- So I’ve got a few more years to really drive things up before the VO2Max hammer of justice starts chipping away at me.
This is why I ask. I still have a good rel vo2 measured last year in the upper 60’s. The article you linked (Alex Simmons) talked a bit about economy in the relationship to VO2, FTP etc…thinking on the economy side, that’s where it gets hard when you get older. Maybe a little of an excuse but, it’s just sad when you really start to observe the slow decline in performance. It sucks and good for you for doing it right when you’re young enough. You’ll see some awesome improvements in the coming years I believe. Press on!
Edit: it’s more about slowing the decline for me now in my 50’s is what I’m trying to relate.
Yeah. You might be right. The 300w and up ftp and how quickly you get there really must depend on mutant genetics or your history as an athlete. If, as a child, you were playing soccer or basketball or running track or any kind of cardio heavy sport your body is going to begin adapting to the demands of that activity at a very young age. It will be built into your DNA so to speak by the time you hit your 20s. Compare that to someone who has NEVER been exposed to that kind of physical stress. If cycling is your first endurance sport and you picked it up at 30… you’re exposing it to something it has never seen before and your physiology isn’t developing at the same rate as it is when you’re a child (I think) so it will be slower to adapt.
According to the NHS website, you are comfortably in the “healthy weight” range of BMI, though nearer the top than the bottom. You’re much closer to overweight than underweight. I genuinely find it worrying that people refer to that as “too skinny”.
Funny story. Last Friday at work I had two people ask me if I was okay and were worried that I was looking to skinny. At lunch I went to the bike store to pickup a part and when I walked in the guy went “Dude, you are looking fit!”
(6’2", 160lbs 42yo for reference)
Baggie outerwear is your friend. My friends and coworkers don’t know unless I come in wearing fitted clothes.
But then you might just look like someone wearing clothes that don’t fit… I feel like I’m getting swallowed in some of my old shirts.
At 141-142lbs nobody says a word to me about my weight. At 138lbs(my lowest point) people including my wife love to point out how I look terrible. I always think to myself what if I made comments like that to a overweight person? I can maintain 142 without issue but 138 I did way more binge eating.
Both would require a ton of work/effort which I think most people don’t want to do.
There’s gotta be a special reason to want to achieve 5.0 cuz 5.0 is way more than just being fit or “in shape”.
If high performance isn’t your job or passion, then there’s probably other more fun stuff you could do with your time other than diet and train.
Its not that, it just isn’t possible for for a lot. I was an all state level medium and long distance runner in high school, and even in years I’ve gone super deep in training I’ve never broken 280 watts.
Just to put possibility in perspective. Let’s go back to VO2, our start point to see if you can get 5 w/kg at FTP.
A 6min TT is a reasonable measure of vVo2 – velocity @ VO2 max (5min has too much of an anaerobic contribution – the 1 min more makes a big difference).
Say a 70kg rider has a 6min power of 420w.
The old ACSM formula for VO2 max: VO2 in L/min = (watts x .0108) + (mass x .007).
So, 420 x .0108 = 4.536. 70 x .007 = .49. 5 L/min. Divide by 70kg body weight, you have a VO2 of 71.
85% of 420 – 357w, so 5.1 w/kg.
So, if you have a trained VO2 of 70, and you can develop your maximal lactate steady state power until FTP is 85% of VO2 – which is pretty high (only genetic freaks get to 90%) – then you have 5 w/kg.
That VO2 of 70 or higher is pretty darn rare. Assuming that the runner is highly efficient, a VO2 of 70 means a 4:15 mile, which is flipping fast. That’s in the very narrow end of the bell curve, and there are precious few people out there with the genetic starting point to get there.
For Capt Doughnutman, your w/kg on very little training makes one wonder where you could have been at 30, presuming you had started at, say, 15, and had lots of hours in those legs!
To be honest - probably burned out. He probably built a large aerobic base through other sports.
Have you tried things such as block training and varying training density to try and provide a stronger overload?
Are you able to clarify for me how this relates to heart rate data? MLSS as a percentage of maximum heart rate as opposed to percentage of power/pace at VO2 or are the percentage figures similar?
That’s getting fuzzy – using HR as a proxy for power as a % of VO2.
Best just to go as hard as you can for an hour on a nice 60-degree day (to cut down the drift) and see what the HR is for the last 30min.
Wouldn’t that be calculating HR at an approximate MLSS?
I was after an idea of what percentage of maximum HR you would expect MLSS to fall?
Apologies if I’m misunderstanding.
Completely depends on your physiology. What are you looking to get insight to with this question?
How are you 140 with all those doughnuts?!? .
(Sorry, I know you guys are trying to have a serious discussion here)
I had some lactate testing (albeit running) a while ago and the data had me hitting 4mmols at around 94-95% of my max heart rate. The last data point was 4.2mmols at 96%.
I’m curious as to how this fits in to fractional percentage of threshold to VO2 usage that is often quoted around efficiency and performance.
You have one data point – HR @ 4mmol, What you need are two data points that are more direct measurements – either FTP from a 60min effort and then a 6min all out test, or the lab data where you have HR, L/min, and watts so you can just see what max and what MLSS are.
Just trying to do it off of HR at 4mmol and then a whole lot of guessing isn’t going to work.