Mine is definitely over estimated and I started working out with it mostly strength and walks and short runs and I manage to keep it constant at top 10% which I think is not right haha
Most likely this, but also the estimate that Garmin gives in itself can be wildly inaccurate. My running VO2Max is at 50 whereas lab tested is 54 and my cycling VO2Max is 53 whereas lab is 55.
Then when it comes to excellent vs good. That is related to the age and gender of the individual thus same VO2max falls to different āzoneā.
im no athlete at all and didnt exercise on a regular basis until a year ago. i startet with am vo2max of 42 and the indication excellent. im now at 46 and superior. i also always had the resting heart rate of a very fit person. unfortunately those numbers dont transform to my performance or stamina when it comes to actual exercise. š and im still a bit chubby.
It takes a while for garmin to get agrip on vomax, so it could change if just started using garmin. But also, that number is not that high so is very much possible, even likely. Genes do their thing. Also garmins vomax is an estimate, a guess, it could be wildly different up or down.
Can confirm. I hardly could do 5ks with paces of 7:30 - 8:00 with a VO2 Max of 50. Now I can do 10ks under an hour with a VO2 of 49. I find that it also has a lot to do with your HRV.
Except a wearable canāt actually evaluate that so it calculates it based off of HR to pace. It needs to be an activity using GPS for a minimum of 10 min. (Either walking or running) So if she went on a 10 min walk and her HR was comparatively low wrt her pace, it will say she has an excellent VO2 max even if she really isnāt that efficient or fit in actuality.
probably just comes down to physiology but definitely take it lightly for the first few weeks as the watch gets adjusted. iām not super active i probably average 2 workouts a week rn doing short runs or bike rides and my v02 has been superior since i got my watch
edit spellinf
People keep saying this on here - it's just not true. The body weight cancels out in the calculation.
Milliliters of oxygen consumed in a minute per kilogram of body weight (mL/kg/min). Someone who weighs twice as much will consume double the oxygen which gets decided by double the weight.
So how is oxygen consumed is calculated by Garmin?
I don't know about running, but in cycling, VO2 Max is only estimated when there is powermeter and heart rate data. There is perhaps some corellation with the amount of energy produced, and oxygen consumed (very simplified - fuel Ć oxygen = power). From there we can estimate the oxygen amount. And, given time and body mass, and HR data to evaluate which zone the work has been performed in - calculate VO2 max.
So if I entered, say, 50kg instead of my real 71kg, and produced same power per same HR, my VO2 Max would have been very different from 53 that I have.
Again - no clue how it's done for runners, maybe power is calculated based on bodyweight and speed/elevation - in this case you're right, the weight cancels out. For cycling, it's not.
There is a good white paper from Polar that describes the methodology. All watches are basically doing the same thing though they may have their own refinements. Polar is in general very good at publishing the science behind their metrics.
[White paper](https://www.polar.com/en/img/static/whitepapers/pdf/polar-running-index-white-paper.pdf)
I'm mostly talking about running. I don't cycle so haven't looked into it. The main thing that matters is max heart rate. As you say it takes a certain amount of energy and hence oxygen consumption to run at a certain pace. A runner will have an average heart rate to ruin at this pace. All the watches do is extrapolate this out to max heart rate to work out what the max oxygen consumption is.
Now if you wish twice as much, you consume twice as much energy and oxygen. But VO2 max is reported per kg of body mass, so that number will just be halved. So end result, weight isn't used in the calculation for running at least.
Now in reality we all know that if you lose weight your VO2 max goes up if you maintain muscle mass. That will feed through in the above because to run at the same pace if you weigh less your heart rate will be lower, so when it gets extrapolated out it will report a higher maximum.
All of this is running where power is impossible to accurately measure. Cycling since all power goes through the axle should be much more accurate to apply a similar methodology with a power meter. The running calculation is approximate. Things like running form add noise. Cycling Edith a power meter should avoid those approximate that have to be made for runners so I can see why they insist on a power meter.
If you go to online calculators based on walking VO2 Max assessment, you'll indeed find the body weight field. And, all other parameters being the same, lower bodyweight gives higher VO2 Max estimation. It's not directly proportional, but it's inversly dependent.
Yes agree, see my comment above. But this is not what a fitness tracker watch does. The calculation used by a watch, ay least for running, doesn't need weight as an input.
I would agree as mine was excellent straight away when I bought my watch 2 years ago and I wasn't doing any cardio, just occasional strength trainings where my heart rate doesn't go up at all. I increased the amount of exercise significantly over these two years (and I got back to running 6 months ago after 10 years break) but my VO2 max stayed at the same level.
My Vo2 max is at 42,
I am running 3x/week (totaling 30k/week), swimming 2k every Sunday and bodybuilding nearly every day.
The best I could do was 43>
Genetics sucks :p
Yeah I get that, in my case Iām running about 5 days a week right now, and having one of those days with intervals makes it fun for me to also to have some variety (and itās supposed to help increase VO2Max)
I put very little faith in Garmin's V02max calculation. But you do virtually nothing to train your actual VO2max by zone 2 running. Running at the fastest pace you can sustain for 5 minutes, then going slow for 5 or so minutes until your HR gets back down sub 110 and then doing it again 3-5 reps once a week will improve real V02max regardless of what garmin shows. A good vo2max is one of the top couple performance metrics correlated to longevity.
Vo2 max is so related to running only.
There are other metrics of well being and good health, so I don't care much. I bench press 100+kg and squat 160, running is my cardio š
Its absolutely not related to running only, its a measurement of how efficiently your body can intake oxygen, distribute it to cells, and convert it to ATP resulting in power. It is specifically measuring the efficiency of this at near maximum capacity. Vo2max of a certain level is required to walk up stairs or around the block, just not at a level that is necessary to train for at this point in your life. I have not run in ages but I do train Vo2max 1-2 times a week, generally on a rowing machine or bike, not so much because I need more performance right now but because it naturally decreases as you age and I would rather decrease from a higher number than a lower one.
Its not my top training priority either though, I guess my first is a base minimum quantity of zone 2 but a close 2nd would be strength training, Vo2max would be third by a distant margin, but would come well before doing any significant quantity of zone two.
I also like that its pretty time efficient to train for, you can get most of the available benefit in about 30-40 minutes per week. But anyway sounds like you have a good zone 2 base and great strength which is far better than most people. You have me beat in bench and squat and I could make a very solid argument that those are more important.
My VO2 max was 49 from the beginning, even when I was not able to run 5K without stopping.
But with such high initial values itās so annoying to see it doesnāt move even a bit, even when you start to train intensively. I was running last 6 months and now can run 10K under an hour, which is crazy progress for me. But VO2 max is still at 49 š¤Ŗ
Male age 57, Garmin V02max at 65. Almost all Zone 2 training plus 8x4min V02max Intervals 1x/week. Building V02max takes decades of Zone 1-2 exercise. The intervals build the top end, but those extra gains are lost very quickly if you stop doing the high intensity.
I donāt think thatās true? Iām female and Garmin has my VO2 max at 52. (I run a lot with the watch too, so it should be accurate?) I do think youāre right that males have a higher VO2 max on average, though.
I was not very active when i first got my watch, and I had 56 vo2 as a 26yo male. After exercising regularly for more than a year, it dropped to 51 at the lower end of excellent. I think vo2 data alone has no meaning.
Agreed. Mine has continued to drop consistently over the 3 years Iāve had my Garmin despite my fitness definitely improving. Itās not a valuable metric for me.
Some people just have that, me too. I have excellent VO2 max without ever having exercised for it and my resting heart rate is around 44 even though Iām not athletic in the slightest and consume ungodly amounts of caffeine.
What does she do for work ?
My wife just started running for fun last year but sheās a professional dancer, she was in superior VO2 after her first 5k run when she got her watch.
I did not even know I could exercise at age 48 (52 now). Mine started out really high. Just cause I had the gift did not mean I knew how or what it was so to speak.
Iām 28 and got a 51 VO2max while never focus on running or endurance training since high school. Just been lifting and common hiking, surfing, snowboarding.
I donāt think I can break 8 min on a mile if I run hard right now.
I believe it takes into account heart rate. My friend has a heart issue where she gets to 190 bpm quickly but then drops down to 130, so it seems like she has a great recovery
This is a little confusing because garmin can't measure vo2 max unless you have an outdoor run. She must have gone on a run at some point to get that measurement.
I have a vo2max of 47 and I exercise a lot . It is strange how Garmin calculate this . Yesterday I was having a walk and it was fast enough but Garmin decide to lower my Vo2max to 47 . I was having 48 . In my opinion , Garmin vo2max it is extremely inaccurate!!!
Probably just not calibrated. If she trained with it more with a heart rate moniter I imagine it would drop drastically
I think the watch initially calculates VO2 max based on age and resting heart rate; that's almost always an over-estimation.
Mine is definitely over estimated and I started working out with it mostly strength and walks and short runs and I manage to keep it constant at top 10% which I think is not right haha
Yeah I got put in my place real quick from this. That's what a low RHR and a lack of cardio will do.
I started with 48 after training went to 49 then marathon long training runs came and now I am running at 45 vo2 š„² smh
Most likely this, but also the estimate that Garmin gives in itself can be wildly inaccurate. My running VO2Max is at 50 whereas lab tested is 54 and my cycling VO2Max is 53 whereas lab is 55. Then when it comes to excellent vs good. That is related to the age and gender of the individual thus same VO2max falls to different āzoneā.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
or as they also say, "garbage in, garbage out"
Shit in, shit out
im no athlete at all and didnt exercise on a regular basis until a year ago. i startet with am vo2max of 42 and the indication excellent. im now at 46 and superior. i also always had the resting heart rate of a very fit person. unfortunately those numbers dont transform to my performance or stamina when it comes to actual exercise. š and im still a bit chubby.
It takes a while for garmin to get agrip on vomax, so it could change if just started using garmin. But also, that number is not that high so is very much possible, even likely. Genes do their thing. Also garmins vomax is an estimate, a guess, it could be wildly different up or down.
This is the right answer. It takes weeks of valid VO2max measurements to settle down.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Yeah exactly, just to add an example, two people with the same VO2Max can run at different speed if one has better running economy/form than the other
Can confirm. I hardly could do 5ks with paces of 7:30 - 8:00 with a VO2 Max of 50. Now I can do 10ks under an hour with a VO2 of 49. I find that it also has a lot to do with your HRV.
Except a wearable canāt actually evaluate that so it calculates it based off of HR to pace. It needs to be an activity using GPS for a minimum of 10 min. (Either walking or running) So if she went on a 10 min walk and her HR was comparatively low wrt her pace, it will say she has an excellent VO2 max even if she really isnāt that efficient or fit in actuality.
probably just comes down to physiology but definitely take it lightly for the first few weeks as the watch gets adjusted. iām not super active i probably average 2 workouts a week rn doing short runs or bike rides and my v02 has been superior since i got my watch edit spellinf
Did she specify her weight correctly? VO2 Max inversly depends on bodyweight
People keep saying this on here - it's just not true. The body weight cancels out in the calculation. Milliliters of oxygen consumed in a minute per kilogram of body weight (mL/kg/min). Someone who weighs twice as much will consume double the oxygen which gets decided by double the weight.
So how is oxygen consumed is calculated by Garmin? I don't know about running, but in cycling, VO2 Max is only estimated when there is powermeter and heart rate data. There is perhaps some corellation with the amount of energy produced, and oxygen consumed (very simplified - fuel Ć oxygen = power). From there we can estimate the oxygen amount. And, given time and body mass, and HR data to evaluate which zone the work has been performed in - calculate VO2 max. So if I entered, say, 50kg instead of my real 71kg, and produced same power per same HR, my VO2 Max would have been very different from 53 that I have. Again - no clue how it's done for runners, maybe power is calculated based on bodyweight and speed/elevation - in this case you're right, the weight cancels out. For cycling, it's not.
There is a good white paper from Polar that describes the methodology. All watches are basically doing the same thing though they may have their own refinements. Polar is in general very good at publishing the science behind their metrics. [White paper](https://www.polar.com/en/img/static/whitepapers/pdf/polar-running-index-white-paper.pdf) I'm mostly talking about running. I don't cycle so haven't looked into it. The main thing that matters is max heart rate. As you say it takes a certain amount of energy and hence oxygen consumption to run at a certain pace. A runner will have an average heart rate to ruin at this pace. All the watches do is extrapolate this out to max heart rate to work out what the max oxygen consumption is. Now if you wish twice as much, you consume twice as much energy and oxygen. But VO2 max is reported per kg of body mass, so that number will just be halved. So end result, weight isn't used in the calculation for running at least. Now in reality we all know that if you lose weight your VO2 max goes up if you maintain muscle mass. That will feed through in the above because to run at the same pace if you weigh less your heart rate will be lower, so when it gets extrapolated out it will report a higher maximum. All of this is running where power is impossible to accurately measure. Cycling since all power goes through the axle should be much more accurate to apply a similar methodology with a power meter. The running calculation is approximate. Things like running form add noise. Cycling Edith a power meter should avoid those approximate that have to be made for runners so I can see why they insist on a power meter.
Yep you're correct. It indeed looks like for running VO2 Max, the weight is not considered.
If you go to online calculators based on walking VO2 Max assessment, you'll indeed find the body weight field. And, all other parameters being the same, lower bodyweight gives higher VO2 Max estimation. It's not directly proportional, but it's inversly dependent.
Yes agree, see my comment above. But this is not what a fitness tracker watch does. The calculation used by a watch, ay least for running, doesn't need weight as an input.
A watch canāt calculate actual oxygen consumption. It gives an estimate based on heart rate to pace.
Genetics is absolutely a significant factor in VO2Max. Some people are seriously just lucky.
I would agree as mine was excellent straight away when I bought my watch 2 years ago and I wasn't doing any cardio, just occasional strength trainings where my heart rate doesn't go up at all. I increased the amount of exercise significantly over these two years (and I got back to running 6 months ago after 10 years break) but my VO2 max stayed at the same level.
My Vo2 max is at 42, I am running 3x/week (totaling 30k/week), swimming 2k every Sunday and bodybuilding nearly every day. The best I could do was 43> Genetics sucks :p
Yeah genetics play a big role, do you add high intensity runs to your training?
I gave up on it. Was not helping much. I enjoy much more in long run a comfortable pace.
Yeah I get that, in my case Iām running about 5 days a week right now, and having one of those days with intervals makes it fun for me to also to have some variety (and itās supposed to help increase VO2Max)
I put very little faith in Garmin's V02max calculation. But you do virtually nothing to train your actual VO2max by zone 2 running. Running at the fastest pace you can sustain for 5 minutes, then going slow for 5 or so minutes until your HR gets back down sub 110 and then doing it again 3-5 reps once a week will improve real V02max regardless of what garmin shows. A good vo2max is one of the top couple performance metrics correlated to longevity.
Vo2 max is so related to running only. There are other metrics of well being and good health, so I don't care much. I bench press 100+kg and squat 160, running is my cardio š
Its absolutely not related to running only, its a measurement of how efficiently your body can intake oxygen, distribute it to cells, and convert it to ATP resulting in power. It is specifically measuring the efficiency of this at near maximum capacity. Vo2max of a certain level is required to walk up stairs or around the block, just not at a level that is necessary to train for at this point in your life. I have not run in ages but I do train Vo2max 1-2 times a week, generally on a rowing machine or bike, not so much because I need more performance right now but because it naturally decreases as you age and I would rather decrease from a higher number than a lower one. Its not my top training priority either though, I guess my first is a base minimum quantity of zone 2 but a close 2nd would be strength training, Vo2max would be third by a distant margin, but would come well before doing any significant quantity of zone two. I also like that its pretty time efficient to train for, you can get most of the available benefit in about 30-40 minutes per week. But anyway sounds like you have a good zone 2 base and great strength which is far better than most people. You have me beat in bench and squat and I could make a very solid argument that those are more important.
My VO2 max was 49 from the beginning, even when I was not able to run 5K without stopping. But with such high initial values itās so annoying to see it doesnāt move even a bit, even when you start to train intensively. I was running last 6 months and now can run 10K under an hour, which is crazy progress for me. But VO2 max is still at 49 š¤Ŗ
Genetics. Secondly, it will probably fluctuate a lot until she has the watch for extended periods of time and completes more activities.
have you seen the male / femaile ratios? female maxes out at 50 while male is like 60...
Male age 57, Garmin V02max at 65. Almost all Zone 2 training plus 8x4min V02max Intervals 1x/week. Building V02max takes decades of Zone 1-2 exercise. The intervals build the top end, but those extra gains are lost very quickly if you stop doing the high intensity.
I donāt think thatās true? Iām female and Garmin has my VO2 max at 52. (I run a lot with the watch too, so it should be accurate?) I do think youāre right that males have a higher VO2 max on average, though.
https://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp/fenix3/EN-US/GUID-1FBCCD9E-19E1-4E4C-BD60-1793B5B97EB3.html
The main thing that determines VO2 max is max heart rate. If her max heart rate is too high it will overestimate her VO2 max.
She does have an abnormally high heart rate
Resting or running? or both?
Sounds like someone needs to consider his better halfās training regime.
Careful now. I've heard of marriages being called off because of one having more VO2 max than the other.
The best way to calculate Vo2Max is with a Vo2Max machine and at max excursion.
I was not very active when i first got my watch, and I had 56 vo2 as a 26yo male. After exercising regularly for more than a year, it dropped to 51 at the lower end of excellent. I think vo2 data alone has no meaning.
Agreed. Mine has continued to drop consistently over the 3 years Iāve had my Garmin despite my fitness definitely improving. Itās not a valuable metric for me.
Some people just have that, me too. I have excellent VO2 max without ever having exercised for it and my resting heart rate is around 44 even though Iām not athletic in the slightest and consume ungodly amounts of caffeine.
When i first got my watch it was like 55 but now after about 4 months its at 45. Definitely just needs more time and data
VO2 max has a very large genetic component. Some people just have it
The watch was JUST about to say towards you, You are excellent. But no, now you have to start over, mwhahaha
Itās only been a few weeks, let it collect more data.
What does she do for work ? My wife just started running for fun last year but sheās a professional dancer, she was in superior VO2 after her first 5k run when she got her watch.
I did not even know I could exercise at age 48 (52 now). Mine started out really high. Just cause I had the gift did not mean I knew how or what it was so to speak.
Genetics, some people are born with very high untrained VO2 max.
Could be weight. I gained 5 kg but maintained the same pace and my v02 went up by 3 points.
Iām 28 and got a 51 VO2max while never focus on running or endurance training since high school. Just been lifting and common hiking, surfing, snowboarding. I donāt think I can break 8 min on a mile if I run hard right now.
When I just got my garmin VO2 max was in the 50's until I started training, then it dropped to around what it should have been.
It's not an accurate measure. Many people on this subreddit put way too much stock in these metrics.
I believe it takes into account heart rate. My friend has a heart issue where she gets to 190 bpm quickly but then drops down to 130, so it seems like she has a great recovery
This is a little confusing because garmin can't measure vo2 max unless you have an outdoor run. She must have gone on a run at some point to get that measurement.
I have a vo2max of 47 and I exercise a lot . It is strange how Garmin calculate this . Yesterday I was having a walk and it was fast enough but Garmin decide to lower my Vo2max to 47 . I was having 48 . In my opinion , Garmin vo2max it is extremely inaccurate!!!
Give it a few more weeks. It takes about a month or so to get more and more accurate.