Polar FT40, Fit Test, and VO2 Max. What does it mean?

mrsdizzyd84
mrsdizzyd84 Posts: 422 Member
edited November 8 in Fitness and Exercise
So I just got my new Polar FT40 in the mail. I did the fit test, and it gave me a VO2 Max of 35 the first time I did it and 39 the second time I did it. Which should I use? How will this affect the calories burned? Does it even matter?

Replies

  • KYMUSE
    KYMUSE Posts: 66
    VO2 Max is your aerobic capacity (maximum oxygen uptake)...No need to even worry about it-that is more for long distance athletes who need to train to increase that capacity. That's the only downside of HRM is there's alot of stuff on it you don't need!

    Hope this helps:)
  • mrsdizzyd84
    mrsdizzyd84 Posts: 422 Member
    VO2 Max is your aerobic capacity (maximum oxygen uptake)...No need to even worry about it-that is more for long distance athletes who need to train to increase that capacity. That's the only downside of HRM is there's alot of stuff on it you don't need!

    Hope this helps:)

    Hmm, well I am an aspiring long distance runner. I'm in the middle of doing couch to 5k right now. I'd like to do a half marathon by 2013. So, in that context, how do I use this information to my advantage?
  • mrsdizzyd84
    mrsdizzyd84 Posts: 422 Member
    Anyone? Help!
  • KYMUSE
    KYMUSE Posts: 66
    I would start by reading through the Polar manual, my model is older and doesn't have that function. Logging miles will improve your VO2 Max as well as losing weight.

    Strictly my opinion, just run and enjoy it :) This type of training isn't necessary and no indicator of success-especially when you aren't racing competitively. Good place to start for anyone new to running-Hal Higdon or Jeff Galloway..both have fantastic training programs that would get you race ready.

    Good luck.
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    VO2 Max is your aerobic capacity (maximum oxygen uptake)...No need to even worry about it-that is more for long distance athletes who need to train to increase that capacity. That's the only downside of HRM is there's alot of stuff on it you don't need!

    Hope this helps:)

    Actually you do need VO2max if you want an as accurate as can be calorie estimation.. So don't go dismissing it with out knowing what functions it has.

    To OP:
    35 and 39 are not that big of a jump. It kind of depends on how accurate you want the calorie estimation to be because each number is going to produce a different estimation.
  • mrsdizzyd84
    mrsdizzyd84 Posts: 422 Member
    VO2 Max is your aerobic capacity (maximum oxygen uptake)...No need to even worry about it-that is more for long distance athletes who need to train to increase that capacity. That's the only downside of HRM is there's alot of stuff on it you don't need!

    Hope this helps:)

    Actually you do need VO2max if you want an as accurate as can be calorie estimation.. So don't go dismissing it with out knowing what functions it has.

    To OP:
    35 and 39 are not that big of a jump. It kind of depends on how accurate you want the calorie estimation to be because each number is going to produce a different estimation.

    Thanks for the information. When I got the reading of 39 I had been laying down a little longer, so my heart rate was probably a bit lower. Which would you use?
  • amccrazgrl
    amccrazgrl Posts: 315 Member
    You could take and do 37 since its in the middle.
    I'm sure it will be fine just picking the middle number. I have been using my HRM the last year and love it.
  • dad106
    dad106 Posts: 4,868 Member
    VO2 Max is your aerobic capacity (maximum oxygen uptake)...No need to even worry about it-that is more for long distance athletes who need to train to increase that capacity. That's the only downside of HRM is there's alot of stuff on it you don't need!

    Hope this helps:)

    Actually you do need VO2max if you want an as accurate as can be calorie estimation.. So don't go dismissing it with out knowing what functions it has.

    To OP:
    35 and 39 are not that big of a jump. It kind of depends on how accurate you want the calorie estimation to be because each number is going to produce a different estimation.

    Thanks for the information. When I got the reading of 39 I had been laying down a little longer, so my heart rate was probably a bit lower. Which would you use?

    When I took my FT60's test I got 39 also and thats what I use... and so far it seems to be pretty spot on.
  • KYMUSE
    KYMUSE Posts: 66
    VO2 Max is your aerobic capacity (maximum oxygen uptake)...No need to even worry about it-that is more for long distance athletes who need to train to increase that capacity. That's the only downside of HRM is there's alot of stuff on it you don't need!

    Hope this helps:)

    Actually you do need VO2max if you want an as accurate as can be calorie estimation.. So don't go dismissing it with out knowing what functions it has.

    To OP:
    35 and 39 are not that big of a jump. It kind of depends on how accurate you want the calorie estimation to be because each number is going to produce a different estimation.

    Please show me where I was dismissing it? I thought I was very honest in the fact my monitor didn't have that function and I didn't know, which is why I suggested she start with reading what the manual said.

    And in my year of studying to become a CPT and 2 years of training clients, I never learned NOR needed using VO2 max readings to give someone "as accurate as can be" calorie measure. I find that laughable, to be honest.

    To the orignial poster-if I sounded dismissive, I apologize. I gave you all the information that I knew. I should have ended with "someone much smarter than me will come along and explain it"

    :laugh:
  • mrsdizzyd84
    mrsdizzyd84 Posts: 422 Member
    VO2 Max is your aerobic capacity (maximum oxygen uptake)...No need to even worry about it-that is more for long distance athletes who need to train to increase that capacity. That's the only downside of HRM is there's alot of stuff on it you don't need!

    Hope this helps:)

    Actually you do need VO2max if you want an as accurate as can be calorie estimation.. So don't go dismissing it with out knowing what functions it has.

    To OP:
    35 and 39 are not that big of a jump. It kind of depends on how accurate you want the calorie estimation to be because each number is going to produce a different estimation.

    Please show me where I was dismissing it? I thought I was very honest in the fact my monitor didn't have that function and I didn't know, which is why I suggested she start with reading what the manual said.

    And in my year of studying to become a CPT and 2 years of training clients, I never learned NOR needed using VO2 max readings to give someone "as accurate as can be" calorie measure. I find that laughable, to be honest.

    To the orignial poster-if I sounded dismissive, I apologize. I gave you all the information that I knew. I should have ended with "someone much smarter than me will come along and explain it"

    :laugh:

    I don't think you were dismissive, but I have heard time and again that, so far as HRMs are concerned, having an accurate VO2 Max is essential to having as accurate as possible a calorie estimation. There was something about VO2 Max being tied to you heart rate and the intensity at which you are working out. There was a formula or something. Heck, I don't know, and I don't understand it. That's why I asked.
  • KYMUSE
    KYMUSE Posts: 66
    I understand. I thought you meant using it to train for completing the half marathon.

    As far as using it towards an "exact" calorie estimation, I guess I've just never followed that school of thought but for those that want that-sounds like a great addition to the monitor (mine is OLD!) I grew up with parents that owned a gym and still follow their lead of eat clean/train dirty and let the rest go:) I've read so much on this website of people making things so much harder than it has to be.

    Best of luck with all your training.
  • Happyguy
    Happyguy Posts: 90 Member

    Thanks for the information. When I got the reading of 39 I had been laying down a little longer, so my heart rate was probably a bit lower. Which would you use?

    You might do it a couple more times and then average the result.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    And in my year of studying to become a CPT and 2 years of training clients, I never learned NOR needed using VO2 max readings to give someone "as accurate as can be" calorie measure. I find that laughable, to be honest.

    Ya, the good HRM's use the VO2 max, either measured poorly as this watch does, by pure calculation, or by manual entry, to calculate the calorie burn.

    So the more accurate that figure, the more accurate the calorie burn figure is.

    They are totally related.

    http://www.braydenwm.com/cal_vs_hr_ref_paper.pdf

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

    Don't laugh at knowledge!
  • mrsdizzyd84
    mrsdizzyd84 Posts: 422 Member
    I understand. I thought you meant using it to train for completing the half marathon.

    I am interested in it for both reasons. As accurate as possible calorie burn and improved running. I think I'll take your advice as far as running is concerned. I'll also check out the two authors you recommended. Thanks. :)
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    So I just got my new Polar FT40 in the mail. I did the fit test, and it gave me a VO2 Max of 35 the first time I did it and 39 the second time I did it. Which should I use? How will this affect the calories burned? Does it even matter?

    Incredible what you can find using the Search button on here!

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/466973-i-want-to-test-for-my-max-heart-rate-vo2-max

    As to did that function estimate it well? Not likely for the ladies.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study
  • jrich1
    jrich1 Posts: 2,408 Member
    The V02 max calc needs to be set because its what the unit uses to factor in calorie burn.
  • espence30
    espence30 Posts: 116 Member
    I would start by reading through the Polar manual, my model is older and doesn't have that function. Logging miles will improve your VO2 Max as well as losing weight.

    Strictly my opinion, just run and enjoy it :) This type of training isn't necessary and no indicator of success-especially when you aren't racing competitively. Good place to start for anyone new to running-Hal Higdon or Jeff Galloway..both have fantastic training programs that would get you race ready.

    Good luck.

    I agree.. When I paid too much attention to all that it took the fun out of running and training. I use the nike+ to track my miles, and the HRM to track calories.. I don't get more technical than that
  • fatboypup
    fatboypup Posts: 1,873 Member
    you wont get a true VO2 Max without a test involving a mask ... this is just an estimate
  • mrsdizzyd84
    mrsdizzyd84 Posts: 422 Member
    So I just got my new Polar FT40 in the mail. I did the fit test, and it gave me a VO2 Max of 35 the first time I did it and 39 the second time I did it. Which should I use? How will this affect the calories burned? Does it even matter?

    Incredible what you can find using the Search button on here!

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/466973-i-want-to-test-for-my-max-heart-rate-vo2-max

    As to did that function estimate it well? Not likely for the ladies.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

    I used the search function this morning. Neither of your posts came up, but thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. You could have left the snark out. Why do people have to be such jerks around here.
  • SassyCalyGirl
    SassyCalyGirl Posts: 1,932 Member
    I think you should read the manual!
  • mrsdizzyd84
    mrsdizzyd84 Posts: 422 Member
    you wont get a true VO2 Max without a test involving a mask ... this is just an estimate

    That goes without saying I think.

    I said as accurate as possible. I'm fully aware that it's all an estimate. Everything we are doing here is an approximation from our caloric intake, from our calories burned, our BMR, our calorie counts, etc. The name of the game is getting as close as you can with what you have.
  • Azdak
    Azdak Posts: 8,281 Member
    If you ever have a max test performed, or if you do a submax test and feel comfortable with the results, you can manually enter that number. You have to go through the fitness test first. When it comes up with the result number it will ask you if you want to accept it. Press "no" and the next screen should give you the option to manually enter the number.

    That's for a day down the road--the number you have now (39) is just fine.

    I just think that the longer you exercise, the less useful the polar fitness test is going to be. An initial decrease in resting heart rate CAN be an indication of increased fitness for someone in the early phases of a workout program.

    Ultimately, though, that number is going to bottom out. Even at 60 lbs overweight and at my lowest fitness levels, my resting heart rate never went higher than the mid 50s. So at some point, you could still experience increases in VO2 max without any further decrease in resting heart rate.
  • KYMUSE
    KYMUSE Posts: 66
    And in my year of studying to become a CPT and 2 years of training clients, I never learned NOR needed using VO2 max readings to give someone "as accurate as can be" calorie measure. I find that laughable, to be honest.

    Ya, the good HRM's use the VO2 max, either measured poorly as this watch does, by pure calculation, or by manual entry, to calculate the calorie burn.

    So the more accurate that figure, the more accurate the calorie burn figure is.

    They are totally related.

    http://www.braydenwm.com/cal_vs_hr_ref_paper.pdf

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

    Don't laugh at knowledge!

    No-not laughing at the knowledge...just the fact that people are so tied to exact numbers. I have only used the monitor to gage the intensity of my workouts, and some days don't use it at all. I would go crazy if I started worrying about the exact numbers of calories I burned. However, from my experience on this website today, "exact" is popular to alot of people.
  • heybales
    heybales Posts: 18,842 Member
    So I just got my new Polar FT40 in the mail. I did the fit test, and it gave me a VO2 Max of 35 the first time I did it and 39 the second time I did it. Which should I use? How will this affect the calories burned? Does it even matter?

    Incredible what you can find using the Search button on here!

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/466973-i-want-to-test-for-my-max-heart-rate-vo2-max

    As to did that function estimate it well? Not likely for the ladies.

    http://www.myfitnesspal.com/topics/show/459580-polar-hrm-calorie-burn-estimate-accuracy-study

    I used the search function this morning. Neither of your posts came up, but thanks for giving me the benefit of the doubt. You could have left the snark out. Why do people have to be such jerks around here.

    Sorry, that was encouragement for all readers.
    If you just watch all the new topics pop up with almost the exact same name, you'll see most do not. Probably not even aware there is one.
    Good for you! Hence your caring about the number and wanting to know, and already having an idea what it means.
  • KYMUSE
    KYMUSE Posts: 66
    you wont get a true VO2 Max without a test involving a mask ... this is just an estimate

    Your tattoo is insane. Gorgeous work!!
  • fatboypup
    fatboypup Posts: 1,873 Member
    you wont get a true VO2 Max without a test involving a mask ... this is just an estimate

    Your tattoo is insane. Gorgeous work!!
    Thx
  • IslandDer
    IslandDer Posts: 27
    *bump*
  • MoreBean13
    MoreBean13 Posts: 8,701 Member
    I would use 37 as one of the other posters suggested. VO2max is a very important number- it is the best way to gauge your cardiovascular fitness, and it is used by the HRM to calculate calories burned. If you are a fairly inactive woman, new to exercise, and the default settings are for lance armstrong, your calorie burn according to your HRM will be WAY off.

    Here's a calculator to estimate VO2max, if you want to get a "second opinion" on what the HRM tells you or your HRM doesn't have a program to calculate it (doesn't work right in internet explorer- try firefox or other browser):
    http://www.brianmac.co.uk/vo2maxnd.htm

    Here's a calculator to show you the importance:
    http://www.easycalculation.com/health/heart-rate-calorie-burn-known-vo2.php
    Holding everything else constant, the VO2max setting can make a calorie burn vary by several hundred calories per hour.

    Dismissing the VO2max setting because you're not an athlete is like buying a graphing calculator and telling someone that the scientific functions are unnecessary because you only use it for arithmetic. That applies to YOU, not everyone who wants to actually use the tool they paid for.
  • fozzie500
    fozzie500 Posts: 177 Member
    it's good in that it gives you a number to start with,as you get fitter the number will go up,so over time you will have something to measure your progress by,much in the same way we weigh ourselves or take body measurments,it may not be 100% accurate,but it's more accurate than anyone on here taking a guess at your vo2 max.
This discussion has been closed.

Categories