oxygen that you can deliver/utilise - you could liken it to a balls-out 3-4min steep climb effort, rather than a 25m TT (threshold). I wonder if that lab are more used to less-fit people! The test protocol is certainly a bit odd starting at only 55watts.
See my above post.addey said:
yes I've read it. Its mostly nonsense!
this. worth saying also vo2 max of 70, age 53 is pretty unreal, and i cant see those power figures being associated with that.
not saying you have trumped the documents, just all the results dont add up at all.
found your insta - body fat @ 3% etc etc etc.
Edited by z4RRSchris on Tuesday 18th November 13:56
Forums | Pedal Powered | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff