So you're telling me I didn't really burn 10,611 calories on Saturday, that it was really only 9337?(I have been tested. )
Oh no, I guess I need to lay of the Klondikes.
V.
Welcome guest, is this your first visit? Click the "Create Account" button now to join.
Results 1 to 15 of 18
Hybrid View
-
05-01-2006, 04:51 PM #1
"Ride lots!"
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area
- Posts
- 9,324
-
05-01-2006, 04:55 PM #2
in denial
- Join Date
- Jun 2005
- Location
- Portland, OR
- Posts
- 1,253
Oohh, really? Wherehowmuch?
Originally Posted by Veronica
-
05-01-2006, 05:12 PM #3
"Ride lots!"
- Join Date
- Oct 2002
- Location
- San Francisco Bay Area
- Posts
- 9,324
UC Davis. It was about 300 dollars for body fat, lactate threshhold and VO2 max. It was a very interesting group of tests. It was almost three years ago and I want to go back and do it again.
OwnCal predicts my VO2 max to be 51. Testing showed it to be 41.
V.
-
05-02-2006, 01:41 AM #4
Weeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee!
- Join Date
- Aug 2004
- Location
- On The Edge
- Posts
- 384
I'm very dubious about Polar's fit-test and VO2 max calculations. I've got the Polar F11 and the fit-test can vary over quite a large range for me - anything between 43 and 59, for example. 59 puts me in the elite group for my age. I don't think so!! Originally Posted by Veronica
Interestingly, if I take the test under "ideal" conditions - ie rested, caffeine/alcohol free, no distractions, etc. the result is typically lower.
If I take the test when I've had my first cup of tea and/or have had a couple of glasses of wine the night before, the results are higher.
As I understand, the test is based not just on the resting heart rate, but on heart rate variability for the duration of the test (along with gender, height, weight, etc). A faster, more erratic resting heart rate puts me in a fitter VO2 category.
Life is Good!
Reply With Quote
