Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Portable replacement for a $60k VO2 Max machine

instructables.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 112 posts

Re: Portable replacement for a $60k VO2 Max machine

#61

Post by TylerE »

mikewarot wrote: post #59
jacquesm wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is pressurizing on output due to the flow through the device, the same thing causes some underpressure when breathing in. But I doubt it is enough to draw a vacuum strong enough to break adhesion. Still, better safe than sorry, it would be good to read the instruction manual of a professional unit to see what kind of failure modes they have listed there.

I read a lot of stuff back in 2020 because I was going to be coding up controls for an emergency ventilator... you would not believe just how little pressure difference it takes to permanently ruin your lungs... less than 1 PSI if I recall correctly.

1psi is actually quite a lot.

Standard CPAP machines max out at just over 0.25psi, and even ventilators usually max out about 0.4-0.5psi.

Re: Portable replacement for a $60k VO2 Max machine

#64

Post by dijonman2 »

j-bos wrote: post #29
complexworld wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work on a handheld ultrasound device that attached to a phone or a tablet. It is much easier to use than traditional ultrasound machines, because of the attention paid to the UX off the app, and the familiar smartphone UI. That being said I will haven't learned how to use it in a meaningful way myself. Getting a good image, and then interpreting the 2d video stream requires training! Making ultrasound easy enough f…

At least in the US, there's a fair amount of immigrant medical professionals who have the training, often the experience, but not the licensing.

What’s getting in the way of their american licensing ?

Re: Portable replacement for a $60k VO2 Max machine

#65

Post by trentnix »

soperj wrote: post #21
trentnix wrote: post #18

This is really great. For those who aren't familiar with what these machines can do, the calculation of an athlete's Vo2 max really isn't all that useful. However, a breakdown of the fat and carbohydrate calories burned at various efforts can be incredibly useful for helping an athlete learn how to fuel correctly for performance over distance. I'm not a physiologist or physician (and I'm sure what I'm about to say ma…

Just a note, it's probably "Coeur d'Alene"

Yep. Sorry for transposing a few letters. It’s a tremendously beautiful and friendly place. I’d love to go back one of these days.

Re: Portable replacement for a $60k VO2 Max machine

#66

Post by trentnix »

dpeck wrote: post #44
trentnix wrote: post #18

This is really great. For those who aren't familiar with what these machines can do, the calculation of an athlete's Vo2 max really isn't all that useful. However, a breakdown of the fat and carbohydrate calories burned at various efforts can be incredibly useful for helping an athlete learn how to fuel correctly for performance over distance. I'm not a physiologist or physician (and I'm sure what I'm about to say ma…

I appreciate the modesty, but talking about completing an Ironman and having the phrase “really wasn't all that fit” anywhere near it is comical. Getting through any one of the stages of an Ironman (or heck even a half of each stage) represents a level of fitness most adults do not have and will never attain.

Sure, but my point was really to suggest I’m just a regular guy who did an Ironman very slowly. There are physiological freaks at Ironman events, but I was certainly not one of them. Regular people with a plan and appropriate training can do it.

Re: Portable replacement for a $60k VO2 Max machine

#67

Post by andreareina »

rct42 wrote: post #58
aix1 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It all has to do with intensity. We obviously can't tell from the information provided, but if they ran at a slow pace, that would also skew the fueling towards fat.

Exactly. While the marathon is an endurance event, the intensity when racing is often higher than 65% VO2 max - the "fat max" or point at which fat oxidation peaks. For example, for a 3 hour marathoner (or faster), the intensity would be around 74-84% VO2 max or 80-90% max heart rate. It has also been observed that going on keto reduces your running economy (so you end up running slower for the same effort). As for "…

AIUI 60g/hr is for pure glucose, thanks to co-transport another 50% can be handled as fructose (i.e. 2:1 glucose:fructose ratio)

Re: Portable replacement for a $60k VO2 Max machine

#68

Post by moneywoes »

trentnix wrote: post #66
dpeck wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I appreciate the modesty, but talking about completing an Ironman and having the phrase “really wasn't all that fit” anywhere near it is comical. Getting through any one of the stages of an Ironman (or heck even a half of each stage) represents a level of fitness most adults do not have and will never attain.

Sure, but my point was really to suggest I’m just a regular guy who did an Ironman very slowly. There are physiological freaks at Ironman events, but I was certainly not one of them. Regular people with a plan and appropriate training can do it.

How much running training did you do and if you don't mind sharing what was your marathon time?

Re: Portable replacement for a $60k VO2 Max machine

#69

Post by hffftz »

savant_penguin wrote: post #4

Sometimes I wonder if the way to bypass the insane regulations around medical devices is to just publish them online for anyone to build themselves. Sure I won't have the minutes detail of million dollar medical equipment, but maybe I don't need all that precision, or maybe that's better than having no access at all to the measurements at all

No post body was provided.

Re: Portable replacement for a $60k VO2 Max machine

#70

Post by trentnix »

moneywoes wrote: post #68
trentnix wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but my point was really to suggest I’m just a regular guy who did an Ironman very slowly. There are physiological freaks at Ironman events, but I was certainly not one of them. Regular people with a plan and appropriate training can do it.

How much running training did you do and if you don't mind sharing what was your marathon time?

When I started I was able to run a 5k and that was about it. I trained for 21 or 22 weeks.

I think my marathon was a 5:30 or something like that. Lots of walking, but I never stopped moving.

Post reply on HN