Garmin V02 Max Estimates
I have been using the Garmin 520 for 6 months , 6 weeks ago , I added HR back to the mix and started to get V02 Max estimates.... So I read up on it a bit and found you need the HR and a computer that does the algorithm's , and then some data of some steady hard rides.... Over time this is supposed to be an accurate representation of your v02 max.... While I certainly don't plan to do anything with that number I'm finding it interesting...
Can anyone explain a little bit more in depth how the calculation is actually performed? HR and Power but???
In anticipation of purchasing a 920xt along with my return to running I will be getting v02max numbers for run soon.
So I'm interested in thoughts and feedback from anyone who is getting vo2 max numbers in this manner for bike and run ?
How does your bike number compare to your run number?
Have you been tested v02max before and how close is it to the estimate?
Do you track this number and or control any of your training/racing because of it?
Comments
I didn't even know my Fenix had this calculation. So I checked it out, and poked around briefly in the internet. My vague understanding of VO2 max is that it is primarily genetically fixed, but can be moved a bit at the margins with training. Also that it imposes an upper limit on just how efficiently one might be able perform in endurance events. Like, 75-90 is off the charts world class, 60-75 is elite, 50-60 is good for an fairly well-trained amateur, etc.
My Garmin says my VO2 max today is 50. I looked up some tables, and found that for someone over 65, anything greater than 37 is"excellent". Hmm, not very helpful. More searching led me to this calculator from Norway:
https://www.worldfitnesslevel.org/#/
which gives me a 55, with a "fitness age" of 22 (compared to, say, my Tanita "weight age" of 12).
That's all very amusing, but I have no idea what to do with it. I would worry that paying too much attention to all this might be a psychological limiter, along the lines of, "Well, I can't get to 59, so that means I'm limited to being able to do an Ironman in over 12 and a half hours" or some such nonsense.
I've got enough metrics to work on that I already have some familiarity with, and know how to correlate a bit with race performance. Old dog/new tricks syndrome, I think.
Oh, one more thing I learned - the Garmin calculation seems to be based on HR data from their proprietary strap, correlated with sustained pace over time. The more workouts the calculator has to work with, the more "accurate". I imagine that as my HR drops for the same pace in training, my # will go up a bit, I bet to the mid 50s. But so what? I would already know from the HR/speed info that I am fitter.
Background in the Norwegian calculator:
http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/10/31/how-old-is-your-health/
Running : 61
Cycling 72
but whats more weird is that the garmin 520 also gives me 72 on cycling.
I never did a real vo2 test but really wonder why such a big difference between the 2 figures.
I have read a lot about this subject over the past years. Much of what Al comments is backed up my readings.
Note that the average 18 YO Olympic athlete carries an 80 - 85 V02. It is primarily fixed, as AL notes below given you are born with a certain size heart and lungs relative to your body size with which to push/circulate all that blood and oxygen. You can improve what you are born with only marginally as stated below.
The higher the V02 indicates a higher capacity/ability to move volumes of blood and oxygen around as well as a longer sustained ability to do so under high stress load.
After the age of 25, there is, on average a 3% decline for every 5 years of aging (which can also be slowed by exercise and fitness) supposedly. So, all other things equal, a younger male will have a higher V02 than an older male.
Biking appears to require more blood and oxygen than running given the way two of the biggest muscles in your body, the hamstring and the quadriceps are used. My biking V02, as measure by Garmin is 55 and my running V02 is 52 (Age 49 currently). It appears your biking V02 will always be measured higher than your running V02.
Given this point I have often wondered why my HR is higher running than biking and I believe it is because my heart and lungs can't physically push the volume of blood and oxygen through my hamstrings and quadriceps simultaneous as fast as it can when I am using my running muscles.
As another data point, Lance Armstrong's lab tested V02 at age 38 was 95, a physiological freak of nature and Michael Phelps a 92 at about 10 years younger.
Set aside all the doping accusations of the Tour cyclists and you will most likely find that all of those guys have exceptionally high V02 capacities.
Not sure the above is helpful but definitely additional data points on the subject to consider.....
SS
https://www.firstbeat.com/app/uploads/2015/09/white_paper_VO2max_11-11-2014.pdf
@Amula- thanks for the white paper...helps explain a few things I didnt find searching
@SS and FP interesting numbers... I would have thought running would have a higher v02max than cycling.... your explanation seems correct SS....
@Al - agree that this is a who cares conversation... kinda like me and HR, FTP, w/kg, etc, in general.... since all that really matters is race performance... But it is very interesting , appears to be an accurate assesment of fitness... And probably a good metric to watch/maintain over the years....
FWIW - the garmin 520 has given me 4 numbers over 6 weeks , 47, 48 , yesterday 54, and today 57.... the last 2 numbers came with good hard wko's but slightly faulty HR at one point or another so not sure if it really got all the data necessary for an accurate assesment... The run vo2max charts and race performance are right inline with my past vdot tests (48-51) and 5k-marathon times...
I am suppose to take part of a study for an University where they want to see if the decisions taking is difference based on the effort (biking and running) and in exchange of taking part, they provide you with the results which includes your vo2 for both tests. I am really looking forward what's the good numbers.
From what I've read, the vo2 estimate in Garmin estimates what your aerobic system is capable of. To achieve those VDot or estimates by Garmin, you have to train regardless what your VO2 max is.
For example in 2015 Feb after the Outseason, my VO2 max estimated by Garmin for running was 57 which was the highest I've ever seen so far. But my VDot at that time was only 43 (was also the highest for me so far). As per the VO2 estimate I could have gone faster if I had trained better but that's always questionable.
I would keep track on the VO2 for the big picture but would not put too much thought into that.
@FP from what I gather so far if we did formal bike vo2 max and run vo2 max test you would get different numbers... what that normal spread is ? I dont know...
@Amula seems your comments confirm my above thoughts except the spread between your vo2max and vdot run ....
Still very interesting thoughts and discussion... I probably wont have a garmin run estimated vo2max for a while but looking forward to it when I do...
For me I believe that until I get my gait tuned, I may be far off between my vo2max race time predictions and actual race time. For runners who have a good running background, it may be quite close.
In the White paper... accuracy is within 10% with Age estimated Max HR ... and accuracy is increased to 5% when Max HR is known .... I would expect the true Max HR of the athlete to be very important to the calculations.... For instance my AG Max HR estimation is 166 and my true Max HR is much higher...
How are you guys estimating or calculating your true Max HR?... Since I have only been using HR again for the last 6 weeks or so I did a few intervals and HR ramps and got as high as 186 several times... I rounded up to 190 for my Max HR setting for cycling... In the not too distant past I have seen 192 as a running high HR.. So feel my estimate is pretty close.
Here is another white paper that talks a little bit in detail about the actual calculation.
https://www.firstbeat.com/app/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_vo2_estimation.pdf
Amulya is correct, the calculation measures the deviation and R-R between beats. A more consistent R-R and less deviation under high stress load indicates a greater capacity which translates into a higher score.
SS
Power or pace do not play much of a role in this estimate as I understand.
https://support.garmin.com/support/searchSupport/case.faces?caseId={464c3390-402a-11e3-f27b-000000000000}
Regardless vo2max calculation is a Techonology that comes from Firstbeat (https://www.firstbeat.com/consumer-products/garmin/ ) and the white paper is a good starting point to understand how it works.
Running : 61
Cycling : 72
Its important to note that when I was using the 920xt for cycling I didnt have a pm and was based on a really wrong virtual trainerroad FTP of 389W (LOL!!) compared with a FTP of 269W with a PM.
I just double checked the values on the 920xt and running is now at 62.
I just finished a 2X20's indoor ride and got a notification from the 520 mentionning a a new v02max value was detected and it is now 63 for cycling. (when I checked the value in September - without a PM again, value was around 72)
Figures are quite the same, its less weird than it was before which I think cycling was really over estimated, I guess it might be a good guess that my real v02 is around 60-63.
last tuesday https://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/3263529-frissell-2 new v02 est of 59
last thursday https://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/3281727-kaiser-1 new v02 est of 60 (this one is really confusing)
last Saturday https://connect.garmin.com/activity/1065811033 new v02 est of 61
today https://www.trainerroad.com/cycling/rides/3305714-rogers-2 new v02 est of 62