We are pleased to announce that as of March 4, 2025, an updated Rich Text Editor has been introduced in the MyFitnessPal Community. To learn more about the changes, please click here. We look forward to sharing this new feature with you!
VO2max: please help interpret estimate results
d_thomas02
Posts: 9,055 Member
Been playing around with my FitBit Charge HR for about three weeks now and decided to estimate my VO2max based on the Balke Treadmill Test. http://www.brianmac.co.uk/balketread.htm
Some basic stats. 56 yr old male. 210 lbs. Resting heart rate (RHR) 70 bpm (from FitBit). Estimated max heart rate (MHR) (206.9-(age*0.67)) 169 bpm. Estimated VO2max (MHR/RHR*15) 36 mls/kg/min.
Results from Balke Treadmill Tests at 3.3 mph. (Note: my treadmill maxed out at 12% incline on the 12 minute mark in the test.) Total Duration of test 'T' (after ten minute warm-up); 50 minutes. Maximum heart rate reached during test 164 bpm. Using formula for men VO2max = 1.444 x T + 14.99 = 87 mls/kg/min.
I don't believe my VO2max is that high. I'm including my FitBit results for this test below. Can anyone help me interpret these results?
Thanks.
Some basic stats. 56 yr old male. 210 lbs. Resting heart rate (RHR) 70 bpm (from FitBit). Estimated max heart rate (MHR) (206.9-(age*0.67)) 169 bpm. Estimated VO2max (MHR/RHR*15) 36 mls/kg/min.
Results from Balke Treadmill Tests at 3.3 mph. (Note: my treadmill maxed out at 12% incline on the 12 minute mark in the test.) Total Duration of test 'T' (after ten minute warm-up); 50 minutes. Maximum heart rate reached during test 164 bpm. Using formula for men VO2max = 1.444 x T + 14.99 = 87 mls/kg/min.
I don't believe my VO2max is that high. I'm including my FitBit results for this test below. Can anyone help me interpret these results?
Thanks.
0
Replies
-
This content has been removed.
-
I'm trying to get a better estimate of my VO2max.
Definition: VO2 max is the maximal oxygen uptake or the maximum volume of oxygen that can be utilized in one minute during maximal or exhaustive exercise. It is measured as milliliters of oxygen used in one minute per kilogram of body weight
VO2 max or maximal oxygen uptake is one factor that can determine an athlete’s capacity to perform sustained exercise and is linked to aerobic endurance. It is generally considered the best indicator of cardiorespiratory endurance and aerobic fitness.
Elite endurance athletes typically have a high VO2 max. And some studies indicate that it is largely due to genetics, although training has been shown to increase VO2 max up to 20 percent. A major goal of most endurance training programs is to increase this number.
Also Known As: Maximal Oxygen Uptake from http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/glossary/g/VO2Max.htm
My motivation for improving my VO2max is SCUBA diving. My diving buddy can easily stretch a single tank of air into a 90 minute dive. My air use is more in the normal range of 60 minutes.0 -
The total duration of the test assumes that you completed the protocol which calls for a progressive increase in elevation--1% for every minute of the test. If you stopped at 12% and then just kept walking, then the prediction equation you used is useless--it's giving you that elite, world-class number because it assumes you ended up at something like a 30% elevation.
Plus, if you held on to the handrails, the overestimate was even greater. And the fact that you were able to walk 40 minutes and experience a peak HR of 164 suggests that your actual HR max is higher than the age-predicted HR max for your age.
Essentially the number you got is no more accurate than a random number you might have picked out of a hat.
Trying to do a max GXT on a home or regular commercial treadmill is problematic because the elevations usually do not go high enough. You can try a submaximal protocol, which may give you a ballpark figure, but will also have a larger error factor.0 -
@Azdak,
Only touched handrails with fingertips. Tried to keep an upright posture with weight on feet, not arms. And your conclusion is pretty much what I suspected.
I'll do a search for a submaximal protocol, but if you happen to know of one, I'd appreciate it if you'd pass it on.
Ballpark is all I'm looking for (and all I can expect, I',m sure) from a cheap retail treadmill and a wrist style HR monitor.
Thanks!0 -
Found this article:
Pat R. Vehrs , James D. George , Gilbert W. Fellingham , Sharon A. Plowman
& Kymberli Dustman-Allen (2007) Submaximal Treadmill Exercise Test to Predict VO2max
in Fit Adults, Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 11:2, 61-72, DOI:
10.1080/10913670701294047
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10913670701294047
Study participants (N= 400; men = 250 and women = 150), ages 18 to 40 years. (I'm a bit outside that age range, but I'll risk it.)
Basically a 3 minute walking warm-up, followed by jogging at a self-selected, submaximal jogging speed between 4.3 and 7.5 mph at level grade for 3 min or until a steady-state HR is achieved.
Gender, age, body mass, steady-state HR, and jogging speed (mph) are included as independent variables in the following multiple linear regression model to predict VO2max (R=0.91, standard error of estimate [SEE]=2.52 mL· kg−1 ·min−1):
VO2max (mL· kg−1 ·min−1)=58.687 + (7.520 × Gender; 0=woman and 1=man) + (4.334 × mph) − (0.211 × kg) − (0.148 × HR) − (0.107 × Age).
Men in the study averaged a 5.9 mph (+/- 0.6) pace while women averaged 5.3 mph (+/- 0.5). My current 5K pace is 5.3 mph. So all I'm lacking is a steady state heart rate.
I'll give this a go tomorrow (no strenuous exercise for 24 hr prior to testing and at least 3 hr after eating a meal).
Cheers!0 -
The Concept2 rower VO2 max test is nice and simple and will allow you to track improvements.
http://www.concept2.co.uk/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/vo2max-calculator
A fast as you can 2000m row.
It wasn't too far away for me when compared to a real VO2 max test in a sports science lab.
Doing the test on a bike in the lab gave me a higher tested max HR and VO2 max score which isn't surprising as I'm a cyclist rather than a rower.
Beware though that a true max HR test is very, very taxing!
It did actually give me confidence to push harder on hills and in training knowing that I can survive the "getting a bit silly for an old fart" HR zone.
PS - My tested max HR was a bit higher than the 220 - age formula. Estimate 220-54= 166, tested = 176.
PPS - I have a Polar HRM with the OwnIndex/Fitness test function and it's surprisingly close and reflects my training performance over time.
0 -
d_thomas02 wrote: »Found this article:
Pat R. Vehrs , James D. George , Gilbert W. Fellingham , Sharon A. Plowman
& Kymberli Dustman-Allen (2007) Submaximal Treadmill Exercise Test to Predict VO2max
in Fit Adults, Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 11:2, 61-72, DOI:
10.1080/10913670701294047
http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10913670701294047
Study participants (N= 400; men = 250 and women = 150), ages 18 to 40 years. (I'm a bit outside that age range, but I'll risk it.)
Basically a 3 minute walking warm-up, followed by jogging at a self-selected, submaximal jogging speed between 4.3 and 7.5 mph at level grade for 3 min or until a steady-state HR is achieved.
Gender, age, body mass, steady-state HR, and jogging speed (mph) are included as independent variables in the following multiple linear regression model to predict VO2max (R=0.91, standard error of estimate [SEE]=2.52 mL· kg−1 ·min−1):
VO2max (mL· kg−1 ·min−1)=58.687 + (7.520 × Gender; 0=woman and 1=man) + (4.334 × mph) − (0.211 × kg) − (0.148 × HR) − (0.107 × Age).
Men in the study averaged a 5.9 mph (+/- 0.6) pace while women averaged 5.3 mph (+/- 0.5). My current 5K pace is 5.3 mph. So all I'm lacking is a steady state heart rate.
I'll give this a go tomorrow (no strenuous exercise for 24 hr prior to testing and at least 3 hr after eating a meal).
Cheers!
Give it a try--sounds good enough. Keep in mind that submaximal test results are affected if your actual HRmax is higher or lower than your age-predicted HR max. That's because submax tests use age-predicted HR max as the projected endpoint, or to set the "scale" for HR response to the workload. If ones actual HR max is higher than age predicted, it will interpret the higher submax HR as a lower fitness level (I.e. You are working at a higher percentage of VO2max).
The reverse is true for someone with a lower HR max--test results are overestimated (which is why someone taking beta blocker medication can't take a submax test--results are meaningless).
Ironically, for you, I suspect your rough calculation of 36 mi/kg/min is probably pretty close. This is based on your reported workout effort.
Good luck and enjoy your experiments!
0 -
The Concept2 rower VO2 max test is nice and simple and will allow you to track improvements.
http://www.concept2.co.uk/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/vo2max-calculator
A fast as you can 2000m row.
It wasn't too far away for me when compared to a real VO2 max test in a sports science lab.
Doing the test on a bike in the lab gave me a higher tested max HR and VO2 max score which isn't surprising as I'm a cyclist rather than a rower.
Beware though that a true max HR test is very, very taxing!
It did actually give me confidence to push harder on hills and in training knowing that I can survive the "getting a bit silly for an old fart" HR zone.
PS - My tested max HR was a bit higher than the 220 - age formula. Estimate 220-54= 166, tested = 176.
PPS - I have a Polar HRM with the OwnIndex/Fitness test function and it's surprisingly close and reflects my training performance over time.
My only caveat with the C2 test is that rowing is much more technique-dependent than other types of graded exercise testing. A non-rower would not get dependable results. I found the same thing to be true with submax bike tests, even though in the early ex phys literature, bike tests were a preferred testing modality. A fit non-cyclist usually lacked to leg strength to tolerate the 200w workloads necessary to get a good HR response.
For a rower, the C2 stuff is very good IMO, mainly due to the excellent accuracy of the performance monitor.
0 -
The Concept2 rower VO2 max test is nice and simple and will allow you to track improvements.
http://www.concept2.co.uk/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/vo2max-calculator
A fast as you can 2000m row.
It wasn't too far away for me when compared to a real VO2 max test in a sports science lab.
Doing the test on a bike in the lab gave me a higher tested max HR and VO2 max score which isn't surprising as I'm a cyclist rather than a rower.
Beware though that a true max HR test is very, very taxing!
It did actually give me confidence to push harder on hills and in training knowing that I can survive the "getting a bit silly for an old fart" HR zone.
PS - My tested max HR was a bit higher than the 220 - age formula. Estimate 220-54= 166, tested = 176.
PPS - I have a Polar HRM with the OwnIndex/Fitness test function and it's surprisingly close and reflects my training performance over time.
My only caveat with the C2 test is that rowing is much more technique-dependent than other types of graded exercise testing. A non-rower would not get dependable results. I found the same thing to be true with submax bike tests, even though in the early ex phys literature, bike tests were a preferred testing modality. A fit non-cyclist usually lacked to leg strength to tolerate the 200w workloads necessary to get a good HR response.
For a rower, the C2 stuff is very good IMO, mainly due to the excellent accuracy of the performance monitor.
Agreed - my score improved too quickly initially as a result of getting the pace better and no doubt improved technique but then became more consistent with a more believable rate of progress.
0 -
The Concept2 rower VO2 max test is nice and simple and will allow you to track improvements.
http://www.concept2.co.uk/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/vo2max-calculator
A fast as you can 2000m row.
It wasn't too far away for me when compared to a real VO2 max test in a sports science lab.
Doing the test on a bike in the lab gave me a higher tested max HR and VO2 max score which isn't surprising as I'm a cyclist rather than a rower.
Beware though that a true max HR test is very, very taxing!
It did actually give me confidence to push harder on hills and in training knowing that I can survive the "getting a bit silly for an old fart" HR zone.
PS - My tested max HR was a bit higher than the 220 - age formula. Estimate 220-54= 166, tested = 176.
PPS - I have a Polar HRM with the OwnIndex/Fitness test function and it's surprisingly close and reflects my training performance over time.
Curious, but do you know which VO2max protocol was used when you got your testing done in a lab?
I'm trying to see if the cardiologist can give me my max HR based on stress testing I did a couple years ago, wish I had a more accurate number, even though he said my heart was very sound.The Concept2 rower VO2 max test is nice and simple and will allow you to track improvements.
http://www.concept2.co.uk/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/vo2max-calculator
A fast as you can 2000m row.
It wasn't too far away for me when compared to a real VO2 max test in a sports science lab.
Doing the test on a bike in the lab gave me a higher tested max HR and VO2 max score which isn't surprising as I'm a cyclist rather than a rower.
Beware though that a true max HR test is very, very taxing!
It did actually give me confidence to push harder on hills and in training knowing that I can survive the "getting a bit silly for an old fart" HR zone.
PS - My tested max HR was a bit higher than the 220 - age formula. Estimate 220-54= 166, tested = 176.
PPS - I have a Polar HRM with the OwnIndex/Fitness test function and it's surprisingly close and reflects my training performance over time.
My only caveat with the C2 test is that rowing is much more technique-dependent than other types of graded exercise testing. A non-rower would not get dependable results. I found the same thing to be true with submax bike tests, even though in the early ex phys literature, bike tests were a preferred testing modality. A fit non-cyclist usually lacked to leg strength to tolerate the 200w workloads necessary to get a good HR response.
For a rower, the C2 stuff is very good IMO, mainly due to the excellent accuracy of the performance monitor.
I started looking into various "DIY" VO2max testing, and agree with the technique dependent bias. But then I started looking at various protocols done in a lab as well, and thought that all of them might have similar bias.
As an example, I have an elliptical that outputs power in a readout, in my case the most accurate is calories burned per minute. Though I know the machine is giving a readout that is gross and not net (off by at least 1 MET the best I can figure), having that data in front of me would probably give me a huge advantage if I did a VO2max test on it, as opposed to someone that didn't own such an elliptical. I know where my HR is as opposed to my output effort.
Yet on my bike, I have no power meter. I do have a chest strap and basic bike computer that shows HR, but with the power measure lacking I don't have the consistent data I have available on the elliptical. But even then, I can output stronger on the bike without doubt, and net calorie burn would be greater. But without the data to help me define the upper limits of my output to reach steady state or get my HR to a specific number, any VO2max testing would likely be less reliable since I'm not as familiar with the upper level threshold.
Given the same lack of data on the bike, if I had an area to ride without traffic, wind, etc, I would be much more confident in finding that upper limit for any VO2max test of a set time limit.
So for now, I've not worried about an absolute number for VO2max. I use the elliptical to show improvements or lack of.0 -
Ironically, for you, I suspect your rough calculation of 36 mi/kg/min is probably pretty close. This is based on your reported workout effort.
Good luck and enjoy your experiments!
Looked at a past saved FitBit workout that matched the test criteria fairly closely (5 min walking warm-up, 3 min jog at 5.0 mph) and showed about a 136 bpm heart rate. Plugged that into the equation to give me an estimated 42 ml/kg/min VO2max. Not a bad place to start from.
Thanks for the luck, and I will.
"It's impossible to map out a route to your destination if you don't know where you're starting from." Suze Orman0 -
@robertw486robertw486 wrote: »Curious, but do you know which VO2max protocol was used when you got your testing done in a lab?
Think it was under the ACSM's guidelines, "cycle ergometery to fatigue" if I remember correctly.
Basically from a very low resistance start point you maintain a set cadence and every 3 minutes (???) they add more weight to increase power output required in 30 watt increments until complete fatigue. Think my start point was a little too low as it took over 20 minutes from start to failure which is a bit too long. I hit all the criteria for maximal effort - and it certainly felt like it. Took 3 days to recover.
Score then was in mid-forties and I've worked up to between 50 - 54 (estimated) now.
0 -
d_thomas02 wrote: »Been playing around with my FitBit Charge HR for about three weeks now and decided to estimate my VO2max based on the Balke Treadmill Test. http://www.brianmac.co.uk/balketread.htm
Some basic stats. 56 yr old male. 210 lbs. Resting heart rate (RHR) 70 bpm (from FitBit). Estimated max heart rate (MHR) (206.9-(age*0.67)) 169 bpm. Estimated VO2max (MHR/RHR*15) 36 mls/kg/min.
Results from Balke Treadmill Tests at 3.3 mph. (Note: my treadmill maxed out at 12% incline on the 12 minute mark in the test.) Total Duration of test 'T' (after ten minute warm-up); 50 minutes. Maximum heart rate reached during test 164 bpm. Using formula for men VO2max = 1.444 x T + 14.99 = 87 mls/kg/min.
I don't believe my VO2max is that high. I'm including my FitBit results for this test below. Can anyone help me interpret these results?
Thanks.
isnt the balke test 15 minutes versus 50 minutes? Maybe thats why your number is so high0 -
The Balke test runs until the participant cries "Uncle". For men, the incline is increased 1% every minute. So, at 15 minutes, the incline should be increased to 15%.
The problem with my attempt occurred when my treadmill maxed out at 12%. Not knowing any better at the time, I kept going.0 -
d_thomas02 wrote: »The Balke test runs until the participant cries "Uncle". For men, the incline is increased 1% every minute. So, at 15 minutes, the incline should be increased to 15%.
The problem with my attempt occurred when my treadmill maxed out at 12%. Not knowing any better at the time, I kept going.
but is that calculation right - it seems that went over 15 minutes used distance/time or something like that versus just straight time. hence why one reading is 80+ and the other method is 36?
0 -
The 80+ reading is way off 'cause I did the Balke test wrong, or rather, I didn't have the right equipment to do the test properly as my treadmill could not surpass a 12% incline.
The submaximal estimate I noted above can be preformed by anyone as it only requires a 0% incline and jogging at a comfortable pace.0 -
d_thomas02 wrote: »The 80+ reading is way off 'cause I did the Balke test wrong, or rather, I didn't have the right equipment to do the test properly as my treadmill could not surpass a 12% incline.
The submaximal estimate I noted above can be preformed by anyone as it only requires a 0% incline and jogging at a comfortable pace.
I figured that after I read some research about the average incline being 14.6 +/- 2 % . the test also snould have taken between 9 and 15 minute - 55 was way too long.
0 -
you could also try these. I know the 1.5 mile and 1 mile test are popular
http://vo2maxcalculator.com0 -
will look into that. thx0
-
@robertw486robertw486 wrote: »Curious, but do you know which VO2max protocol was used when you got your testing done in a lab?
Think it was under the ACSM's guidelines, "cycle ergometery to fatigue" if I remember correctly.
Basically from a very low resistance start point you maintain a set cadence and every 3 minutes (???) they add more weight to increase power output required in 30 watt increments until complete fatigue. Think my start point was a little too low as it took over 20 minutes from start to failure which is a bit too long. I hit all the criteria for maximal effort - and it certainly felt like it. Took 3 days to recover.
Score then was in mid-forties and I've worked up to between 50 - 54 (estimated) now.
@sijomial Good scoop. Shame they started it so low. Reading up on some of the methods, it would seem the same person might test at various levels depending on how they train and what they are comfortable with. I personally think if they are too short they would show flaws. Some days it takes me a solid 12-15 minutes of working harder to really even get my heart rate up. And I know I can go "out of the blocks" at higher than VO2max for a much longer period than I could do it if I'm 15-20 minutes in, even at lower intensities.
I would assume most testing has to be set up to accommodate a wide range of athletic ability, and might favor certain things. An out of shape person might struggle in the muscle output to reach oxygen uptake limits, while someone in shape might have the opposite concern.0 -
The first responder to my thread asked why did I want to know my VO2max. Here is a bit longer answer.
You have your estimated VO2max (mine is 41.6 ml/kg/min), great!... Now what do you do with it?
LOTS!!!
There is an equation for estimating your VO2max from your resting heart rate (RHR) and your maximum heart rate (MHR):
MHR / RHR * 15 = VO2max
Wait... didn't we just say, we all ready had our VO2max? And what are resting heart rate and maximum heart rate?
Medical Definition of:
RHR - resting heart rate of the body is the number of contractions of the heart that occur in a single minute while the body is at complete rest. This number will vary depending upon the age, gender, and general health of a person.
MHR - maximum heart rate is the age-related number of beats per minute of the heart when working at its maximum that is usually estimated as 220 minus one's age.
You get RHR just by measuring your heart rate at rest and MHR by a calculation based solely on age.
My FitBit constantly monitors my RHR and I can plot it.
(I've read that it can take a week or two for a new FitBit to 'learn' about its new owner. You can see the drop in my RHR after about ten days.) This shows my current RHR is 69 BPM
My age is 56 so my MHR is 220 - 56 or 164 bpm. Remember, this number is based only on age. Every 56 yr old in the entire world has this same theoretical MHR. Large or small, male or female, underweight or morbidly obese, world-class athlete or couch potato, all of us 56 yr olds share 164 bpm as a MHR.
But what about ME!!!
I can take that equation I gave above for estimating VO2max, MHR / RHR * 15 = VO2max, and alter it to give a new equation that will estimate my MHR from my VO2max which is based on my performance.
MHR = (VO2max / 15) * RHR or, for my results (41.6 / 15) * 69 = 191 bmp
Now we have some numbers we can work with that are specific for me!
VO2max = 41.6 ml/kg/min
RHR = 69 bmp
MHR = 191 bmp
Your heart rate reserve (HRR) is the difference between your MHR and RHR.
HRR = MHR - RHR or, in my case 191 - 69 = 122 bpm
Your lower training range (LTR) is based on 50% of your HRR added back to your RHR
LTR = (HRR * .5) + RHR or in my case (122 * .5) + 69 = 130 bmp
Your upper training range (UTR) is based on 75% of your HRR added back to your RHR
UTR = (HRR * .75) + RHR or in my case (122 * .75) + 69 = 161 bmp
These last two numbers are very important. A good cardio workout will keep your heart rate somewhere between your LTR and your UTR. If your heart rate is below your LTR, you need to step it up. If its above your UTR, you're straining and need to back it down. Shoot for somewhere in the middle, in my case that will be around 145 BMP. And that is a number I can work with! Personalized for my current physical condition and no one else.
"Society and medicine treat us all as members of populations, whereas as individuals we are all unique, and population statistics do not apply." Craig Venter0 -
Fascinating! Thanks for that equation.d_thomas02 wrote: »There is an equation for estimating your VO2max from your resting heart rate (RHR) and your maximum heart rate (MHR):
MHR / RHR * 15 = VO2max
(You have tickled the inner geek that I try to keep repressed!)
My current numbers:
176 / 50 * 15 = 52.8
Did a Polar "fitness test" yesterday and it came up with 51.
At last year's fitness peak, which was after 8 weeks intense training for a big cycling event, my RHR was down to 48.
176 / 48 * 15 = 55
My VO2 max result at the time was 54.0 -
My new Garmin Forerunner includes tests to measure VO2max and Lactic Threshold. While I find this interesting it won't matter much to me until I start gearing up for my fall marathon. Then I can use these numbers to get the most out of my training. I can also use these numbers to get the most out of my races.0
-
robertw486 wrote: »
@robertw486robertw486 wrote: »Curious, but do you know which VO2max protocol was used when you got your testing done in a lab?
Think it was under the ACSM's guidelines, "cycle ergometery to fatigue" if I remember correctly.
Basically from a very low resistance start point you maintain a set cadence and every 3 minutes (???) they add more weight to increase power output required in 30 watt increments until complete fatigue. Think my start point was a little too low as it took over 20 minutes from start to failure which is a bit too long. I hit all the criteria for maximal effort - and it certainly felt like it. Took 3 days to recover.
Score then was in mid-forties and I've worked up to between 50 - 54 (estimated) now.
@sijomial Good scoop. Shame they started it so low. Reading up on some of the methods, it would seem the same person might test at various levels depending on how they train and what they are comfortable with. I personally think if they are too short they would show flaws. Some days it takes me a solid 12-15 minutes of working harder to really even get my heart rate up. And I know I can go "out of the blocks" at higher than VO2max for a much longer period than I could do it if I'm 15-20 minutes in, even at lower intensities.
I would assume most testing has to be set up to accommodate a wide range of athletic ability, and might favor certain things. An out of shape person might struggle in the muscle output to reach oxygen uptake limits, while someone in shape might have the opposite concern.
The topic peaked my interest so I did some more research and I found a second version of the test that actually starts higher.0 -
My new Garmin Forerunner includes tests to measure VO2max and Lactic Threshold. While I find this interesting it won't matter much to me until I start gearing up for my fall marathon. Then I can use these numbers to get the most out of my training. I can also use these numbers to get the most out of my races.
I want to check-out how it calculates the lactic threshold. That value seems to hold more weight with running than the vo2 max.0 -
20yearsyounger wrote: »My new Garmin Forerunner includes tests to measure VO2max and Lactic Threshold. While I find this interesting it won't matter much to me until I start gearing up for my fall marathon. Then I can use these numbers to get the most out of my training. I can also use these numbers to get the most out of my races.
I want to check-out how it calculates the lactic threshold. That value seems to hold more weight with running than the vo2 max.
There are 2 methods. First, it will 'auto detect' after it tracks your runs for a few weeks. IMO (and many others), not the best way to do this since there are so many variables.
The other way is via a built in test. I did this test on a track a few weeks ago. It basically asks you to run in various zones. It starts with a 10 minute warm up then prompts you to run harder to reach zone 3, then zone 4, then zone 5 (and maybe even higher). Then you can continue running until you are cooled down (the cool down is as long as you like). It helps to have a close to accurate max heart rate number so if you don't have a clue you should first find out (there are tests for this as well but none built into the watch).
EDIT to add link to video. I have the Garmin 630.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5rfUINphFQ 0 -
Thanks. That is something I want to work on this year.20yearsyounger wrote: »My new Garmin Forerunner includes tests to measure VO2max and Lactic Threshold. While I find this interesting it won't matter much to me until I start gearing up for my fall marathon. Then I can use these numbers to get the most out of my training. I can also use these numbers to get the most out of my races.
I want to check-out how it calculates the lactic threshold. That value seems to hold more weight with running than the vo2 max.
There are 2 methods. First, it will 'auto detect' after it tracks your runs for a few weeks. IMO (and many others), not the best way to do this since there are so many variables.
The other way is via a built in test. I did this test on a track a few weeks ago. It basically asks you to run in various zones. It starts with a 10 minute warm up then prompts you to run harder to reach zone 3, then zone 4, then zone 5 (and maybe even higher). Then you can continue running until you are cooled down (the cool down is as long as you like). It helps to have a close to accurate max heart rate number so if you don't have a clue you should first find out (there are tests for this as well but none built into the watch).
EDIT to add link to video. I have the Garmin 630.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5rfUINphFQ
0
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 394.6K Introduce Yourself
- 44K Getting Started
- 260.5K Health and Weight Loss
- 176.1K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.7K Fitness and Exercise
- 444 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153.1K Motivation and Support
- 8.1K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.4K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 4.1K MyFitnessPal Information
- 16 News and Announcements
- 1.3K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.8K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions