Cheapest VO2Max Tester?

[pone]

What is the cheapest way that I can get a VO2Max tester? I understand that there are products that shrink wrap an entire system together, but if you want CO2 measurements (I do) these often cost $10K+. I am totally okay with having two devices that only measure O2 and CO2 and don't provide any fancy reports. I can simply enter data into a spreadsheet at each increment of testing.

There has to be some way to get an O2 and CO2 measurement using used equipment that won't break the bank?

[stuward]

Use the fitness tests on this site. The 1.5 mile run is the easiest test if you have a large group to test. Why do you need a more precise measurement that that?

[pone]

Use the fitness tests on this site. The 1.5 mile run is the easiest test if you have a large group to test. Why do you need a more precise measurement that that?

It's a long story, but the person who needs the testing has a metabolic disease that compromises aerobic metabolism. Having an extremely precise measurement of the workloads under which fat is burned (CO2 / O2 ~= 70%) and where glycolysis begins (sub-VO2Max) is critical. I don't think there is any adequate substitute for precise O2 and CO2 measurements.

I would also add that tests that use generalizations about aerobic metabolism - like the guidelines based on max heartbeat at a specific age - are almost totally WORTHLESS. If you get a real VO2Max test with CO2 testing done, you will be amazed what you learn about your body. The most valuable information is to use the ratio of CO2 to O2 to determine what workloads correspond to you burning fat in aerobic metabolism. That's a range of activity that:

1) Will maximize your loss of body fat during exercise

2) Will give you a much deeper endurance since you can normally burn fat for the entire day, whereas glycogen stores are precious and limited

3) Will allow you to exercise without paying a recovery penalty from lactic acid buildup in days after the exercise.

If you observe your own VO2Max data, what you almost always discover is that your normal training is being done at too high an energy level to maximize fat burning. Most people are training right at aerobic threshold and paying dearly for that, by burning off their glycogen and paying a heavy recovery penalty in days after exercise.

Some people don't burn fat very well at any level of activity. It's all very individual, and you only see it by examining the raw VO2Max data with the CO2 / O2 ratios. Many VO2Max tests don't give you the CO2 data, which is I why I call it out explicitly.

If your exercise objective is to improve your health - not to train for the olympics - it is also critical to train under the aerobic threshold because your body will increase your mitochondria levels most rapidly in response to aerobic metabolism. Going into glycolysis stops mitochondria from expanding their numbers as rapidly.

[Kenny Croxdale]

It's a long story, but the person who needs the testing has a metabolic disease that compromises aerobic metabolism. Having an extremely precise measurement of the workloads under which fat is burned (CO2 / O2 ~= 70%) and where glycolysis begins (sub-VO2Max) is critical. I don't think there is any adequate substitute for precise O2 and CO2 measurements.

I would also add that tests that use generalizations about aerobic metabolism - like the guidelines based on max heartbeat at a specific age - are almost totally WORTHLESS.

It's A Guideline

I would hardly call it worthless. It is a guideline that works for the majority of individuals.

As with everything there is a plus/minus factor in which some are above and below.

The guideline for special need individuals (such as someone with a metabolic disease) may not apply.

However, unless you have the individual tested, it come down to guessing.

If you get a real VO2Max test with CO2 testing done, you will be amazed what you learn about your body.

Cheap VO2 Max Tester

I am sure a "Real VO2Max Test" does provide you with amazing information.

At best a "Cheap [email protected] Max Test" only provide you with a ball park figure.

If it is that important, getting he "Real VO2Max Test" is the better option.

In other words, the in long run it is going to be cheaper than guessing.

The most valuable information is to use the ratio of CO2 to O2 to determine what workloads correspond to you burning fat in aerobic metabolism. That's a range of activity that:

More Alike that Dis-Alike

While obtaining that information does allow you to be more accurate, let me reiterate that the general guideline work for the majority of individuals.

That because we are more alike than dis-alike.

Think of it like...

Medication

Most medication works for the masses because we all respond in a similar way.

The plus/minus factor is part of that equation. For a minority of individuals the medication either doesn't work or doesn't work well.

1) Will maximize your loss of body fat during exercise

Fat Burning

As you know, some exercise maximizes the percentage of body fat burned during exercise.

Other forms of exercise, maximize the greatest percentage post exercise.

Each has it's place in training.

2) Will give you a much deeper endurance since you can normally burn fat for the entire day, whereas glycogen stores are precious and limited

Daily Activity

Very little glycogen is burned in daily activity, no matter how fit or unfit you are.

Fats are the dominate source of energy.

Endurance training certainly enhances your use of fat over glycogen.

However, diet is another key factor.

3) Will allow you to exercise without paying a recovery penalty from lactic acid buildup in days after the exercise.

"Wound Healing"

The harder the training session (endurance, strength, power, etc), the greater the trauma to the body.

High intensity and/or high volume increase the "Recovery Penalty".

If you observe your own VO2Max data, what you almost always discover is that your normal training is being done at too high an energy level to maximize fat burning. Most people are training right at aerobic threshold and paying dearly for that, by burning off their glycogen and paying a heavy recovery penalty in days after exercise.

Vague Statements

This all sounds good. However, you statements are vague.

Burning Glycogen

Condemning a program that burns glycogen is senseless.

Track Sprinter are one group burn the greatest percentage of glycogen.

Their ratio of glycogen:fat burn during training is off the grid.

Muscular Athletes

The irony in regard to your statements, is the Track Sprinters are some of the most muscular athletes on the planet. They also have some of the greatest muscle mass.

Bob Sled Sprinters

The "high glycogen" exercise training these athletes perform is similar to Track Sprinters.

They have the same low body fat percentages. However, Bob Sled Sprinters are about 20-30 pound heavier than Track Sprinters.

Some the greater muscle mass Bob Sled Sprinter have is due to training.

Some people don't burn fat very well at any level of activity. It's all very individual, and you only see it by examining the raw VO2Max data with the CO2 / O2 ratios. Many VO2Max tests don't give you the CO2 data, which is I why I call it out explicitly.

Some People

This means the group is in the minority. This take us back to the plus/minus factor.

Some people can't drink milk. Do we "Call milk out explicity?"

If your exercise objective is to improve your health - not to train for the olympics - it is also critical to train under the aerobic threshold because your body will increase your mitochondria levels most rapidly in response to aerobic metabolism. Going into glycolysis stops mitochondria from expanding their numbers as rapidly.

Mitochondrial High Intensity Interval Training

It irony is that High Intensity Interval Training the burn the greatest amount of glucose has been shown to increase mitochondria levels.

Sprint 8 Training Protocol

Phil Campbell's (M.S. Exercise Physiologist) goes over his research in his book (Ready, Set, Go).

Back To Cheap

If you or your friend really want to pin point their VO2Max, all cheap give you is a ball park figure.

Stu provided you with a method that will provide you with that ball park figure.

Having a VO2Max in a Human Performance Lab with Exercise Physiologist (in the long run) will be the most cost effective, efficient.

As for the general population, the "Guidelines" on the exercise protocol for burning fat work just fine.

Kenny Croxdale

[pone]

Kenny, the average method works for almost no one. I want to publish a graph from a population study, but this site doesn't let me publish the URL.

First, at the same age, VO2Max can vary from 100 watts of workload to 400. Those people have nothing in common. The general guidelines give both of those people the wrong response. When you see raw VO2Max population data from hundreds of people, and see the "average" line, it becomes immediately apparently that at least 60% of the population group will get incorrect information using averages.

Second, a given individual may not even have the ability to burn fat. You see that clearly only when you divide CO2 by O2 for a given individual, across the whole range of exercise. Fat burners will find a range where that ratio is 70%, and that is the ideal fat burning range. Other individuals will rarely get below 90%, and they are highly glycolytic across the entire range.

Third, a given individual will not necessarily move from fat burning to glucose burning in a linear fashion. The place where they burn fat can sometimes be in a very narrow heartbeat range, and they will never guess where that range is using an average, or intuition. You only see it using raw data.

If you take the average person exercising with the goal that 1) it will make them feel better and 2) it will make them lose weight, they do not exercise at their correct fat burning range. They don't know what that range is. The average gives them a flat wrong number. They try to exercise at a rate that makes them tired, not at a rate that maximizes the percent of energy expenditure that comes from fat and that is sustainable for a long time during exercise.

Athletes have different issues and I'm not trying to address that group.

[Kenny Croxdale]

Kenny, the average method works for almost no one.

You continue to be vague in your response.

I addressed the effectiveness of High Intensity Interval Training as a means of increasing metabolic expenditure, burning fat.

Research shows and anecdotal evidence demonstrate this method works for the masses.

As you should know, High Intensity Interval Training increase your VO2Max.

I want to publish a graph from a population study, but this site doesn't let me publish the URL.

I'd love to see the graph.

It needs to be specific and not vague, as you have been.

I have a short disposition for those who are vague and don't provide specific research that substantiate their position/clam.

In other word, "Because I said so" doesn't work.

I'd also like to know who came up with it and the research the validates it.

The credentials/bio/background of the individual are important, as well.

Oxymoron

You self proclamied expertise this area is counted with your wanting to find...

1) A cheap method

2) A lack of knowledge in a cheap method that MIGHT works.

Credential

With that in mind, please providing your credentials you background in this area.

Kenny Croxdale

[pone]

I'd love to see the graph.

It needs to be specific and not vague, as you have been.

I have a short disposition for those who are vague and don't provide specific research that substantiate their position/clam.

So how am I supposed to show you a graph when this site doesn't allow people to publish URLs? As one example see Figure 1 in this Japanese population study:
at URL jap.physiology.org/content/94/6/2406

In Figure 1, the variability at a given age between VO2Max results is enormous. Calculating fat burning ranges based on averages is stupid.

Every statement I have made is backed by double blind studies. I am only quoting pubmed research, not "blog articles" from people who haven't seen real research and just blab useless opinions.

[Kenny Croxdale]

So how am I supposed to show you a graph when this site doesn't allow people to publish URLs?

"Because I said so."

Naw, we all just need to accept your work for it. :)

mmmm, after rethinking that...um, NO.

The Graph

Find a way to present the information or shut up.

As one example see Figure 1 in this Japanese population study:
at URL jap.physiology.org/content/94/6/2406

In Figure 1, the variability at a given age between VO2Max results is enormous.

Figure 1

The graph defines that as endurance athletes age there is a greater decline in VO2 max than in sedentary "couch potatoes."

I'm glad we clear that up. I thought you were selling Amway.

Calculating fat burning ranges based on averages is stupid.

Guideline

The average provide a guideline.

You request for a "Cheap VO2 Testing Method" is going to be one step above "average", so how smart does that make you.

I can provide you with that answer if you can figure it out...but let not go there, okay? :)

Every statement I have made is backed by double blind studies. I am only quoting pubmed research, not "blog articles" from people who haven't seen real research and just blab useless opinions.

Great. I look forward to reviewing that information after you post it.

Credentials

No reply on your credentials or back background?

Avoidance = Zero.

Thank for clarifying that.

"Nothing from Nothing, Leaves Nothing"

Come back when you have something.

Until them, we're done.

Kenny Croxdale

[pone]

As one example see Figure 1 in this Japanese population study:
at URL jap DOT physiology DOT org/content/94/6/2406

In Figure 1, the variability at a given age between VO2Max results is enormous.

Figure 1

The graph defines that as endurance athletes age there is a greater decline in VO2 max than in sedentary "couch potatoes."

I'm glad we clear that up. I thought you were selling Amway.

For purposes of this discussion, the graph shows that there are huge variations in VO2Max across individuals. At a single age, a given individual can aerobically used 3500 mL/min of O2 and another individual is barely able to use 1000 mL/min. The individual at 3500 mL/min might be fully aerobic at 170 beats/min and the individual at 1000 mL/min might be going slowly into glycolysis at 105 beats/min.

90% of your posts are filled with sarcasm and unserious remarks. The study I posted by itself is sufficient to establish that individuals have tremendous variability in aerobic capacity, and making rough calculations of the fat burning workload based on age alone will get very incorrect results for a huge percentage of people.