How to get your VO2 max up to an excellent rating.
sijomial
Posts: 19,809 Member
Pass your 60th birthday and Garmin's VO2 max estimate bumps you up a category as I'm now in an older age bracket.
PS - cycling a lot also helps!
PS - cycling a lot also helps!
14
Replies
-
LOL, mine reset when I started using my new Fenix 5.......with my old 920xt I was (and I take this with a grain of salt) in the top 10% of my AG now my fitness age is several years older than my chronological age. At least my bike VO2 max is back up to 36 and rising, apparently it's take a few more runs to get the running one back up!
I do like, however, some of the other insights....
2 -
As VO2max is calculated based on body weight, losing weight is also a great way to improve the number, I've noticed.
I just reached 39 today (I started at 36 a month ago) but considering I still have 30lbs to lose, I should be a top athlete by the end of my weight loss
3 -
BrianSharpe wrote: »LOL, mine reset when I started using my new Fenix 5.......with my old 920xt I was (and I take this with a grain of salt) in the top 10% of my AG now my fitness age is several years older than my chronological age. At least my bike VO2 max is back up to 36 and rising, apparently it's take a few more runs to get the running one back up!
I do like, however, some of the other insights....
Congrats on running rings round your demographic.
My apparent average cycling speed is ridiculously high at the moment as awful weather is limiting me to indoor cycling and the mph estimates are courtesy of Hans Christian Anderson.3 -
As VO2max is calculated based on body weight, losing weight is also a great way to improve the number, I've noticed.
I just reached 39 today (I started at 36 a month ago) but considering I still have 30lbs to lose, I should be a top athlete by the end of my weight loss
Nice improvement.
I got stuck aiming for 3 watts per kilo and my training progress plateaued just short - realised that losing weight was going to be more effective and quicker. Not as much fun though.
2 -
I get a pretty good one as well from my Garmin (45ml/kg/min). The number is derived from a few formulas that Garmin applies to your activities, particularly running. It is not accurate. When I was training for a half-marathon, my number went down because I was training at a lower pace on longer runs, for example.0
-
And weather/temperature will greatly affect performance (at least outside). Mine peaks in the glorious, breathable fall and plummets in winter/summer.1
-
Good stuff, fun to see. I only use Garmin Connect to feed data into Training Peaks, so I'm not too familiar with the tools.
Having said that, the Power Curve chart was kind of cool to look at. It showed a recent 4 week interval in the foreground with "best ever" power output per unit of time in the background. The chart sort of confirms that while I'm starting to regain cycling fitness, there is a significant gap in my ability to hold power output today versus in mid 2018 during my last training build. That means more trips to the pain cave are in order.
And regarding VO2/Cycling VO2, my category ratings are no consolation as I"m suffering through a threshold session.
1 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »I get a pretty good one as well from my Garmin (45ml/kg/min). The number is derived from a few formulas that Garmin applies to your activities, particularly running. It is not accurate. When I was training for a half-marathon, my number went down because I was training at a lower pace on longer runs, for example.
Re. the bold - agreed.
Steady state moderate efforts on my bikes result in a lower VO2 max estimate, to get a decent approximation I have to push hard for 20 mins or more to see my highest scores (42 typically for the last few years in the outdoor season).
The high effort scores correlate pretty well for me with a proper VO2 max test in a lab but really it's just an interesting piece in the jigsaw.
0 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »I get a pretty good one as well from my Garmin (45ml/kg/min). The number is derived from a few formulas that Garmin applies to your activities, particularly running. It is not accurate. When I was training for a half-marathon, my number went down because I was training at a lower pace on longer runs, for example.
Re. the bold - agreed.
Steady state moderate efforts on my bikes result in a lower VO2 max estimate, to get a decent approximation I have to push hard for 20 mins or more to see my highest scores (42 typically for the last few years in the outdoor season).
The high effort scores correlate pretty well for me with a proper VO2 max test in a lab but really it's just an interesting piece in the jigsaw.
@sijomial - Your comments (bolded) make me really question my current score of 48 for cycling VO2 max, since I'm currently only riding 4.5-6hrs via 3 indoor sessions/week. Typically one higher intensity (two rounds of russian sprints inside 1hr session) one sweet spot endurance and a 2.5hr endurance ride with a few short VO2 max intervals mixed in. I also don't believe garmin's VO2 number of 51, unless swim workouts are included in that calculation, since I'm not doing any real hard running yet.
I find the performance management chart in TP to be a very useful gauge of my fitness and fatigue, but now I'm a bit more curious about how the garmin tool works.
0 -
@DjproulxJthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »I get a pretty good one as well from my Garmin (45ml/kg/min). The number is derived from a few formulas that Garmin applies to your activities, particularly running. It is not accurate. When I was training for a half-marathon, my number went down because I was training at a lower pace on longer runs, for example.
Re. the bold - agreed.
Steady state moderate efforts on my bikes result in a lower VO2 max estimate, to get a decent approximation I have to push hard for 20 mins or more to see my highest scores (42 typically for the last few years in the outdoor season).
The high effort scores correlate pretty well for me with a proper VO2 max test in a lab but really it's just an interesting piece in the jigsaw.
@sijomial - Your comments (bolded) make me really question my current score of 48 for cycling VO2 max, since I'm currently only riding 4.5-6hrs via 3 indoor sessions/week. Typically one higher intensity (two rounds of russian sprints inside 1hr session) one sweet spot endurance and a 2.5hr endurance ride with a few short VO2 max intervals mixed in. I also don't believe garmin's VO2 number of 51, unless swim workouts are included in that calculation, since I'm not doing any real hard running yet.
I find the performance management chart in TP to be a very useful gauge of my fitness and fatigue, but now I'm a bit more curious about how the garmin tool works.
I think you are a far more advanced athlete than me from your posts over the years so would be surprised if my real VO2 max wasn't considerably lower than yours.
I scored 38 in a proper VO2 max test several years ago but that test was flawed as they started the ramp test too low (oh look - old fat bloke, better start low....) and I took far too long to get to the point of maximal effort. My performance has improved a lot since then as my cycling volume has gone up so 42 feels a reasonable estimate in comparison. A bit hard to compare fitness level throughout the year as in the winter I rarely ride outdoors and in the cycling season I rarely ride indoors where you can control all the variables for consistency.
TBH I place a lot more reliance on FTP tests than Garmin's VO2 estimate based on HR and power, less interpretation and higher quality data.1 -
I found Garmin's VO2max to be surprisingly accurate for me (as measured while wearing my HRM strap and compared to a real test on a dreadmill around the same time). You do have to have a few all out efforts for it to work well though. Just running LSD runs or slow easy cycling won't do it.
https://www.firstbeat.com/en/consumer-feature/vo2max-fitness-level/
1 -
@DjproulxJthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »I get a pretty good one as well from my Garmin (45ml/kg/min). The number is derived from a few formulas that Garmin applies to your activities, particularly running. It is not accurate. When I was training for a half-marathon, my number went down because I was training at a lower pace on longer runs, for example.
Re. the bold - agreed.
Steady state moderate efforts on my bikes result in a lower VO2 max estimate, to get a decent approximation I have to push hard for 20 mins or more to see my highest scores (42 typically for the last few years in the outdoor season).
The high effort scores correlate pretty well for me with a proper VO2 max test in a lab but really it's just an interesting piece in the jigsaw.
@sijomial - Your comments (bolded) make me really question my current score of 48 for cycling VO2 max, since I'm currently only riding 4.5-6hrs via 3 indoor sessions/week. Typically one higher intensity (two rounds of russian sprints inside 1hr session) one sweet spot endurance and a 2.5hr endurance ride with a few short VO2 max intervals mixed in. I also don't believe garmin's VO2 number of 51, unless swim workouts are included in that calculation, since I'm not doing any real hard running yet.
I find the performance management chart in TP to be a very useful gauge of my fitness and fatigue, but now I'm a bit more curious about how the garmin tool works.
I think you are a far more advanced athlete than me from your posts over the years so would be surprised if my real VO2 max wasn't considerably lower than yours.
I scored 38 in a proper VO2 max test several years ago but that test was flawed as they started the ramp test too low (oh look - old fat bloke, better start low....) and I took far too long to get to the point of maximal effort. My performance has improved a lot since then as my cycling volume has gone up so 42 feels a reasonable estimate in comparison. A bit hard to compare fitness level throughout the year as in the winter I rarely ride outdoors and in the cycling season I rarely ride indoors where you can control all the variables for consistency.
TBH I place a lot more reliance on FTP tests than Garmin's VO2 estimate based on HR and power, less interpretation and higher quality data.
regarding first bolded comment - I dunno about that. My impression is that you are a fairly accomplished rider, and I just find that Garmin number to be a bit nebulous.
re: second bolded comment - Ugh. too many rounds of the ramp test brings unneeded pain! My first one started too low and it took way too many jumps to finally reach my breaking point. Still cringe when I think of that test.
re: third and forth bolded comments: I absolutely rely on FTP tests and actual run threshold tests as the data sources. We test periodically to be sure the workout intensity is appropriate in each upcoming training block. And I seldom worry about understanding my fitness level (though I fret about it constantly, lol) due to the very granular trending information I get from the TP performance management chart. The screen shots below illustrate why. The first view shows a past 90 days/next 21 days view based on workouts done and scheduled sessions, while the second view provides an easy historical view of my fitness over the last two years. As you can see, my fitness went way high during 2018, then took a nosedive while I recovered from injury last year.
I believe the power of this tool; comes from its ability to factor in acute training load(training stress score of today's work) and cumulative training load (accumulated training stress over last 43 days) to produce a Fitness, Fatigue and Race Readiness value. It provides this data for swim, bike, run disciplines as well as overall fitness. This is invaluable for endurance athletes.
Anyway, I will cease high jacking this thread and get down off my TP soap box.
2 -
A mouse has a VO2max that is several times that of any human!
(It helps a lot that it is mass-weighted.)
Apparently, Garmin uses "Firstbeat" technology. For gory details:
https://assets.firstbeat.com/firstbeat/uploads/2017/06/white_paper_VO2max_30.6.2017.pdf
I think the Garmin estimates are good to a few ml/kg/min. The fact that it drifts around month-to-month belies it's accuracy. There is no way in heck your actual VO2max is changing by very much month-to-month. And, it is certainly not going down while you are training for a half-marathon (as Garmin said mine did).
I note that most of the estimating methods involve running. I'm not sure what they do if you never run. Also, if you run on a treadmill and the distance estimates are wrong, I suspect this will affect your VO2max estimate.1 -
I find that garmin tracks pretty close to Golden cheetah, if i go and do some vo2max interval sessions it will bump it up to 50 for me. I turn 60 later this year so it will be interesting if it bumps me up a grade at 48, currently 50 is the next level for me.1 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »(snip good info, for reply length)
I think the Garmin estimates are good to a few ml/kg/min. The fact that it drifts around month-to-month belies it's accuracy. There is no way in heck your actual VO2max is changing by very much month-to-month. And, it is certainly not going down while you are training for a half-marathon (as Garmin said mine did).
I note that most of the estimating methods involve running. I'm not sure what they do if you never run. Also, if you run on a treadmill and the distance estimates are wrong, I suspect this will affect your VO2max estimate.
I never run, never ever, and I have a Garmin VO2max rating:
Based on the data points' timing, it seems to estimate it from just walking. (I don't walk often, either, in an "intentional otherwise purposeless walk" way.) That estimate doesn't appear to change, for me.
But I'm certainly not any kind of disciplined, highly trained athlete.1 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »(snip good info, for reply length)
I think the Garmin estimates are good to a few ml/kg/min. The fact that it drifts around month-to-month belies it's accuracy. There is no way in heck your actual VO2max is changing by very much month-to-month. And, it is certainly not going down while you are training for a half-marathon (as Garmin said mine did).
I note that most of the estimating methods involve running. I'm not sure what they do if you never run. Also, if you run on a treadmill and the distance estimates are wrong, I suspect this will affect your VO2max estimate.
I never run, never ever, and I have a Garmin VO2max rating:
Based on the data points' timing, it seems to estimate it from just walking. (I don't walk often, either, in an "intentional otherwise purposeless walk" way.)
I run and walk (both on treadmill) and I never get a VO2 max score after running, only after walking. Which is a bit annoying since only indoor running allows calibration and indoor walking doesn't (and I've noticed that my Garmin often exaggerates my walking distance).1 -
Translated it says Your VO₂ max. is 46. This is excellent for women in the agegroup 50-59. You are within the top 1% of your age and gender group.
And this is my today rate. Did not do anything but go for a walk, no running. And a week of being quite inactive as I had a small hospital procedure done during the week.
During the procedure the biggest problem was my heart monitor It kept bleeping as in full rest it sometimes goes below 40 and well that machine thought it not good. Nurse was saying I was so healthy all over that the equipment could not cope. She also suspected my blood pressure would low just on looking at me (she was right). She mentioned they do not often get patients that are in such good physical shape. I am actually proud of that :-)
9 -
Mine (920XT) will estimate for either running (HR monitor required) or cycling (HR monitor + power meter required).0
-
So I'm 48...amateur cyclist...not a Cat rider. But avid recreationalist and ride with a group that describes itself as "medium core". Former collegiate rower (D1 but lightweight). FTP is about 260 and power to weight is just under 3.2. Goal is 280 FTP and power/weight of 3.5.
Can someone educate me on this particular VO2 max measure? Any value in tracking it in addition to FTP and power/weight? I dont have a Garmin...so not sure how to calculate this but do know my VO2 max power range right now is around 275-310 watts. I'm taking an FTP test every 6-8 weeks. Thinking of trying Sufferfest for indoor but mostly doing Peloton Powerzone training for indoor (which I'm liking). Ride both road and gravel outside with my riding group.
Thanks in advance for your insight.0 -
There's a link up thread that gives a description of VO2 max. My two cents is that while the VO2 concept and measurement provides a good barometer for fitness among the general population, I don't suspect its anywhere near as useful as FTP and power/weight for cyclists.
With that said, please note that I'm no expert at either cycling or exercise science and would defer to others who are more savvy regarding usefulness to cyclists.
1 -
I run. I run every day. I have noticed that my vo2max has JUMPED!
You can see its steady increase since December when I started running every day. There is no way I'm in the the top 5% of my age group (I'm 37 for the record).
But it's kinda fun to see it this high!3 -
Does Garmin weight running more highly? I'm kind of disinclined to believe my 50 (it calculated with my new watch, and doesn't even represent my summer capacity) if someone who cycles a lot is at 40.1
-
In response to a couple of recent posts: I believe there is a genetic component in VO2max, though in an individual it can be increased via training . . . in that sense, somewhat analogous to genetic potential for hypertrophy, I guess. It's not entirely training effects. If the actual measurement is higher than you'd expect, perhaps you just drew a lucky card genetically.
(Of course I acknowledge that the trackers could simply be inaccurate - dunno. ). 1 -
Being told that you are in the top 5% or 10% in your age group is a great boost to the ego, however everyone i ride with is in that category so when you are barely hanging on to the group everything is brought into perspective
3 -
awinner_au wrote: »Being told that you are in the top 5% or 10% in your age group is a great boost to the ego, however everyone i ride with is in that category so when you are barely hanging on to the group everything is brought into perspective
Truth....1 -
@jhanleybrown : IMHO, it is a useful statistic that certainly sums up your aerobic capacity nicely. To really measure it, you'd have to go to a clinic where they put a special respirator on you and have you ride a stationary bike or run on a treadmill. Places that do it also will measure your %BF and things like that.
If you don't want to do that, you can try any of the approximate methods listed on the internet, such as these:
https://www.revelsports.com/Articles/VO2_Max.asp
Or, you can buy a Garmin watch and let it do it's mysterious vodoo for you.
Again, unless you have a bicycle power meter of some sort, I'm not sure how much I trust the cycling estimates.0 -
FWIW, Concept 2 has a VO2max estimator on their website (https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/training/calculators/vo2max-calculator) based on one's PR 2K time, bodyweight, and whether you consider yourself highly trained or not.
It estimates me at 30.65-35.48, somewhat lower than Garmin, and in the high side of "average" to "good" range for my age/gender (64/F), lower than Garmin's estimate of 36/excellent. (The range is from changing the training setting, which is binary; I'm probably likely to be midway based on self-assessment as kinda trained .) 1 -
While I would be pleasantly surprised if my VO2 information was accurate, As @sijomial mentioned up thread, I think it is not particularly actionable other than as a periodic check against other more granular (and useful) measurements. Specifically in the case of cycling, FTP and the ability to clear lactate seems a more relevant factor to watch, and power to weight ratio seems a better “scorecard” to measure fitness/power relative to other cyclists. For running, a threshold test to measure HR and ability to hold various paces is more telling as well.
So @awinner_au and I share a similar point of view, that is that a VO2 “rating” is forgotten when your friends are punishing you during a ride, lol!
1 -
@Jthanmyfitnesspal
@AnnPT77
I think VO2 max estimators such as Garmin and Concept2 are in the realms of "interesting" but not a lot of real use and open to being influenced by other factors.
Apparently when I used to indoor row a bit I got from a VO2 max of 44 to 48 using the Concept2 estimate in fairly short time - the question mark over that is did I simply improve my technique rather than boost my aerobic conditioning? (Probably a bit of both.)
What was of more validity is that I got faster over the same 2K distance - a true measure of performance.
It's part of the popularity of power meters in cycling is that you get true data rather than an interpretation. I know my 20min power is significantly down this winter compared to this time last year but a big improvement from Autumn when I was coming back from a few injuries.
VO2 max (and max HR) testing in a lab to failure is a fascinating experience, but hugely fatiguing. Worth it as a learning experience but not something you would want to do frequently. That's where IMHO the Garmin rough estimate comes in - no extra effort or training compromises required. A bit like bathroom scales - the trend tells a story but with a load of fluctuations along the way.2
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions