How to get your VO2 max up to an excellent rating.
Replies
-
@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.
Completely agree. (Perhaps I should've expanded on the "FWIW" I started with. I mentioned the C2 estimator only for the interest of comparing a couple of different estimators, neither of which I'd consider deeply reliable.) Y'all who are cyclists (with power meters) have metrics available to you, that are not necessarily accessible for other sports.
I can get watts from my C2, which is interesting but kind of irrelevant to me. What I used to really care about when training was the pace I could sustain for a race distance, which is a combination of technique, raw strength, endurance, and more . . . and I cared about on-the-water performance much more than machine. (The old saw among rowers is the ergs don't float: The fastest machine rower isn't necessarily the fastest on the water.) There are few useful metrics, other than the performance itself. (My performance was never all that great.
). 3 -
Unfortunately none of these garmin vo2max readings are accurate unless you are running on the flat in a vacumn as they don't consider wind factor, temperature, ascent, or elevation. Just to name a few important variables they don't consider. Not to mention it calculates most of this off heart rate versus pace which is a monumental waste of time.1
-
Unfortunately none of these garmin vo2max readings are accurate unless you are running on the flat in a vacumn as they don't consider wind factor, temperature, ascent, or elevation. Just to name a few important variables they don't consider. Not to mention it calculates most of this off heart rate versus pace which is a monumental waste of time.
If you follow the directions they are surprisingly accurate. If you allow it to automagically figure it out for you then, yes, it doesn't consider all of this.1 -
Unfortunately none of these garmin vo2max readings are accurate unless you are running on the flat in a vacumn as they don't consider wind factor, temperature, ascent, or elevation. Just to name a few important variables they don't consider. Not to mention it calculates most of this off heart rate versus pace which is a monumental waste of time.
If you follow the directions they are surprisingly accurate. If you allow it to automagically figure it out for you then, yes, it doesn't consider all of this.
I've been mucking around with the latest and most expensive versions of these Garmin watches since they came out in 2003.
I've just reread what you wrote 4 times (and I'm hardly illiterate) however I have absolutely no idea what you are trying to say...
Following directions?
Allowing it to automagically figure it out for me?
What are you even talking about?0 -
Are you not aware of the test built into many of the recent Garmins? It will guide you through measuring your VO2max. It should be done with an HRM strap and on a flat surface where the workout can be done without interruptions. The weather should be good (temp, wind, and surface should be dry). You also should know your max hr (I cheated at this as it was tested during my VO2max test).
The other way (the way most here are doing it) is to allow the watch to figure out your VO2max during normal exercise and without the aid of an accurate HRM (the watch is not always accurate). This number can jump all over the place because the watch has no idea what the environment is like nor what your workout purpose it. Add the HRM often giving bad readings and you tend to get inaccurate results.5 -
Are you not aware of the test built into many of the recent Garmins? It will guide you through measuring your VO2max. It should be done with an HRM strap and on a flat surface where the workout can be done without interruptions. The weather should be good (temp, wind, and surface should be dry). You also should know your max hr (I cheated at this as it was tested during my VO2max test).
The other way (the way most here are doing it) is to allow the watch to figure out your VO2max during normal exercise and without the aid of an accurate HRM (the watch is not always accurate). This number can jump all over the place because the watch has no idea what the environment is like nor what your workout purpose it. Add the HRM often giving bad readings and you tend to get inaccurate results.
I am very aware of the 'tests' built into them. You clearly have not comprehended my initial post.
And what you are describing is basically what I said.
Try and create a vacuum lol. Then let it determine all this based on your heart rate compared to your pace.
Sorry but that doesn't make any sense.
Heart rate is impacted on by too many things for even this to be accurate.
So once you have found your nice flat ground, at a specific elevation, at a specific temperature, with no wind, and your fatigue levels are precisely the same, and your caffeine input is zero, and your life stressors are consistent, and oh so many more factors that impact on heart rate are the same.
Run the test.
Then later on make sure all of these variables are precisely the same and run the test again.
All the while with a cheap little heart rate strap or the horribly schizophrenic optical sensor.
Ha. Amusing.
All this to get a number, that let's face it is not accurate even if you take things to the more or less impossibly extreme example I've outlined above (which you would have to do).
VO2max is not measured like this when doing real science for a reason.
Not to mention V02max is more a factor of genetics than training. You can increase it a little but not that much.
This 'feature' of Garmins is just a gimmick being touted as 'science'. Any scientific method trying to draw conclusions in this manner is foolish.
Like I said I have owned these things since their inception.
But I have also spent the last 4 years heavily involved in studying and researching sports and exercise science. Coupled with over 20 years of practical experience.
Let's just say I am educated and experienced enough on the matter to now fully comprehend that these things are really just toys.0 -
I honestly think Concept2 has the "highly trained" and "not trained" reversed. Back a couple of years ago, when I did my PB 2K row, it said, assuming I was "highly trained", that my VO2 Max was in the high 50s. But if I entered it in as not trained, it was around a 44, which is a lot more reasonable. Highly trained should not go up, but down, taking into account form and efficiency. The original study defined highly trained as anyone that was over 4 days a week of rowing (I do 6). I've done an hour FTP test last year and tested around 244 (I'm 55). Rowing versus Biking gets dicey on FTP. I know (younger Masters) guys that row full hours that produce roughly 230 Watts avg that can average 300 on the WattBike, so it's apples and oranges. Biking is way more efficient related to Watts.
Lindsay H, an Australian Masters Indoor Champ, once noted that his VO2 Max, according to the calculator was in the high 50s or low 60s. He's a guy that did a low 6:40 in his 60s, so the Aussie Over the water Olympic team took him in a lab to "study" him. His real VO2 Max was like 45, still ridiculous for a 65 year old. What they ended up finding out was more impressive about him was his ability to work with incredible amount of lactic acid buildup (he could enter a pain cave few could relate to).0 -
Are you not aware of the test built into many of the recent Garmins? It will guide you through measuring your VO2max. It should be done with an HRM strap and on a flat surface where the workout can be done without interruptions. The weather should be good (temp, wind, and surface should be dry). You also should know your max hr (I cheated at this as it was tested during my VO2max test).
The other way (the way most here are doing it) is to allow the watch to figure out your VO2max during normal exercise and without the aid of an accurate HRM (the watch is not always accurate). This number can jump all over the place because the watch has no idea what the environment is like nor what your workout purpose it. Add the HRM often giving bad readings and you tend to get inaccurate results.
I am very aware of the 'tests' built into them. You clearly have not comprehended my initial post.
And what you are describing is basically what I said.
Try and create a vacuum lol. Then let it determine all this based on your heart rate compared to your pace.
Sorry but that doesn't make any sense.
Heart rate is impacted on by too many things for even this to be accurate.
So once you have found your nice flat ground, at a specific elevation, at a specific temperature, with no wind, and your fatigue levels are precisely the same, and your caffeine input is zero, and your life stressors are consistent, and oh so many more factors that impact on heart rate are the same.
Run the test.
Then later on make sure all of these variables are precisely the same and run the test again.
All the while with a cheap little heart rate strap or the horribly schizophrenic optical sensor.
Ha. Amusing.
All this to get a number, that let's face it is not accurate even if you take things to the more or less impossibly extreme example I've outlined above (which you would have to do).
VO2max is not measured like this when doing real science for a reason.
Not to mention V02max is more a factor of genetics than training. You can increase it a little but not that much.
This 'feature' of Garmins is just a gimmick being touted as 'science'. Any scientific method trying to draw conclusions in this manner is foolish.
Like I said I have owned these things since their inception.
But I have also spent the last 4 years heavily involved in studying and researching sports and exercise science. Coupled with over 20 years of practical experience.
Let's just say I am educated and experienced enough on the matter to now fully comprehend that these things are really just toys.
Ummmm . . . I think we pretty much all know it's an estimate, not a measurement.
Not sure why your PP even called it a VO2max "reading". It's not. It's an algorithmic estimate, based on statistics from research test results. Kind of like the devices' calorie estimates.
I don't think anyone else here has a delusion that it's anything other than that.4 -
Are you not aware of the test built into many of the recent Garmins? It will guide you through measuring your VO2max. It should be done with an HRM strap and on a flat surface where the workout can be done without interruptions. The weather should be good (temp, wind, and surface should be dry). You also should know your max hr (I cheated at this as it was tested during my VO2max test).
The other way (the way most here are doing it) is to allow the watch to figure out your VO2max during normal exercise and without the aid of an accurate HRM (the watch is not always accurate). This number can jump all over the place because the watch has no idea what the environment is like nor what your workout purpose it. Add the HRM often giving bad readings and you tend to get inaccurate results.
Where can I find more info on this? I wasn’t aware that there was a specific test procedure and I’ve reviewed the documentation I could find for my watch and don’t see anything about it?
My watch produces a new vo2max estimate every time I run outside for more than 10 minutes. Is there a way to turn that off (after doing the test)?
I’m genuinely curious as my vo2max estimate is roughly 20-25% higher than I would expect it to be (and the race and other predictions Via (Garmin/firstbeat & elsewhere) based on it are also about 20-25% high (or low-whichever way is the “better”)).
While I don’t really care all that much what my vo2max is, and I know it’s an estimate, I do still assume the general trends to be reasonable. So if there’s a way to improve those estimates, I’d love to know more.
0 -
@CoreyLust : You're being too dismissive. The VO2max estimate of the Garmin devices follows well-established (and published) protocols. Like many things, it is neither perfect nor is it merely a "gimmick." I would call it a useful feature with some level of inaccuracy.
You can learn about it in the company "white paper" (which has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, but it does have a nice list of references).
https://assets.firstbeat.com/firstbeat/uploads/2017/06/white_paper_VO2max_30.6.2017.pdf
3 -
In a vacuum there is no oxygen so that "idea" is a non-starter for testing oxygen uptake.
7 -
Jthanmyfitnesspal wrote: »@CoreyLust : You're being too dismissive. The VO2max estimate of the Garmin devices follows well-established (and published) protocols. Like many things, it is neither perfect nor is it merely a "gimmick." I would call it a useful feature with some level of inaccuracy.
You can learn about it in the company "white paper" (which has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal, but it does have a nice list of references).
https://assets.firstbeat.com/firstbeat/uploads/2017/06/white_paper_VO2max_30.6.2017.pdf
I have read the "white paper". It only assists anyone who knows what they are actually looking at to conclude that this particular metric as it is estimated (happy?) by a Garmin is of no value.
Please explain how using this metric is of any value to anyone looking to improve their fitness or performance?
How would this number allow you to change anything you are doing in a well defined scientific manor?0 -
MikePfirrman wrote: »I honestly think Concept2 has the "highly trained" and "not trained" reversed. Back a couple of years ago, when I did my PB 2K row, it said, assuming I was "highly trained", that my VO2 Max was in the high 50s. But if I entered it in as not trained, it was around a 44, which is a lot more reasonable. Highly trained should not go up, but down, taking into account form and efficiency. The original study defined highly trained as anyone that was over 4 days a week of rowing (I do 6). I've done an hour FTP test last year and tested around 244 (I'm 55). Rowing versus Biking gets dicey on FTP. I know (younger Masters) guys that row full hours that produce roughly 230 Watts avg that can average 300 on the WattBike, so it's apples and oranges. Biking is way more efficient related to Watts.
Lindsay H, an Australian Masters Indoor Champ, once noted that his VO2 Max, according to the calculator was in the high 50s or low 60s. He's a guy that did a low 6:40 in his 60s, so the Aussie Over the water Olympic team took him in a lab to "study" him. His real VO2 Max was like 45, still ridiculous for a 65 year old. What they ended up finding out was more impressive about him was his ability to work with incredible amount of lactic acid buildup (he could enter a pain cave few could relate to).
Thank you for allowing me to actually read something on this thread that doesn't make me what to pick my eyes out, lol.
Yes V02max in and of itself is not a strong predictor of performance. Garmin is just stuffing 'features' into these watches so they can keep selling people the new one the come out with every year or so.
The 'estimate' (for those who want to quibble over descriptive words in a thread where nobody is looking at this from a scientifically objective standpoint anyway) is so inaccurate it's just amusing. What is more amusing is the metric itself even when accurate means so very little.0 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »Are you not aware of the test built into many of the recent Garmins? It will guide you through measuring your VO2max. It should be done with an HRM strap and on a flat surface where the workout can be done without interruptions. The weather should be good (temp, wind, and surface should be dry). You also should know your max hr (I cheated at this as it was tested during my VO2max test).
The other way (the way most here are doing it) is to allow the watch to figure out your VO2max during normal exercise and without the aid of an accurate HRM (the watch is not always accurate). This number can jump all over the place because the watch has no idea what the environment is like nor what your workout purpose it. Add the HRM often giving bad readings and you tend to get inaccurate results.
Where can I find more info on this? I wasn’t aware that there was a specific test procedure and I’ve reviewed the documentation I could find for my watch and don’t see anything about it?
My watch produces a new vo2max estimate every time I run outside for more than 10 minutes. Is there a way to turn that off (after doing the test)?
I’m genuinely curious as my vo2max estimate is roughly 20-25% higher than I would expect it to be (and the race and other predictions Via (Garmin/firstbeat & elsewhere) based on it are also about 20-25% high (or low-whichever way is the “better”)).
While I don’t really care all that much what my vo2max is, and I know it’s an estimate, I do still assume the general trends to be reasonable. So if there’s a way to improve those estimates, I’d love to know more.
Are you trying to improve an estimated number or actual performance...0 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »Are you not aware of the test built into many of the recent Garmins? It will guide you through measuring your VO2max. It should be done with an HRM strap and on a flat surface where the workout can be done without interruptions. The weather should be good (temp, wind, and surface should be dry). You also should know your max hr (I cheated at this as it was tested during my VO2max test).
The other way (the way most here are doing it) is to allow the watch to figure out your VO2max during normal exercise and without the aid of an accurate HRM (the watch is not always accurate). This number can jump all over the place because the watch has no idea what the environment is like nor what your workout purpose it. Add the HRM often giving bad readings and you tend to get inaccurate results.
Where can I find more info on this? I wasn’t aware that there was a specific test procedure and I’ve reviewed the documentation I could find for my watch and don’t see anything about it?
My watch produces a new vo2max estimate every time I run outside for more than 10 minutes. Is there a way to turn that off (after doing the test)?
I’m genuinely curious as my vo2max estimate is roughly 20-25% higher than I would expect it to be (and the race and other predictions Via (Garmin/firstbeat & elsewhere) based on it are also about 20-25% high (or low-whichever way is the “better”)).
While I don’t really care all that much what my vo2max is, and I know it’s an estimate, I do still assume the general trends to be reasonable. So if there’s a way to improve those estimates, I’d love to know more.
Are you trying to improve an estimated number or actual performance...
I am questioning the person who posted about this process to find out more info.
What I choose to do (if anything) with any of my numbers doesn’t matter to anyone but me and my coach.
4 -
Are you not aware of the test built into many of the recent Garmins? It will guide you through measuring your VO2max. It should be done with an HRM strap and on a flat surface where the workout can be done without interruptions. The weather should be good (temp, wind, and surface should be dry). You also should know your max hr (I cheated at this as it was tested during my VO2max test).
The other way (the way most here are doing it) is to allow the watch to figure out your VO2max during normal exercise and without the aid of an accurate HRM (the watch is not always accurate). This number can jump all over the place because the watch has no idea what the environment is like nor what your workout purpose it. Add the HRM often giving bad readings and you tend to get inaccurate results.
I am very aware of the 'tests' built into them. You clearly have not comprehended my initial post.
...
Ha. Amusing.
....
Let's just say I am educated and experienced enough on the matter to now fully comprehend that these things are really just toys.
1. Clearly
2. Only to yourself
3. Congratulations.7 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »Are you not aware of the test built into many of the recent Garmins? It will guide you through measuring your VO2max. It should be done with an HRM strap and on a flat surface where the workout can be done without interruptions. The weather should be good (temp, wind, and surface should be dry). You also should know your max hr (I cheated at this as it was tested during my VO2max test).
The other way (the way most here are doing it) is to allow the watch to figure out your VO2max during normal exercise and without the aid of an accurate HRM (the watch is not always accurate). This number can jump all over the place because the watch has no idea what the environment is like nor what your workout purpose it. Add the HRM often giving bad readings and you tend to get inaccurate results.
Where can I find more info on this? I wasn’t aware that there was a specific test procedure and I’ve reviewed the documentation I could find for my watch and don’t see anything about it?
My watch produces a new vo2max estimate every time I run outside for more than 10 minutes. Is there a way to turn that off (after doing the test)?
I’m genuinely curious as my vo2max estimate is roughly 20-25% higher than I would expect it to be (and the race and other predictions Via (Garmin/firstbeat & elsewhere) based on it are also about 20-25% high (or low-whichever way is the “better”)).
While I don’t really care all that much what my vo2max is, and I know it’s an estimate, I do still assume the general trends to be reasonable. So if there’s a way to improve those estimates, I’d love to know more.
You will get the reading when doing the Guided Lactate Threshold test.
https://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp/fenix5x/EN-US/GUID-1B0C9B93-01CD-4A0C-A30F-B815C0347159.html
BTW - Lactate Threshold is a bit more useful if you are training for a race. VO2max is interesting but it doesn't take into account running economy (not sure how it works on the bike).
Run the test 10-14 days before getting it done in a lab and compare the results. You may be surprised (well, everyone but CoreyLust who already knows more than everyone else).5 -
Duck_Puddle wrote: »Are you not aware of the test built into many of the recent Garmins? It will guide you through measuring your VO2max. It should be done with an HRM strap and on a flat surface where the workout can be done without interruptions. The weather should be good (temp, wind, and surface should be dry). You also should know your max hr (I cheated at this as it was tested during my VO2max test).
The other way (the way most here are doing it) is to allow the watch to figure out your VO2max during normal exercise and without the aid of an accurate HRM (the watch is not always accurate). This number can jump all over the place because the watch has no idea what the environment is like nor what your workout purpose it. Add the HRM often giving bad readings and you tend to get inaccurate results.
Where can I find more info on this? I wasn’t aware that there was a specific test procedure and I’ve reviewed the documentation I could find for my watch and don’t see anything about it?
My watch produces a new vo2max estimate every time I run outside for more than 10 minutes. Is there a way to turn that off (after doing the test)?
I’m genuinely curious as my vo2max estimate is roughly 20-25% higher than I would expect it to be (and the race and other predictions Via (Garmin/firstbeat & elsewhere) based on it are also about 20-25% high (or low-whichever way is the “better”)).
While I don’t really care all that much what my vo2max is, and I know it’s an estimate, I do still assume the general trends to be reasonable. So if there’s a way to improve those estimates, I’d love to know more.
You will get the reading when doing the Guided Lactate Threshold test.
https://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp/fenix5x/EN-US/GUID-1B0C9B93-01CD-4A0C-A30F-B815C0347159.html
BTW - Lactate Threshold is a bit more useful if you are training for a race. VO2max is interesting but it doesn't take into account running economy (not sure how it works on the bike).
Run the test 10-14 days before getting it done in a lab and compare the results. You may be surprised (well, everyone but CoreyLust who already knows more than everyone else).
Thank you!
Lactate threshold is different and yes more valuable as a metric. We do that and the LT estimates are pretty close to any other LT estimates (including based on race/biological performance). I don’t feel a need to get a lab test for anything (yet): The Garmin estimate for LT has been a solid mark for me.
It’s the Vo2max estimate that’s just very high - but still seems to trend overall how we’d expect based on training. So I was thinking there was a way to maybe dial it in a little.0 -
I only had it tested because it was available to me at discount and only a few miles from my house. I would love to get a real LT test done sometime but I'm not sure I'm into getting my fingers pricked AND that stupid mask at the same time (all while running my *kitten* off on an ever increasingly difficult treadmill).1
-
I only had it tested because it was available to me at discount and only a few miles from my house. I would love to get a real LT test done sometime but I'm not sure I'm into getting my fingers pricked AND that stupid mask at the same time (all while running my *kitten* off on an ever increasingly difficult treadmill).
I kind of think that’s like when I say I’m not interested in doing another marathon....(we know that’s going to be a lie).
Someday the curiously will take over and you’ll be squeezing another 17 seconds off your 5k time or something and you’ll do it.
1 -
Thank you mods for cleaning up this thread, shame what started out just as a light-hearted post got derailed by someone intent on being obnoxious and insulting.5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.4K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.2K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.4K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 427 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K 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
- 3.7K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions