Is there an accepted way to estimate this without doing a proper treadmill test?
Is there an accepted way to estimate this without doing a proper treadmill test?
Performance charts in Daniels' book
For 30 minutes on a flat course run as hard as you can.
Dr. Van Nostrand wrote:
Performance charts in Daniels' book
Shorter had a 71 VO2 and Pre 84, but Shorter almost beat Pre at 3 miles so it can't be calculated from performance.
I just know Garmin watches probably aren't accurate. As I only have a 5k pr in the mid 16 minute range and according to my Garmin it has estimated my vo2 max to be in the high 60s.
Just did a VO2 Max lab in a class today. 1.5 Mile run test plug time into formula in terms of minute (i.e. a 8:30 1.5 mile would be put into the formula as 8.5 minutes)
Vo2 Max= 3.5+483/(Time in Minutes)
My estimated VO2 was within 8% of my lab tested value. It was lower due to the fact that I've been injured/sick for five weeks and didn't go completely all out. I also didn't want to be THAT guy to my classmates (which I ended up being).
Overall I would say this formula is pretty accurate if you go all out for the test. I would be willing to bet within 5% of your actual value.
So roughly 2.4k in 7mins is just under 70? Interesting.
Subway Surfers wrote:
So roughly 2.4k in 7mins is just under 70? Interesting.
It would be 72.5. Whatever this formula was derived from, it was made for the general population. I imagine it would be different for highly-trained runners as other physiological variables come into play (economy, LT, etc.)
slowcollegestudent wrote:
Just did a VO2 Max lab in a class today. 1.5 Mile run test plug time into formula in terms of minute (i.e. a 8:30 1.5 mile would be put into the formula as 8.5 minutes)
Vo2 Max= 3.5+483/(Time in Minutes)
My estimated VO2 was within 8% of my lab tested value. It was lower due to the fact that I've been injured/sick for five weeks and didn't go completely all out. I also didn't want to be THAT guy to my classmates (which I ended up being).
Overall I would say this formula is pretty accurate if you go all out for the test. I would be willing to bet within 5% of your actual value.
Interesting. The formula gives me a VO2 Max of about 57. My Garmin calculates it as about 52.
What is more important than VO2max is velocity at VO2max, and you can sustain your VO2max for 8-11 minutes. Run a 1.5-2 mile time trial, that is your velocity at VO2max.
v02222222 wrote:
Is there an accepted way to estimate this without doing a proper treadmill test?
I believe the Garmin Estimation is based off Heart Rate, which is more unreliable as it varies widely from person to person. For example, there were people that I beat by 5+minutes in this time trial who had a much lower recorded heart rate on another exercise test we did on a stationary bike.
The Garmin estimate is good for a rough value, but can vary wildly based on individual physiology. A lower heart rate does not always necessarily mean a lower level of exertion or a lower percentage of max oxygen consumed which I believe to be the main downfall of Garmin's estimation.
slowcollegestudent wrote:
I believe the Garmin Estimation is based off Heart Rate, which is more unreliable as it varies widely from person to person. For example, there were people that I beat by 5+minutes in this time trial who had a much lower recorded heart rate on another exercise test we did on a stationary bike.
The Garmin estimate is good for a rough value, but can vary wildly based on individual physiology. A lower heart rate does not always necessarily mean a lower level of exertion or a lower percentage of max oxygen consumed which I believe to be the main downfall of Garmin's estimation.
Your time trial was not a VO2 max test. You're assuming that if you beat them, your VO2 max must be higher. A combination of resting heart rate, max heart rate, and weight would probably be a better indicator of VO2 max than a time trial (though garmin also has data on how fast you run).
As an observation, I have been training with my Garmin 235 with HR for about 3 years now. When I run a block of training with easy paces and generally very low heart rates, it gives me a lower VO2 Max estimate. When I run a block of more faster pace work with correspondingly higher HRs it quickly raises my VO2 Max estimate by 2-4 points, even though I know I haven't done enough higher intensity work to materially improve VO2 Max.
There’s actually a lot that goes into the Garmin VO2max calculations. It’s based on heart rate, but it’s not a simple speed/hr correlation. The algorithms are licensed from Firstbeat, which also does them for pretty much everyone else except Polar (which has in house algorithms).
The VO2max estimates you’re getting from any possible test that doesn’t measure respiration is going to assume average running economy. So it’s really an estimate of velocity at VO2max, which is more useful anyway.
old Garmin guy wrote:
As an observation, I have been training with my Garmin 235 with HR for about 3 years now. When I run a block of training with easy paces and generally very low heart rates, it gives me a lower VO2 Max estimate. When I run a block of more faster pace work with correspondingly higher HRs it quickly raises my VO2 Max estimate by 2-4 points, even though I know I haven't done enough higher intensity work to materially improve VO2 Max.
Yeah, it just lacks enough good data to make an estimate if you haven’t done some harder running.
v02222222 wrote:
Is there an accepted way to estimate this without doing a proper treadmill test?
There are a lot of ways to estimate VO2max. A 1.5 mile run is one way or if you know the various formulae a 6 min all out run can give you an estimate. For the 1.5 mile run, you take the results and plug them into a formula. The problem is the formula is likely specific for a specific group (like college age untrained men so your results might be very different).
The question I ask: why do you want to know?
I have tested hundreds of athletes in a variety of sports and not sure we gained a whole lot more insight. Some coaches (Joe Vigil for one) really loved having the information. Other coaches seemed to not care at all (so we stop testing it), but might be more interested in lactate threshold testing (triathletes fell into this area).
Never did I claim it to be a VO2 Max test--just an estimation. Like I said, I have done a lab test before and know the difference.
I didn't intend for my post to mean "I run faster, so I must have a higher VO2 Max." There is so much more that goes into running fast that VO2 cannot explain it all. I personally believe that lactate threshold plays a much larger role. I don't doubt some of my classmates could have a higher VO2 max than I (or at least a higher possible VO2 if they trained). I just happen to be better in other areas important (dare I say more important) for running fast allowing me to run faster and record a better VO2 estimation.
Anyways.... My whole point is that I believe that the 1.5 mile run test (and the accompanying equation) are valuable to estimate VO2 max within 5-10%. And my belief is based on completely anecdotal evidence.
What basis do you have for saying the Garmin VO2 estimator is unreliable then?
I said it was more unreliable because it is based off heart rate (or at least that is what I thought it was based off of). Now I understand that there is a more complex algorithm to determine it thanks to a previous poster. In my opinion, a test like the 1.5 mile run test or Cooper test will provide a more accurate estimate of VO2 max which is the whole point of this post
slowcollegestudent wrote:
I said it was more unreliable because it is based off heart rate (or at least that is what I thought it was based off of). Now I understand that there is a more complex algorithm to determine it thanks to a previous poster. In my opinion, a test like the 1.5 mile run test or Cooper test will provide a more accurate estimate of VO2 max which is the whole point of this post
VO2 max is a function of the rate you can pump blood, thus resting and max heart rates are a better predictor of max oxygen consumption than 1.5 mile running speed, which varies wildly by running economy. Thus there's no reason to think a running test is a better indicator of VO2 max than what you could get with heart rate data, which is the point I was getting at.