Yes, you are right. While vo2 has been remarkably predictive (its crazy how accurate those Daniels tables are) in my MS and HS athletes, as us older folk are finding out... not so much. Which...is weird, you would think the endurance (FTP, LT measures) would hang on better than VO2, but for me the opposite. But its no secret the cardiovascular system has some issues with maintaining power for distance after...a certain age. You really have to focus on maintaining endurance too.
VO2Max 52.3 --> predict my 5k turkey trot time
Pro News/Info/Results
Marathons
-
80
-
OTOH wrote:
RandmDude wrote:
LOL. You realize the a VO2max of only 50 already suggests sub 20 min 5k. Only serious posts please.
That's for an accurate VO2max measurement. I've not used Apple, but for me and a few others that own a Garmin, VO2 seems about 3-5pts too high, so i'm going to assume Apple is also a bit generous and show a visionary prediction of 20:20.
Don't go out too hard and you can prove me wrong.
FWIW I think some of the relatively newer Garmins (past couple years) are a bit more accurate, especially after a few months of wear and several hard efforts. I'm an old fat guy. My Garmin Forerunner 255 consistently estimates my VO2max around around 52-53, and my most recent race time (a half marathon on a hilly course that's really hard to figure out how to run the tangents on) equated to 52.4 on Jack Daniels' VDOT chart. My previous Garmin with an earlier generation of their heart rate sensor and earlier version of FirstBeat's algorithms would give me a VO2max of 55 at similar fitness.
12 -
Watch-based VO2Max is not accurate usually too high. Provide some reliable metrics and I’ll predict your 5K time.
31 -
Honestly working on my 5k time, I got like 56 on my watch. I would be lucky to break 20 on a 5k. I would say like 21-22 minutes range like 6:50-7 average mile time.
40 -
RandmDude wrote:
My Apple Watch Ultra Vo2Max has been trending upwards for the past few months and just today reached 52.3.
You do you that is not a measure of your "VO2 max", right?
Right?
32 -
I would say no faster than 22:12
221 -
high school xc coach wrote:
when i have a vo2 max of 52, according to Garmin, I am probably barely in sub 22 shape, and im likely only running 10 or 12 easy miles per week. when im running around 20 per week, i typically go up around 54, and then im ready to go under 20:00.
Remember that Garmin doesn't measure anything resembling your VO2max, which is your maximum oxygen uptake per time. (People seem to forget this.)
These devices (or rather their programming) estimate your VO2max, based mainly on your heart rate and paces during training.
It's funny when people go for a long run and then most on Strava, "My VO2max went from 52.3 to 53.1!" No.
More on the variables and models used:30 -
RandmDude wrote:
My Apple Watch Ultra Vo2Max has been trending upwards for the past few months and just today reached 52.3. Yes, age/gender/weight is set up correctly in my Apple profile.
Turkey Trot is flat and temps will likely be high 30's/low 40's.
Winner gets bragging rights.
Good luck dude just don't slam your hand at the podium at your annual banquet if you get beat by a girl or a young lad.
40 -
I love track (original poster) wrote:
high school xc coach wrote:
when i have a vo2 max of 52, according to Garmin, I am probably barely in sub 22 shape, and im likely only running 10 or 12 easy miles per week. when im running around 20 per week, i typically go up around 54, and then im ready to go under 20:00.
Remember that Garmin doesn't measure anything resembling your VO2max, which is your maximum oxygen uptake per time. (People seem to forget this.)
These devices (or rather their programming) estimate your VO2max, based mainly on your heart rate and paces during training.
It's funny when people go for a long run and then most on Strava, "My VO2max went from 52.3 to 53.1!" No.
More on the variables and models used:people who read about the science understand this, but many don't. it doesn't necessarily matter. it's a consistent data point within whatever program you're using, to track your own progress from cycle to cycle, year to year, etc.
this has been an interesting thread to see different times people run based on different vo2s at different ages, as graded by garmin, apple, etc.
21 -
high school xc coach wrote:
I love track (original poster) wrote:
Remember that Garmin doesn't measure anything resembling your VO2max, which is your maximum oxygen uptake per time. (People seem to forget this.)
These devices (or rather their programming) estimate your VO2max, based mainly on your heart rate and paces during training.
It's funny when people go for a long run and then most on Strava, "My VO2max went from 52.3 to 53.1!" No.
More on the variables and models used:people who read about the science understand this, but many don't. it doesn't necessarily matter. it's a consistent data point within whatever program you're using, to track your own progress from cycle to cycle, year to year, etc.
this has been an interesting thread to see different times people run based on different vo2s at different ages, as graded by garmin, apple, etc.
Sure. I just find it annoying that people call this number their "VO2" ... maybe I'll get over it.
20 -
OTOH wrote:
RandmDude wrote:
LOL. You realize the a VO2max of only 50 already suggests sub 20 min 5k. Only serious posts please.
That's for an accurate VO2max measurement. I've not used Apple, but for me and a few others that own a Garmin, VO2 seems about 3-5pts too high, so i'm going to assume Apple is also a bit generous and show a visionary prediction of 20:20.
Don't go out too hard and you can prove me wrong.
I found both Apple watch and Garmin forerunner overestimate my VO2max, perhaps by even more than the 3-5 pts you found - even by up to 6 or 7 points for me. When I've done VO2max testing in a lab, my economy was pretty good so perhaps that heightens the overestimation(?) But, in any case, my overall feeling is that the VO2max readings on these devices are wrong by so much that they are essentially worthless in predicting anything! To the original poster: I hope you do a lot better than my experience with these devices would predict, and I do not know how your economy is. But if the devices are off as far with you as they have been with me, your 52.3 might be in reality ~45.x or 46, which, depending on your economy, might put you in you in the 21:xxs. Let us know what time you actually run!
10 -
bigmig19 wrote:
Yes, you are right. While vo2 has been remarkably predictive (its crazy how accurate those Daniels tables are) in my MS and HS athletes, as us older folk are finding out... not so much. Which...is weird, you would think the endurance (FTP, LT measures) would hang on better than VO2, but for me the opposite. But its no secret the cardiovascular system has some issues with maintaining power for distance after...a certain age. You really have to focus on maintaining endurance too.
Doesn't it assume accuracy only if you run the appropriate mileage? ie. a 52.3 VO2 Max is 19:17 5k, sub-40 10k, 1:28:30 13.1 and 3:04 full?
00 -
Somewhere in the range of 22:11-22:13.
231 -
I’m 53, ultra2 vo2max 56.9, averaging 20mpw.
Strava prediction for my 5k is 21:12. I think I could go about 19:59.
I’m guessing 21:12 for you.
41 -
Everyone predicting 22:12 with a VO2 max of 52.3 is crazy.
I predict 22:09.91 -
Rory2 wrote:
I found both Apple watch and Garmin forerunner overestimate my VO2max, perhaps by even more than the 3-5 pts you found - even by up to 6 or 7 points for me. When I've done VO2max testing in a lab, my economy was pretty good so perhaps that heightens the overestimation(?)
I was a 1:14/2:37 guy with a lab measured Vo2max of 51. Now my watch claims it's at 61 and I can tell you I'm several minute off those times. And like you, it was because my economy was excellent at the time. So just another data point to show people how worthless the watches are.
50 -
I love track (original poster) wrote:
high school xc coach wrote:
people who read about the science understand this, but many don't. it doesn't necessarily matter. it's a consistent data point within whatever program you're using, to track your own progress from cycle to cycle, year to year, etc.
this has been an interesting thread to see different times people run based on different vo2s at different ages, as graded by garmin, apple, etc.
Sure. I just find it annoying that people call this number their "VO2" ... maybe I'll get over it.
I agree. that's why I referred to it as "My vo2max, according to garmin." but many out there quoting these numbers probably never heard of vo2max until it popped up on their watch screen or app. it's always good to have an understanding of where other people are coming from.
but then again, you can take the gloves off a little when somebody says "people saying 22 are smoking crack. a vo2 of 50 already indicates sub 20!" I just assume a troll on a post like that, but who knows. still a fun topic to compare data with others.
10 -
minong wrote:
Rory2 wrote:
I found both Apple watch and Garmin forerunner overestimate my VO2max, perhaps by even more than the 3-5 pts you found - even by up to 6 or 7 points for me. When I've done VO2max testing in a lab, my economy was pretty good so perhaps that heightens the overestimation(?)
I was a 1:14/2:37 guy with a lab measured Vo2max of 51. Now my watch claims it's at 61 and I can tell you I'm several minute off those times. And like you, it was because my economy was excellent at the time. So just another data point to show people how worthless the watches are.
your times for a legit 51 are kind of off the charts, are they not? anyway, just goes to show that a legit vo2 max can be just as poor for predicting a race time as a garmin or apple measurement.
20 -
high school xc coach wrote:
minong wrote:
I was a 1:14/2:37 guy with a lab measured Vo2max of 51. Now my watch claims it's at 61 and I can tell you I'm several minute off those times. And like you, it was because my economy was excellent at the time. So just another data point to show people how worthless the watches are.
your times for a legit 51 are kind of off the charts, are they not? anyway, just goes to show that a legit vo2 max can be just as poor for predicting a race time as a garmin or apple measurement.
That measurement was done at a university lab for baseline testing of a PhD students study on the effects of carb drinks and endurance. Just a fun thing I volunteered for. But I have every reason to believe it was as accurate as can be given the setting and circumstances of the testing. But they did comment at the time that my economy (also tested) was what made up for the "poor" vo2max. But I can't recall that exact number.
00 -
minong wrote:
I was a 1:14/2:37 guy with a lab measured Vo2max of 51. Now my watch claims it's at 61 and I can tell you I'm several minute off those times. And like you, it was because my economy was excellent at the time. So just another data point to show people how worthless the watches are.
LOL. $100 that "university" lab was not a real university. No one with a VO2max under 60 runs a 2:37 thon.
00
What People Are Talking About On LetsRun
No top threads at the moment. Check back soon.