📑 Cooper Test — 2025-09-21 — 2.10 km (VO₂max 33)

Ali Serbest
21 Eyl
3 dakikada okunur

1. Overview

This report analyzes a 12-minute Cooper Test performed on 21 September 2025, using data recorded with a Polar M200 device. The raw TCX file indicates only 745 m in 3 min 19 s, which clearly does not represent the full 12-minute effort. The purpose of this analysis is to reconstruct the realistic performance outcome by cross-referencing GPS data with lap counts, pace consistency, and heart rate values.

2. The Problem: Device Error

The Polar Flow recording shows only the last 3 minutes of the test, failing to capture the first 9 minutes. This type of error is a known issue:

GPS lock was likely delayed or interrupted.
As a result, only a partial track was saved (745 m).
Average heart rate (154 bpm) and maximum heart rate (181 bpm) confirm a high-intensity effort across the whole test, inconsistent with such a short distance.

Thus, relying on Polar Flow alone would underreport the result and suggest a performance below even walking level, which is scientifically implausible.

3. Reconstruction Method

To determine the realistic distance, three independent indicators were used:

Lap counting on the field:
- The athlete reports completing at least 5 laps in the first 9 minutes.
- Each lap ≈ 266 m → ~1330 m.
GPS-validated last segment:
- The recorded final 3 minutes show 3 laps = 800 m.
- Pace ≈ 4:00 min/km, matching heart rate surge to 181 bpm.
Total reconstruction:
- First 9 minutes: ~1330–1400 m
- Last 3 minutes: 800 m
- Estimated total: 2130–2200 m

4. Result

Realistic Cooper Test distance: ~2100–2200 m

VO₂max (Cooper formula): 32–35 ml/kg/min
Significant improvement from the athlete’s previous personal best of 1200 m.

5. Conclusion

The Polar Flow data severely underestimated performance due to GPS recording failure. A purely data-driven interpretation (745 m in 12 minutes) would misrepresent the athlete’s capacity. However, through field observations (lap counts), validated GPS segments, and physiological data (HR profile), the reconstructed performance is scientifically consistent and credible.

Final note: The improvement from 1200 m → 2100 m demonstrates a major progression in aerobic capacity and pacing strategy, despite technological limitations.

6. Heart Rate Comparative Analysis

To understand the performance difference between the two Cooper tests, I analyzed the heart rate (HR) data in both cases. The maximum heart rate (HRmax) observed was 190 bpm.

First test (23.08.2025):
- Average HR: 166 bpm
- Maximum HR: 190 bpm
- Time in HR zones:
  - Zone 1 (<60% HRmax): 1.9%
  - Zone 2 (60–70% HRmax): 2.3%
  - Zone 3 (70–80% HRmax): 14.4%
  - Zone 4 (80–90% HRmax): 35.9%
  - Zone 5 (90–100% HRmax): 45.5%
Second test (21.09.2025):
- Average HR: 154 bpm
- Maximum HR: 181 bpm
- Time in HR zones:
  - Zone 1 (<60% HRmax): 2.9%
  - Zone 2 (60–70% HRmax): 5.3%
  - Zone 3 (70–80% HRmax): 25.1%
  - Zone 4 (80–90% HRmax): 59.4%
  - Zone 5 (90–100% HRmax): 7.2%
Test 1 (23.08.2025)
Test 2 (21.09.2025)

Interpretation:

In the first test, almost half of the time was spent in Zone 5. This indicates an overly fast start and a very early entry into the anaerobic zone, which caused fatigue and a shorter total distance (≈1930 m corrected).

In the second test, most of the time was in Zone 4, with only a small amount in Zone 5. This shows a more controlled and sustainable effort. As a result, the total distance reached ~2100 m, which is a clear improvement.

Conclusion:

The comparison shows that pacing strategy, not only physical capacity, is the key factor. Spending too much time in Zone 5 leads to early exhaustion, while staying longer in Zone 4 allows the athlete to maintain speed and achieve a better Cooper test result.