Garmin vo2 max

It's a joke. I've been tested 8 times between 75.92-81.1 mL/kg and my Garmin says I'm at a 60. The reason why it's a joke is because it can't get an accurate heart rate. To ascertain vo2 max you need max HR and LT HR. Garmin can't do that.

Don't pay too much attention to what the Garmin says. It's physically impossible for it to give you your VO2 max. You need to be hooked up to a breathing mask that's measuring the volume of oxygen you're consuming. At best, the watch gives a rough guess based on your heart race and GPS pace, both of which can be of questionable accuracy on any given run. At worst, it's completely gives a completely useless number. There are several factors the watch doesn't take into account that can give you big swings in the reading like temperature, elevation, wind, etc. Hell even if you drank some coffee and your heart rate is higher that normal it'll think your VO2 max is worse.

The wrist-based HR monitor can be accurate for some and inaccurate for others depending on a variety of factors — using a heart rate strap is the most accurate way to capture heart rate data and get an accurate VO2max estimate. The VO2max calculations Garmin uses are provided by FirstBeat. They have a detailed explanation of how they calculate it on their website: www.firstbeat.com/en/consumer-feature/vo2max-fitness-level/ It's not meant to substitute for a proper VO2max test, but, instead as an indicator of fitness which you can monitor over time for trends.

You have to use a HR strap if you want it to get an accurate heart rate. You can manually set your max HR on the device and some models allow you do a guided lactate threshold test. It's unclear what you think it can't do? No, it can't perform a proper VO2max test.

True that temperature & wind aren't factored in, elevation along a run is (unless acclimatizing to a significantly higher altitude). Despite what it doesn't factor in, in my experience, there aren't "big swings." Drinking some coffee before a run doesn't cause a lower VO2max for me, at least.

Garmin’s vo2max is more like a vdot than an actual vo2max in that it probably takes into account other factors like economy to some degree.

Mine varies a lot according to how tired I am. It’s 68 atm but it was at 63 a few weeks ago.

The race predictor is also meh. I checked the the predictor the day of my last marathon and it said I could run a 2:48 or something like that. I ended up running 2:33.

DietBacon wrote:

Garmin’s vo2max is more like a vdot than an actual vo2max in that it probably takes into account other factors like economy to some degree.

This is right, though it's not really that it takes economy into account; it's that all the watch can measure is velocity, so there's no way to disentangle the relative contribution of VO2max and economy to velocity. Basically if you take enough data points of HR vs. velocity, you can construct a HR curve and get a pretty good estimate of an HR/velocity point that corresponds to VO2max: your VDOT.

The crucial point is that your HR data needs to be good, and not everybody gets good data from wrist based monitors. Chest straps or upper-arm optical monitors should give you a pretty good estimate of your VDOT assuming that you run a hard effort, in good conditions, in a recovered state.

The race predictor in earlier watches just uses VDOT equivalent performances, so your marathon time will be wildly optimistic unless you're very well trained. Newer Garmin watches adjust the race predictor by taking into account training volume, so longer races will not match your VDOT time unless you train a lot.

JOJOs wrote:

It's a joke. I've been tested 8 times between 75.92-81.1 mL/kg and my Garmin says I'm at a 60. The reason why it's a joke is because it can't get an accurate heart rate. To ascertain vo2 max you need max HR and LT HR. Garmin can't do that.

If this is how you got your VO2max then you got it wrong also.

None of you clowns have a Vo2 mac in the 60’s... much less the the 70’s!!

Garmin’s wrist reading is not accurate but it’s better then nothing...

If you don’t like the numbers it’s giving you then run harder, faster, and father fat boys!!

Wrong wrong and wrong wrote:

None of you clowns have a Vo2 mac in the 60’s... much less the the 70’s!!

The overwhelming majority of male collegiate runners, even in D3, have Vo2s higher than 60.

JOJOs wrote:

It's a joke. I've been tested 8 times between 75.92-81.1 mL/kg and my Garmin says I'm at a 60. The reason why it's a joke is because it can't get an accurate heart rate. To ascertain vo2 max you need max HR and LT HR. Garmin can't do that.

I think you may need to use HRM-Run heart rate strap because is more accurate and it allows Garmin to estimate lactate-threshold. wrist-based HR measurement is not accurate.

Also, the VO2max calculation is based only on your pace and does not count elevation changes and their effect on your pace/heart rate. Not to mention that Garmin also ignores the temperature.

Anyway, I find Garmin VO2max a good fitness indication, for myself when I started running a year ago and because I am an overweight/unfit person my VO2max was 31 and now after running for a year and losing 20 pounds of fat my VO2max increased to 39-40.

Maybe I can help out. What I am saying along with Garmin unable to predict VO2 Max, is that VO2 Max is pretty irrelevant. My testing was at the Cooper Center in Dallas and at University over a period of 2 years. The Univ. test was in a study for nasal strips, if you remember those, and the Cooper Center testing was for the USOC. I still have my testing documents to this day.

I say irrelevant because all it shows is how big of an engine you have. In my case, I have a huge engine, but did not end up going under 14:00 for 5000m or 1:05 for the Half Marathon. And some of the peers I tested with did. Biomechanics are a huge factor and tremendously underrated.

Its decent, if it is accurate youre likely in around 17 5k shape

It’s what I meant but didn’t wanna type all that ? the watch doesn’t intentionally factor in weather/economy/etc, those just end up influencing the final value due to limitations of what can be measured by the watch.

Garmin wrote:

I've had my forerunner 235 for like a year and never used the heart rate monitor until recently and it told me my vo2 max was 63. That doesnt sound too great but I honestly dont know. Plus I doubt this is 100% accurate. I'm 18 If that helps but I'm just curious of what it all means since and how accurate the wrist monitor is

The race predictions are way out of whack for me. I'm 62, and it's returned an estimated V02 max of 59, which gave me a a sub-18 minute 5k on the estimate race times. It also gave me a faster estimated marathon than I ran when I was 37.

How does the chest strap work? Does a Garmin chest strap connect to a Garmin watch? If so, do the strap results supercede the watch results?

Don't watch me wrote:

How does the chest strap work? Does a Garmin chest strap connect to a Garmin watch? If so, do the strap results supercede the watch results?

The chest strap uses electrodes to measure electrical signals from your heart. If you have one connected via ANT+ or (for the newest models) Bluetooth Smart, the wrist monitor data is not used and only the chest strap data is shown. It doesn't necessarily need to be a Garmin-branded strap.

Some third party Garmin connect IQ apps will allow you to record both the chest strap and wrist data so you can compare.

Me too. I get a HM race prediction 12 min slower than the back 13.1 of my last long run wearing the watch! I understand that is not how the values are derived but it is still pretty comical.

My VO2max value dropped with a massive 8 numbers after just one run today! Thats a new personal record, I have never lowered it that much before :)

It typically gives a higher value after a 5k, and lower values when in marathoning training (I never do intervals, just easy, moderate and tempo runs).

JOJOs wrote:

I say irrelevant because all it shows is how big of an engine you have. In my case, I have a huge engine, but did not end up going under 14:00 for 5000m or 1:05 for the Half Marathon. And some of the peers I tested with did. Biomechanics are a huge factor and tremendously underrated.

Interesting article along these lines:

To summarize. They looked at a young cyclist who had a very high VO2max

despite little training and was having success. He started serious training and

his VO2max went through the roof. A record. The testing lab sent the

measurement equipment out for re-calibration and re-tested before they would

believe it.

Problem was, his racing results didn't get much better.

Since the testing was done on a bike, they had all the power data and turns

out--as verified by the racing--the output power to the bike did not go up

near as much as his VO2max. His efficiency went way down.

I always thought the main efficiency factor in running was running form

related. But this variation was on the bike, there is really no 'biking form'.

Something physiologically different is going on for him.

Speculation in the article is his body had so much oxygen available that

he maxed out the efficient ways to use it and had to use the less efficient methods.

Further speculation in the article is that this efficiency might be what the long

slow distance type training develops--he was doing too much VO2max training,

which I believe is high intensity.

I would also suggest that this might be what low iron causes--lower amounts

of the iron containing enzymes that drive the efficient use of oxygen.

Sticking with the 'garmin vo2 max' title. I don't use a garmin but my daughter

does and it says hers is 70+. Makes her mad as she can't run a 5k near

as fast as it says she can. I took a look at some of the data and once hr rises

to be close to cadence it will jump up and tend to lock there so hr is not reliable.

But you never know, a lot of slow miles the next few years in college.....