Why does Garmin say that my vo2max is 74? That should mean that my 1600 is sub 4:10 but the fastest I've ran was a 4:39.
That leads me to my next question. How does Garmin calculate a person's vo2max? This is making no sense.
Why does Garmin say that my vo2max is 74? That should mean that my 1600 is sub 4:10 but the fastest I've ran was a 4:39.
That leads me to my next question. How does Garmin calculate a person's vo2max? This is making no sense.
Garmin uses HRV to compute VO2 max if I recall correctly.
mump
I've run quite a few 5k's faster than what my Garmin says I can (wearing the garmin, too). The v02 max number it gives me always increases after I do it, but the race predictor is still slower than the time I ran. Not sure if it's because my HR max is like 205 even though I'm late 20's. Thing probably thinks I'm pumping at max heart rate for 17 minutes.
Sham 69 wrote:
Why does Garmin say that my vo2max is 74? That should mean that my 1600 is sub 4:10 but the fastest I've ran was a 4:39.
That leads me to my next question. How does Garmin calculate a person's vo2max? This is making no sense.
As per Garmin, accuracy is +-5% if your max heart rate is accurate, if +-15 beats difference than accuracy is +-7-9%.
Also use HR chest strap
Like others have said, in the right conditions Garmin's VO2 max has been proven to be accurate enough when compared to a lab test. "Accurate enough" meaning the average Joe would do fine going off his Garmin reading. That of course would require accurate HR information, which could be skewed based on wrist sensor vs. chest strap or using 220-age vs. real-world readings for max HR or LTHR.
VO2 max, unscientifically speaking, is an indicator of potential, not necessarily immediate performance. You can be able to process lots of oxygen but have significant form inefficiencies that don't allow you to capitalize on that high VO2 max. Moreover, you could take time off and still have a higher than most VO2 max and not being able to race for s***, or throughout the years just not train effectively and never reach your potential.
How can I fix the inefficiencies? Is efficiency trainable?
Ask your bf Trump. Between you two you seem to have all the answers.
That was more of an example, but if you're curious -- yes, to a degree.
Trainable:
Dynamic warmup, form drills (including cues to improve form such as eyes up, run tall, etc), strength and conditioning (hip strength, core strength, ankle strength and flexibility in all those areas, three most common predictor areas of injury), requisite static stretching and foam rolling, etc. Focusing on all of those things usually takes care of any inefficiencies caused by weakness or lack of mobility, which is extremely common and focusing on all of these things concurrently is extremely effective.
Untrainable:
Genetic issues, structural deficiencies like flat feet, and things of that nature. Things you can't control and aren't worth losing sleep over. This is why gaits look different, we all have our preferred movement patterns based on how our bodies are built. Some bodies move more efficiently than others.
Point is to maximize what you have by getting all the plates spinning at once (ancillary training + recovery + optimize run training) and just doing that really well for a number of years.
They use FirstBeat technology. Go to FirstBeat’s website and locate their White Papers. They detail how they estimate VO2max. Estimate - it has error.
You have the O2 transport ability to run sun 4:10 you just lack the mental fortitude and willpower. It’s common in soft snowflakes! Man up!!
Is age a factor in the VO2 max calculation on the Garmin?
Mine wildly overestimates my *current* race times, but is pretty close my peak racing, when I was in my 20s. I'm mid-50s now.
I don't understand why people don't believe these garmin ratings. The coach of the local d1 program where I live (7th largest city in us) is offering me a full ride into his program solely based off of my garmin vo2max (77).
You guys probably are just mad your garmin estimated your vo2 at 53 lol.
I did a VO2 max test in a lab a couple months ago and got a 68. My Garmin watch estimated that I was a 53. Most of my runs are on hills, and I've found that it does a horrible job accounting for elevation change when estimating your fitness. The algorithm sees you're running at 10:00, but it doesn't care that you're doing it on a 10% uphill grade. I'm sure it would give me a higher VO2 max estimate if I ran on the flats more since I'd be running much faster than on my typical trail runs. Bottom line, there's a big difference between the actual data (from a lab test) and a computer-estimated value (from a watch).
It’ s always way off for me. Before and after running 34 minutes it predicted 37:XX. I regularly run without the strap and sometimes with it. I run mostly slow pace and on slightly hilly terrain. I’ve learned to ignore it.
Alone, VO2max can be very misleading. I knew three female runners with 3k times all between 9:02 and 9:06 and their VO2max values (from lab tests) were 60, 69 and 71. The one with the lowest value was national collegiate 10 champ one year. Comparing different individuals based on true VO2max is not accurate, but to see your VO2max improve with time and training is a good indicator of training benefits.
Garmin VO2 projections are a joke. Too heavily based on heart rate, which makes no sense since everyone is different.
yallaremad wrote:
I don't understand why people don't believe these garmin ratings. The coach of the local d1 program where I live (7th largest city in us) is offering me a full ride into his program solely based off of my garmin vo2max (77).
You guys probably are just mad your garmin estimated your vo2 at 53 lol.
If this is true, at the very best your coach is an idiot. At the very worst, you are an idiot.