VO2 max according to Polar Heart Rate Monitor?

I've never bothered with any of the gimmicky shit on my HRM, but this thread inspired me to try this fitness test. Results say "VO2max" of 56 or 57 (did the test twice - btw Polar's actual term is "OwnIndex")), and HRmax of 169. That estimated VO2max is way off the VDOT for my recent races (65 mostly, and 67 for 1500), but I gather VDOT isn't a perfect predictor of VO2max as measured in the lab. The estimated HRmax is actually pretty close to the value I use (166-168) based on experience (and is lower than the stupid standard formula value which would be 178). Cool.

When you learn the piano, you see an instructor regularly, who will guide you when you go wrong. With POSE, it's a weekend group seminar.

Can I buy a book without buying the complete package?

It's interesting to see you think the cited study was seriously flawed. It was conducted in part, by Dr. Romanov. The study concurred that the lower running economy was actually to be expected, as the participants likely already had an optimal stride rate with their old form, and any deviation would be sub-optimal. Perhaps Dr. Romanov doesn't fully understand POSE yet. If that study was flawed, what else is?

With respect to running economy, I agree 12 weeks is too short, and would like to see a follow up study to see the trend after 6 months, or a couple of years, compared to the control group, but that hasn't been done yet, to my knowledge.

I'm sure there are many success stories with POSE. But I gather there are also many negative experiences too. What is the actual success rate? Is it correct to discard negative experiences down to an improper application of the technique? Do POSE runners have less injury than non-POSE runners? Is the best way to sell POSE an info-mercial? I guess it depends on the goal of the sellers.

Daniel's admits that his VDOT table is a pseudo-VO2max estimate. Because it is based on race experiences, it includes any benefits (or costs) of running economy, whereas the lab measurements, and the Polar Fitness Test do not. This is actually better for users of VDOT tables, as it groups runners of equal performance together, rather than runners of equal VO2max, whose training needs (paces) may vary widely.

The Polar OwnIndex measurements depend on a lot of factors that you enter into the watch, like your age, weight, gender, etc., and one magic factor: your Activity Level. I know one person who uses the Activity Level to "tune" the OwnIndex results to more closely match predicted VO2max. If these factors are not correct, then the OwnIndex result may also be incorrect. Be warned it may be incorrect even if the other data is correct. This could be due to running economy, or simply that every athlete is unique, and some of the assumptions may not apply to everyone.

My advice with all Polar parameters (except HR and time), is to have a way to "cross-check" the result.

Thanks for that.

luv2run wrote:

Peak is the highest value you see.

Max is the highest single minute average.

This is the most recent thread I can find on this subject.

It may be a stupid question but...how accurate is a V02 max test, involving you lying still wearing a Polar HRM?

In the last 6 month my V02 max has been measured at 60 on 2 separate occasions by different personal trainers.

My best race performance to date would predict a V02 max of around 49.

Does this mean I'm capable of a sub 40 10K, with optimal training?

I've been running 25-30 mpw for 6 years and I'm 50 years old next month.

There was this thread: http://www.letsrun.com/forum/flat_read.php?board=1&id=4051259&thread=4051174