Fitness test results... Anyone able to analyse?
Discussion
I had a fitness analysis done yesterday and I've posted some links to the results. I got the test done so I can gain a bit of an understanding of my fitness levels, and also so a coach can develop a training program for a half Ironman I'd like to enter in June of next year. One thing that I did learn is that my training isn't doing me much good. I've mistakenly been in the mindset that unless I'm knackered and out of breath by the end of a session then I'm not achieving results. When in fact, that approach is totally the wrong one.
He's sending me a report and analysis of the results later this week, but wondered if anyone could offer any feedback on the results. From what I've read, vo2 max is
The test was done on a bike rather than a treadmill. I reckon I still had 5% more to give, as did the guy doing the test.
Anyhow, stats are:
Age - 29
5ft 10"
12st give or take
http://s8.postimg.org/cvxep1x79/image.jpg
http://s9.postimg.org/ijy8mxlmn/image.jpg
He's sending me a report and analysis of the results later this week, but wondered if anyone could offer any feedback on the results. From what I've read, vo2 max is
The test was done on a bike rather than a treadmill. I reckon I still had 5% more to give, as did the guy doing the test.
Anyhow, stats are:
Age - 29
5ft 10"
12st give or take
http://s8.postimg.org/cvxep1x79/image.jpg
http://s9.postimg.org/ijy8mxlmn/image.jpg
Edited by thenortherner on Sunday 29th September 20:27
This is a ventilatory threshold test, which is fine for offering a measure of physical fitness (VO2), but personally I prefer a lactate testing as LT testing offers better results to transpose into your training and is a better predictor of performance, so you'll have to forgive me as I'm used to looking at those graphs, but I'll give it a shot!
To me, it looks a little confusing as your calorie utilisation curve has no timeline, so the rapid initial switch from predominantly fat as a fuel source is either as a result of oxygen debt (if the test is carried out quickly) or poor aerobic conditioning. Seems very odd to be only burning 10% fat at 126bpm, but there is a slight recovery at 132ish bpm, which makes me think oxygen debt may be the reason.
Either way it would appear that what you've suspected is true - your training has all been at too high an intensity which has resulted in poor aerobic efficiency. It's not to say you're unfit (you're not - a VO2max of 52ml/kg/min is not that of someone who is unfit), it's just that your training until now has not resulted in the capillary & mitochondrial density changes that occur at 65% to 75% HRmax aerobic zone.
If you have a strong aerobic base your body will be very efficient up until LT2 at utilising a high percentage of fat as a fuel source (because of the above adaptations) - this test shows that your body switches to high percentages of glycogen very early in you HR range as, I'm surmising, the vast majority of your training has been at, or above, your current LT2, ie. anaerobic. You need to target probably 3 months of targetted training at, or predominantly below, LT1.
As mentioned though (and has you've probably guessed!), I'm happier looking at a graded lactate graph and extrapolating specific HR zones as they're what I'm used to dealing with, but I hope that's a bit of insight. Remember that all these tests are discipline specific, so ideally you'll need to carry out a similar test on a treadmill if you want to understand your running in the same manner.
Any questions though, just shout.
To me, it looks a little confusing as your calorie utilisation curve has no timeline, so the rapid initial switch from predominantly fat as a fuel source is either as a result of oxygen debt (if the test is carried out quickly) or poor aerobic conditioning. Seems very odd to be only burning 10% fat at 126bpm, but there is a slight recovery at 132ish bpm, which makes me think oxygen debt may be the reason.
Either way it would appear that what you've suspected is true - your training has all been at too high an intensity which has resulted in poor aerobic efficiency. It's not to say you're unfit (you're not - a VO2max of 52ml/kg/min is not that of someone who is unfit), it's just that your training until now has not resulted in the capillary & mitochondrial density changes that occur at 65% to 75% HRmax aerobic zone.
If you have a strong aerobic base your body will be very efficient up until LT2 at utilising a high percentage of fat as a fuel source (because of the above adaptations) - this test shows that your body switches to high percentages of glycogen very early in you HR range as, I'm surmising, the vast majority of your training has been at, or above, your current LT2, ie. anaerobic. You need to target probably 3 months of targetted training at, or predominantly below, LT1.
As mentioned though (and has you've probably guessed!), I'm happier looking at a graded lactate graph and extrapolating specific HR zones as they're what I'm used to dealing with, but I hope that's a bit of insight. Remember that all these tests are discipline specific, so ideally you'll need to carry out a similar test on a treadmill if you want to understand your running in the same manner.
Any questions though, just shout.
VO2 max, the number that's important is the 52ml/kg/min. It tells you the amount of oxygen your body utlizes per kg of bodyweight, per minute. Was this a predicitivie test, or were you using actual gas analysis? Just out of interest, as the predictive ones should be pretty accurate. As dangerousB says though, if you're a runner you may well see slighty differnert (better) results from a treadmill test. My thoughts are that 30-40 is a pretty unfit/inactive person, 40-50 is a casually fit person, 50-60 is in the realms of fit athletes, 60-70 is very very good, 70+ is elite distance athletes.
As dangerousB says, VO2max is not the only predictor of fitness, but I do think it is definitely worth knowing and a good indicator of fitness levels. Lactate threshold is good too.
I do disagree with this though "Either way it would appear that what you've suspected is true - your training has all been at too high an intensity which has resulted in poor aerobic efficiency". Research suggets that HIIT is significantly more effective at creating aerobic efficiency than standard endurance training. TO the extent that it should be possible for marathon runner to gain most of their fitness from HIIT. Obviously though, the body needs to be conditioned to the long runs so one could not just rely on this. As a strength and conditionin coach I do not like the use of "zones" that say cardiovascular aerobic training should be done in zone 1/2, as it is not that simple.
As dangerousB says, VO2max is not the only predictor of fitness, but I do think it is definitely worth knowing and a good indicator of fitness levels. Lactate threshold is good too.
I do disagree with this though "Either way it would appear that what you've suspected is true - your training has all been at too high an intensity which has resulted in poor aerobic efficiency". Research suggets that HIIT is significantly more effective at creating aerobic efficiency than standard endurance training. TO the extent that it should be possible for marathon runner to gain most of their fitness from HIIT. Obviously though, the body needs to be conditioned to the long runs so one could not just rely on this. As a strength and conditionin coach I do not like the use of "zones" that say cardiovascular aerobic training should be done in zone 1/2, as it is not that simple.
TheBALDpuma said:
I do disagree with this though "Either way it would appear that what you've suspected is true - your training has all been at too high an intensity which has resulted in poor aerobic efficiency".
Well if you do, I'd be interested to hear what your understanding of "aerobic efficiency" is.TheBALDpuma said:
As a strength and conditionin coach I do not like the use of "zones" that say cardiovascular aerobic training should be done in zone 1/2, as it is not that simple.
So the OP needs some advice, what's yours?dangerousB said:
TheBALDpuma said:
I do disagree with this though "Either way it would appear that what you've suspected is true - your training has all been at too high an intensity which has resulted in poor aerobic efficiency".
Well if you do, I'd be interested to hear what your understanding of "aerobic efficiency" is.dangerousB said:
TheBALDpuma said:
As a strength and conditionin coach I do not like the use of "zones" that say cardiovascular aerobic training should be done in zone 1/2, as it is not that simple.
So the OP needs some advice, what's yours?TheBALDpuma said:
Aerobic effeciency is the body's ability to maintain aerobic resperation. Basically how fit you are at lower intensities.
Aerobic respiration predominantly of what? The OP wants to compete in a 70.3 - he wants his body to be chomping its way through as little glycogen as poss.TheBALDpuma said:
What I'm trying to say is you do not need to train at low intensities to imrpove this, infact HIIT is much much more effecient.
HIIT has it's place in the OP's training programme but for him it wouldn't be for some time yet, probably not for the next 5 months. I'm sorry, but to suggest that HIIT would be the way forward (and be the efficient way forward) is just plain wrong. Aside from that, it's not a golden panacea even in a trained individual, more a method of making quick buck that you won't be able to hold on to for very long.To use the same analogy, time spent at the low intensities I've mentioned are smaller paydays now (that he will notice, anyway) that will pay huge amounts of interest later on in his programme when stamina, economy and speed are targetted. Without that solid aerobic foundation, his programme's potential to extract the best out of him will be hugely limited.
TheBALDpuma said:
The real basics for IronMan training is lots of swimming, cycling and runnng at varying intensities (including long slow stuff and super short/intense stuff) as well as a comprehensive strength and conditioning program.
Except that's not really advice is it chap? Rather stating the bleeding obvious with no specificity.Apologies if any of that sounds a bit grumpy, but the OP wouldn't be served well if he followed your advice - he needs to periodise his training and right now that means getting good at being slow. In 9 months time that will aid him hugely in being good at being quick - and being efficient in the process.
I wasn't staying that all the op should do is HIIT, just that it is a very efficient way of improving endurance performance and in no way are the results short term as you seem to suggest. I was combating your comment on regards to the fact he shouldn't be working hard at the moment.
Yes the advice was very basic but he's not asking for a training program so I didn't give one.
I won't argue the benefits of different aspects of training as really it is going way off topic. You can dismiss what I say if you like, it's not like I work with athletics teams as a career, have a masters degree in strength and conditioning or spent a year leading up to London 2012 coaching, alongside other coaches, the British triathletes including Alistair and Johnny brownlee
.
Yes the advice was very basic but he's not asking for a training program so I didn't give one.
I won't argue the benefits of different aspects of training as really it is going way off topic. You can dismiss what I say if you like, it's not like I work with athletics teams as a career, have a masters degree in strength and conditioning or spent a year leading up to London 2012 coaching, alongside other coaches, the British triathletes including Alistair and Johnny brownlee
.Look, I've neither the time or inclination for an argument either . . . but
With all due respect, not comparable to the OP really, is it?
Right, off for a base run myself. < 140bpm
TheBALDpuma said:
I was combating your comment on regards to the fact he shouldn't be working hard at the moment.
He shouldn't. He's got heaps of time before he needs to do that. Right now he should be working smart.TheBALDpuma said:
You can dismiss what I say if you like, it's not like I work with athletics teams as a career, have a masters degree in strength and conditioning or spent a year leading up to London 2012 coaching, alongside other coaches, the British triathletes including Alistair and Johnny brownlee .
Well that's probably explains why you're sending out the wrong message - Team GB triathlete's & the Brownlees are exceptionally trained individuals whose training regimes in that period would be benefitting from a markedly different approach. Even so, they would still be periodising on a Base > Build > Peak > Taper cycle, albeit with macro-, meso- and microcycle structure inbuilt..With all due respect, not comparable to the OP really, is it?
Right, off for a base run myself. < 140bpm
Thanks for the responses / debate. Appreciated.
I'm due to get the training program later this week based on my results.
Given that I only knocked cigarettes on the head 9 months ago I was quite pleased with the results. The test was done on a bike over a period of maybe 15 minutes or so, and it was a gas rather than predictive test. I was very relaxed at first, which possibly accounts for some of the results, making a conscious effort to breath slowly / controlled.
His advice was that all of my training has been done at 'full revs' and I've not built a base fitness. Mountain biking, for me, is usually working like hell on the inclines, hammering the descents but with no time to spin out and maintain a steady, lower heart rate. Much as with my running too. He's advised me to get some slicks for my hardtail and do some longer, lower intensity riding. I've also been told to get a £50 heart rate monitor as this will be more than up to the job of ensuring I don't go out of the recommended range.
Comparatively speaking, how do my results fair? I'm really wanting to do the half Ironman and I'm hoping that 9 months with the right programme will get me there.
Finally, I'd like to know more about the LT test. How's this done and what would I get from it? Doesn't the test I've done show when I've entered this zone already?
Cheers,
I'm due to get the training program later this week based on my results.
Given that I only knocked cigarettes on the head 9 months ago I was quite pleased with the results. The test was done on a bike over a period of maybe 15 minutes or so, and it was a gas rather than predictive test. I was very relaxed at first, which possibly accounts for some of the results, making a conscious effort to breath slowly / controlled.
His advice was that all of my training has been done at 'full revs' and I've not built a base fitness. Mountain biking, for me, is usually working like hell on the inclines, hammering the descents but with no time to spin out and maintain a steady, lower heart rate. Much as with my running too. He's advised me to get some slicks for my hardtail and do some longer, lower intensity riding. I've also been told to get a £50 heart rate monitor as this will be more than up to the job of ensuring I don't go out of the recommended range.
Comparatively speaking, how do my results fair? I'm really wanting to do the half Ironman and I'm hoping that 9 months with the right programme will get me there.
Finally, I'd like to know more about the LT test. How's this done and what would I get from it? Doesn't the test I've done show when I've entered this zone already?
Cheers,
I did a lactate threshold/anaerobic threshold test back in the summer. It was done on a treadmill and was similar to your recent fitness test on a bike, in that my oxygen intake and carbon dioxide output were measured. What they did was have me start out at a slow and steady speed and then ramp up the speed by 0.2kmph every 90 seconds; they stopped the test when I was producing more carbon dioxide than my body could compensate for with more oxygen.
At the end, they gave me predictive times for the half marathon and marathon; the half marathon was over 5 minutes slower than my PB (big pinch of salt taken with this one) and my marathon prediction was over 12 minutes faster than my PB.
At the end, they gave me predictive times for the half marathon and marathon; the half marathon was over 5 minutes slower than my PB (big pinch of salt taken with this one) and my marathon prediction was over 12 minutes faster than my PB.
Thought I'd post a bit of an update on this...
I'm around 6 weeks into a program set by a coach, with each week varying what's required. Typically it's around 12 hours per week - and I'm sticking to it thus far. Although fairly costly at £80 per month, I thought this was the best approach since it's all tailored to me specifically rather than something generic. The training is all heart-rate based, much of it at level 2, so now about 137bpm on the bike, but he's advised to expect this to be around 7bpm higher when running.
Some sessions are long and slow, typically the bike based ones, which I'm having to do on the turbo trainer. Others, especially running, have now started to involve 'speeders' or 2 minutes running on 8% inclines x 6.
I'm definitely feeling some benefit. When I first started it was impossible to do anything much above a fast walk and remain in level 2. Now I can run, albeit at around an 8kmph pace.
I bought a road bike 3 weeks ago having never had one before - I've always been into mountain biking but it just doesn't allow the build up of base fitness since I was always at full revs, even now my heart doesn't dip much below 160bpm. Anyhow, the road bike is supposed to allow me to build this base up. It was my second outing on Sunday off the turbo trainer and I covered 60 miles with a fair bit of ascent in 3h 45 mins and I felt pretty good, attacking the hills etc. My average heart rate was 150bpm.
I completed my second half marathon time is now 1h 49, so 4 mins better than when I started the training.
Perhaps more importantly, I'm not suffering from any aches, pains, soreness etc after exercise, so the weekly physio sessions are now monthly at the most.
As an incentive and something to work towards I've signed up to Ironman 70.3 Luxembourg at the end of June 2014! I reckon if I stick at it as I have been doing I'll make it - my intention is to complete rather than compete!
I'm happy to post a link to some of the data chucked out from my Garmin, showing average heart rate, max heart rate, speed, ascent etc, if it gives anyone a clearer idea,
This week is a recovery week, with a lot of stuff slow and steady, around level 1-2.
I'm around 6 weeks into a program set by a coach, with each week varying what's required. Typically it's around 12 hours per week - and I'm sticking to it thus far. Although fairly costly at £80 per month, I thought this was the best approach since it's all tailored to me specifically rather than something generic. The training is all heart-rate based, much of it at level 2, so now about 137bpm on the bike, but he's advised to expect this to be around 7bpm higher when running.
Some sessions are long and slow, typically the bike based ones, which I'm having to do on the turbo trainer. Others, especially running, have now started to involve 'speeders' or 2 minutes running on 8% inclines x 6.
I'm definitely feeling some benefit. When I first started it was impossible to do anything much above a fast walk and remain in level 2. Now I can run, albeit at around an 8kmph pace.
I bought a road bike 3 weeks ago having never had one before - I've always been into mountain biking but it just doesn't allow the build up of base fitness since I was always at full revs, even now my heart doesn't dip much below 160bpm. Anyhow, the road bike is supposed to allow me to build this base up. It was my second outing on Sunday off the turbo trainer and I covered 60 miles with a fair bit of ascent in 3h 45 mins and I felt pretty good, attacking the hills etc. My average heart rate was 150bpm.
I completed my second half marathon time is now 1h 49, so 4 mins better than when I started the training.
Perhaps more importantly, I'm not suffering from any aches, pains, soreness etc after exercise, so the weekly physio sessions are now monthly at the most.
As an incentive and something to work towards I've signed up to Ironman 70.3 Luxembourg at the end of June 2014! I reckon if I stick at it as I have been doing I'll make it - my intention is to complete rather than compete!
I'm happy to post a link to some of the data chucked out from my Garmin, showing average heart rate, max heart rate, speed, ascent etc, if it gives anyone a clearer idea,
This week is a recovery week, with a lot of stuff slow and steady, around level 1-2.
Edited by thenortherner on Monday 2nd December 22:48
Thought I'd post a quick update.
I had a retest today after around 14 weeks of following the training plan. Briefly, my max heart rate is a few bpm higher at 185. However it's my threshold and power that I'm interested in. My wattage has increased nearly 40 watts at threshold V's last time and L2 is now at 150 bpm.
They were really impressed by this especially with training being limited by the winter months since the last test and most of the bike work has been on a turbo!! Their feedback was that I should definitely give myself a pat on the back given all of this and results are about as good as anyone could have hoped for.
What do you guys think?
I had a retest today after around 14 weeks of following the training plan. Briefly, my max heart rate is a few bpm higher at 185. However it's my threshold and power that I'm interested in. My wattage has increased nearly 40 watts at threshold V's last time and L2 is now at 150 bpm.
They were really impressed by this especially with training being limited by the winter months since the last test and most of the bike work has been on a turbo!! Their feedback was that I should definitely give myself a pat on the back given all of this and results are about as good as anyone could have hoped for.
What do you guys think?
thenortherner said:
Cheers.
And yes, I do, somebody who puts the weekly training plans together. Why?
And yes, I do, somebody who puts the weekly training plans together. Why?
I've always found having a coach is great - it means I can concentrate on the effort without needing to think about what session to do and have someone to discuss training and goals with. Most athletics clubs have trained coaches on hand; I don't know if triathlon clubs do too.
Alternatively, there are various coaches available who charge a fee for their services and you can sign up as an individual.
ewenm said:
I've always found having a coach is great - it means I can concentrate on the effort without needing to think about what session to do and have someone to discuss training and goals with. Most athletics clubs have trained coaches on hand; I don't know if triathlon clubs do too.
Gassing Station | Health Matters | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff