h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/A652547

Here's a subject that's close to my heart!

There's a long table with data from an actual test. This would be better in graphical form. I've punched all the numbers into an Excel sheet, but I don't think I'm allowed to include a "picture".

Awu

I like the table on this new version.

Thanks. I let Word generate the HTML and massaged it into GML. Still, a graph, with time on the Y and all the other things on the X is more descriptive. You see the HR and breaths / min, etc. increasing in track with VO2.

I had some feed back from other sources (Dancer on another thread, and outside of H2G2). I fixed up a lot of grammatical and spelling errors. I removed the reference to the "borrowed" indirect test. As far as I know, it is common knowldege, freely available.
On reviewer thought I should not mix styles: the entry starts off academic and then I start using "you". I haven't decided which way to go.
And I need a conclusion. Any ideas?

I think you should include your own experience with the test in the intro and the conclusion. I'll come back and look at your entry again. My eyes crossed a little. It's the third PR entry I've looked at in the last half hour. I think it deserves another chance when I've not looked at anything else.

Thanks. I did just add a sort of conclusion. But I haven't thought of anything for the intro. I do already mention that I did the test (the direct way). Your're all wired up, breathing in a pipe, with Science Centre visitors staring at you. I hadn't run on a tread mill very much back then, and the technician had to keep signing to me to move to the centre. The agreed signal for when I was exhausted, was the usual hand across the throat, because of course, I can't speak.

Hmm - may be I could start with that image?

That's ma boy!

Just a X-ref to a related discussion with Dancer. http://www.bbc.co.uk/h2g2/guide/F47998?thread=150636&post=1467009#p1467009

You mention the difference between direct and indirect measurement in your entry. At first I confused that with maximal vs. submaximal exercise tests, but they're not exactly the same.

"Maximal" relates to the amount of effort you put into the test (which pretty well describes your own experience). This test (understandably) is best administered by medical professionals with monitoring equipment (which usually means they can do direct measurement too), so they can catch any fitness problems you don't know about, before they make you keel over.

"Submaximal" tests are more commonly administered. The testees estimate their maximum heart rates, using Karvonen's formula (220 beats per minute, minus your age), and stop when they get to 85% of that. These tests are therefore only as accurate as the Karvonen formula itself, which is said to be accurate for 75% of the population with a margin of error of 10-15 beats per minute.

(Data from "Fitness Assessment and Testing", Mary Yoke, from AFAA's "Fitness Theory and Practice" manual.)

Aside from all this... the article looks great. I'd suggest that you don't need a separate "VO2 Max" header right under the "VO2 Max" title, though.

Oh, one more thing: You mention "METS" without describing them. One MET (or metabolic equivalent) = 3.5 ml/kg/min of oxygen, which is the amount of oxygen needed at rest (hence their significance).

(I had to find all sorts of old exercise manuals just to review your entry, so that's a good indication that it's going to emerge from Peer Review nice and technical.)

Hi A.G.

I actually used the term submaximal, but a friend ( a technical writer) suggested I change it to "less stressful". The spell checker didn't like it either. I'll change it back.

Thanks too for the description of METS. I had read what its value was in terms of Watts, but your description is much more appropriate. I'll add that. And I'll add you as a researcher.


Thanks again,
Awu.

Here we meet again awü...

Great entry.

Minor stuff IMHO, feel free to ignore:

1 - By reading the title I thought the entry would be about:
Vanadiumdioxide?
Something computer-related? Game? Language?
A Discotheque?
A band? A clique?

I think a less cryptic title, or an explanation after a comma would be great, for an absolute sports-lay-person like me. The title has detracted me many times.

2 - How do you pronounce VO2 Max? Vee Oh two Max? Can I ask an athlete for his 'VO2 Max'? Will he understand me if I do so? Is it used like the handicap in golf ( just joking)? I mean: Is it really that *common*?

3 - Shouldn't the very first explanation also explain what it is *besides* being a measure for athletic fittnes? (I only found out paragraphs later) I'd suggest: 'VO2 Max is a measure of how fit an athlete is. It corresponds to the volume of oxygen consumed per minute by 1kg of muscle' (or something like that)

4 - You read VO2 Max three times in a row: Entry title, Header, First word. (This is a little strange)

--------------

No more input from my side. As I said: Feel free to ignore any of my comments. I learned something new, the entry is well written and obviously well researched.

Bye,

HELL

Hi Hell,

Thanks. All of your points are valid. For an avid runner, cross coutry skier, cyclist, etc., it's a very well know expression. A hobby runner, or "jogger" would have heard of it, but may not know his/her own value, or what constitutes a good reading.
It's pronounced Vee Oh Two Max - just as you suggest. I can change the title (maybe that's why no one was repsonding), but not the "A#### - Title" of this PR thread.
Some one else already pointed out the multiple headings (one gen'd when I flipped to GML) and the one I manually inserted, are the same. Then my first sentence starts with VO2 Max. I'll fix that ASAP.

Oh... I just read the thread in fast-fwd mode first. I go through it and if I find short posts with too many 'goods' and 'excellents' and 'Thank yous' in them I know there's probably nothing wrong with the entry. Then I proceed to read the entry. If I see that there is - actually - nothing absurdly wrong with the entry I don't bother reading too much of the previous posts (mostly just the names of the folks). Most of the stuff suggested before has probably been improved anyways, so...

OH, and, Yeah: Unfortunately you cannot change the Thread's title (Happened to me with my history of optics thread)

Thanks for your explanations.

Great entry,

Bye (unsubscribing)

HELL

I've worked in most of Hell's and M.G's suggestions. I chnged the tiel (but of coures it won't be reflected here in the PR thread name).

Thanka both of you for your comments.

Awu

Ooops! Slow down when you're typing A w u


Correction.

I've worked in most of Hell's and A.G's suggestions. I changed the title (but of course it won't be reflected here in the PR thread name - so people still won't have a clue what it's about unless they peek inside).

Thanks, both of you for your comments.

Awu

I wasn't expecting any researcher credit, but I certainly won't say no to it. I have an American Fitness and Athletic Association manual and some other training guides, so let me know if you need other stuff looked up.

Editorial Note: This conversation has been moved from 'Peer Review' to 'VO2 Max, A Measure of Athletic Fitness'.

This thread has been moved out of the Peer Review Forum because your entry has now been recommended for the Edited Guide.

You can find out what will happen to your entry here: http://www.h2g2.com/SubEditors-Process

Congratulations!