ExcitibleBoy wrote:Ze wrote:I've done a max test a bunch of times (one a month ago). For me the estimates are pretty good...underestimate a little bit, at least when using ones that use actual times. Haven't used a heart rate estimate one.
VO2 max is a relatively poor indicator of endurance conditioning. Good for telling you how much you weigh though.
Thanks for the response. I'm actually more interested in VO2 Max as an indicator of ability to perform at altitude as I read on some thread that it was some how important for that. I also attended a slide show by Ed Viestures in which he credited his lung capacity and VO2 Max for his ability to perform well at altitude.
It will act as an indicator - again because of the bodyweight issue. I'll use my own measurements since I have those. 5'11" - hasn't changed in a long time. 3 years ago, weighed 185 and VO2 max was 5.35 L / min , so my scaled value was ~ 63.6 ml/min/kg. Took it a month ago - VO2 max was 5.45 L/min but weighed 192 lbs, so scaled was 62.4.
The weight gain was independent of the slight (probably error) 0.1 L/min gain in VO2. Hopefully most muscle and not fat! But either way, it indicates an
increase in workload. I could easily drop 30 lbs and still have an absolute VO2 max ~ 5.4 L/min. That would significantly increase the scaled value (ml/min/kg), probably into the mid 70's.
You can be fit and still have problems at altitude - but certainly weighing less and having a
lower workload will help at altitude. If I weighed less, my body will need less oxygen for each step up the mountain.
Screw VO2 - there should be some indicator like BMI that evaluates your weight to frame ratio. You should be skinny for your height / frame size if you want to perform best at altitude (yes you need a little muscle, but not that much).