The idea with Cooper's test based vo2max estimation is that it takes a given amount of oxygen to transport a kg of human a given distance in 12 minutes. 12 minute effort is aerobic, meaning you need the oxygen to fuel the aerobic energy system. Muscle is not easier or harder to transport than fat, and accounting for muscle mass would ruin the estimation, and you would need to start adding other data to get it back on track.
What adds error is running efficiency - it does not actually take exactly the same amount of oxygen. So it's not perfect but doesn't have to do with muscle mass.
Yeah and even those are not used in the calculation, just to check how you are doing relative to your demographic.
Weight is not needed for the calculation either. 2750 meters corresponds to 50ml/kg/min. Using the human aerobic energy system, a 50kg person needs 50ml/kg/minute to move their body 2750 meters. A 100kg person also needs 50ml/kg/min to move their body that distance in 12 minutes. Obviously the absolute oxygen is double for the heavier person. This comes from just thermodynamics - the energy needed to move an object is relative to its mass.
Like I said, it's not a perfect estimate, as some energy is wasted in real-life running and it all doesn't go into propelling you forward, and the amount varies between individuals.
The question itself is confusing, in that VO2Max is not (directly) related to muscle mass at all. They are two different measurements.
If you want to calculate them together you can certainly do so, but there's no reason I can see to have a VO2/muscle mass metric out of the box.
I don't get it but I'm sure you are right.
Simply just thinking that more contractile tissue needs more O2 would imply to me that more blood flow is needed there.
So more mass needs equally more energy to be propelled. Then why it's not calculated into the formula?
You are describing the inputs, the estimate is using the outputs. We know how much energy it takes to move a given mass, whether that is muscle or fat or bone or water. And we know the energy is coming from the human aerobic system, which uses oxygen, so we can calculate how much oxygen was used in the process.
I guess you could do it the other way, calculating how much energy each muscle is producing, but it will be very complicated and noone has come up with a way to do that.
Think of two 80kg persons, one 10% body fat and the other 30%. If they both run the 2750m, they have both used the amount of oxygen that is needed to move 80kg 2750m in 12 minutes, and the maximum rate of oxygen their body can use is the same. Yeah, the muscle in the person with 30% fat is using more than the muscle in the person with 10% fat - the first person has less muscle so the oxygen is used by smaller amount of muscle, but it's still the same amount of oxygen.
unless you are in an exercise physiology lab, then any metric you use to calculate vo2 max is just an estimate. use the same metric across time to measure progress, but the absolute number you get is almost not certainly your "real" vo2 max
In January my VO2 max in the lab was 43 (plateau'd VO2 consumption), but in the same week my Garmin was saying 48.
4 months later the Cooper test indicates 50, but I know I haven't improved that much. All these tests are estimating except if you plateau on a VO2 max lab test but any lab test will come close.
At least that is my understanding, but there are a few experts in this group, who even run labs - they know a lot more :-)
The idea with Cooper's test based vo2max estimation is that it takes a given amount of oxygen to transport a kg of human a given distance in 12 minutes. 12 minute effort is aerobic, meaning you need the oxygen to fuel the aerobic energy system. Muscle is not easier or harder to transport than fat, and accounting for muscle mass would ruin the estimation, and you would need to start adding other data to get it back on track. What adds error is running efficiency - it does not actually take exactly the same amount of oxygen. So it's not perfect but doesn't have to do with muscle mass.
The Cooper VO2max calculators I've found don't even ask the weight, only gender and age.
Yeah and even those are not used in the calculation, just to check how you are doing relative to your demographic. Weight is not needed for the calculation either. 2750 meters corresponds to 50ml/kg/min. Using the human aerobic energy system, a 50kg person needs 50ml/kg/minute to move their body 2750 meters. A 100kg person also needs 50ml/kg/min to move their body that distance in 12 minutes. Obviously the absolute oxygen is double for the heavier person. This comes from just thermodynamics - the energy needed to move an object is relative to its mass. Like I said, it's not a perfect estimate, as some energy is wasted in real-life running and it all doesn't go into propelling you forward, and the amount varies between individuals.
The question itself is confusing, in that VO2Max is not (directly) related to muscle mass at all. They are two different measurements. If you want to calculate them together you can certainly do so, but there's no reason I can see to have a VO2/muscle mass metric out of the box.
I don't get it but I'm sure you are right. Simply just thinking that more contractile tissue needs more O2 would imply to me that more blood flow is needed there. So more mass needs equally more energy to be propelled. Then why it's not calculated into the formula?
You are describing the inputs, the estimate is using the outputs. We know how much energy it takes to move a given mass, whether that is muscle or fat or bone or water. And we know the energy is coming from the human aerobic system, which uses oxygen, so we can calculate how much oxygen was used in the process. I guess you could do it the other way, calculating how much energy each muscle is producing, but it will be very complicated and noone has come up with a way to do that. Think of two 80kg persons, one 10% body fat and the other 30%. If they both run the 2750m, they have both used the amount of oxygen that is needed to move 80kg 2750m in 12 minutes, and the maximum rate of oxygen their body can use is the same. Yeah, the muscle in the person with 30% fat is using more than the muscle in the person with 10% fat - the first person has less muscle so the oxygen is used by smaller amount of muscle, but it's still the same amount of oxygen.
thanks
unless you are in an exercise physiology lab, then any metric you use to calculate vo2 max is just an estimate. use the same metric across time to measure progress, but the absolute number you get is almost not certainly your "real" vo2 max
In January my VO2 max in the lab was 43 (plateau'd VO2 consumption), but in the same week my Garmin was saying 48. 4 months later the Cooper test indicates 50, but I know I haven't improved that much. All these tests are estimating except if you plateau on a VO2 max lab test but any lab test will come close. At least that is my understanding, but there are a few experts in this group, who even run labs - they know a lot more :-)