Looking at the Garmin V02Max screen I'd say it's showing your current rolling average value, rather than a value from a specific session. That's how I remember it being done for both my Garmin 235 and Coros Apex. That should give a fairly consistant value, and more accurate than one taken from a single exercise session. So, not surprising that it's close to the lab value. A polar watch would show you, depending on where you look, a rolling average (like the garmin, so likely to be equally accurate) or a single session estimate (which could be less accurate). I don't know what other makers do (apart from a lot may use FirstBeat code like Garmin, unlike Coros & Polar who use their own).
Interesting - The Running Channel did a similar video and the Garmin prediction was also closer to the lab test than one may have expected. What a time to be alive!
did the test at the university of pretoria. well worth the time and money. it confirmed that i love running more than i am good at it. at 50 years of age i got a 51. my forerunner 955 has me at 51 too. i also run with a stryd footpod, which i rate at far more accurate than the garmin (less fluctuations - i can get a 54 reading on the garmin if a push really hard on a run ), and that also gave a closely similar reading. bottom line i was the guy that was quite quick at the club, but that's it, could never be better than that. but hey, i still love running & it keeps me fit and healthy, which means I win! i see Coach Parry was also at the university, i recognise Christo in the video.
I've based my zones off Lactate Threshold, 30min run test. Put the numbers into my watch and made solid progress both for threshold running and Zone 5 intervals.
I would challenge that lab tests are always 'acurate'. I have seen lots of people doing these tests, and just the difference in protocols between labs can vary the measurement per lab. So I would argue this is, globally speaking, not a standardized test. Also the watch calculation is influenced by using just the watch or a HRM strap. I have a 4-5 beats difference between the two.
A very interesting video, although the actual VO2 max seems less relevant as one gets older. When I was in my mid-20s I did a VO2 sub max test at my university. Back then, in the mid-80s no one had the equipment in Queensland to do the full test, but I did run on a treadmill and the lab rats collected a bunch of data and scored my VO2 sub max at 83. Apparently that was the highest score they saw in their data. Having said that, I was by no means an elite runner, although around that time my HM was 1:13:03, my 15km was 50:30 and my 10km was 32:51. For some perspective, the great Steve Moneghetti, who lives just a few kms from me, ran 49:26 to break the M55 15km world record in 2019. Anyway, my Garmin fr955 tells me that my current VO2 max is 54. I don't know what that says about a 64 yo runner who is battling knee arthritis, although I ran 44:35 for 10km back in May this year and I won my club XC aggregate championship recently, so I'm still going kind of ok, but nowhere near an age graded time pb compared to my 10km pb at 26. I think the VO2 max score from my watch is helpful as a guide to my current fitness level, it has increase from 52 to 54 this year alone and when I first started using a Garmin watch with it on, a fr210, about 9 years ago, my score was 48. I was able to run a 10,000m in 42:22 and a Parkrun in 20:00 in 2015, and I think I was capable of running around 21:30 earlier this year, although I haven't run one for a while (I've been too focused on the club XC season to consider a fast 5km - 26 races in 24 weeks is pretty full on). Thanks again for the video, it gives some perspective to the number spat out from our Garmin watches.
I have a question about how the test is administered in a lab setting. The only time I had the test it showed a 13. My watch was giving me a 50. The lab techs sniffed at the watch. But I had another data point. I’d just run a 3:38 marathon. I’m reasonably sure something was askew on the test. Perhaps the mask wasn’t on correctly. Another thing was that they put me on the treadmill cold and dialed up the speed, so that my heart rate went from whatever it was while I was sitting doing paperwork to breathless running. I guess my question on the last detail. Would that affect the lab results? Is there a best-practice on how the test is administered, or does it just not matter?
I would actually argue that who cares what your VO2Max is. It really doesn't matter. What matters is how you use it and the trend over time. PS There are also numerous studies that the watch makers footnote that can be accessed to show how they are arriving at their data. Many scientific studies have been performed with data points more than N=1.
As this video is trying to explain, this VO2 MAX number is just there, a part of your bodily function of daily life. IF you are doing any exercise, running included, your body will adapt and *use your intake oxygen as efficiently as possible* along the lines of your specific bodily-functions and training. That's it ... Period. -- The number is totally hidden from humanity unless tested for and is totally a non-important matter to even consider unless you are a PRO athletic of some sort. It is like the air we breath, *do you need to know the contents of everything you breath in? Nope, just breath in&out and the body works AOK with it.* -- Software is always buggy, to include design flaws, which is not a news flash..lol
Looking at the Garmin V02Max screen I'd say it's showing your current rolling average value, rather than a value from a specific session. That's how I remember it being done for both my Garmin 235 and Coros Apex. That should give a fairly consistant value, and more accurate than one taken from a single exercise session. So, not surprising that it's close to the lab value. A polar watch would show you, depending on where you look, a rolling average (like the garmin, so likely to be equally accurate) or a single session estimate (which could be less accurate). I don't know what other makers do (apart from a lot may use FirstBeat code like Garmin, unlike Coros & Polar who use their own).
Interesting - The Running Channel did a similar video and the Garmin prediction was also closer to the lab test than one may have expected. What a time to be alive!
did the test at the university of pretoria. well worth the time and money. it confirmed that i love running more than i am good at it. at 50 years of age i got a 51. my forerunner 955 has me at 51 too. i also run with a stryd footpod, which i rate at far more accurate than the garmin (less fluctuations - i can get a 54 reading on the garmin if a push really hard on a run ), and that also gave a closely similar reading. bottom line i was the guy that was quite quick at the club, but that's it, could never be better than that. but hey, i still love running & it keeps me fit and healthy, which means I win! i see Coach Parry was also at the university, i recognise Christo in the video.
I've based my zones off Lactate Threshold, 30min run test. Put the numbers into my watch and made solid progress both for threshold running and Zone 5 intervals.
I would challenge that lab tests are always 'acurate'. I have seen lots of people doing these tests, and just the difference in protocols between labs can vary the measurement per lab. So I would argue this is, globally speaking, not a standardized test.
Also the watch calculation is influenced by using just the watch or a HRM strap. I have a 4-5 beats difference between the two.
Very true
A very interesting video, although the actual VO2 max seems less relevant as one gets older. When I was in my mid-20s I did a VO2 sub max test at my university. Back then, in the mid-80s no one had the equipment in Queensland to do the full test, but I did run on a treadmill and the lab rats collected a bunch of data and scored my VO2 sub max at 83. Apparently that was the highest score they saw in their data. Having said that, I was by no means an elite runner, although around that time my HM was 1:13:03, my 15km was 50:30 and my 10km was 32:51. For some perspective, the great Steve Moneghetti, who lives just a few kms from me, ran 49:26 to break the M55 15km world record in 2019. Anyway, my Garmin fr955 tells me that my current VO2 max is 54. I don't know what that says about a 64 yo runner who is battling knee arthritis, although I ran 44:35 for 10km back in May this year and I won my club XC aggregate championship recently, so I'm still going kind of ok, but nowhere near an age graded time pb compared to my 10km pb at 26. I think the VO2 max score from my watch is helpful as a guide to my current fitness level, it has increase from 52 to 54 this year alone and when I first started using a Garmin watch with it on, a fr210, about 9 years ago, my score was 48. I was able to run a 10,000m in 42:22 and a Parkrun in 20:00 in 2015, and I think I was capable of running around 21:30 earlier this year, although I haven't run one for a while (I've been too focused on the club XC season to consider a fast 5km - 26 races in 24 weeks is pretty full on). Thanks again for the video, it gives some perspective to the number spat out from our Garmin watches.
I have a question about how the test is administered in a lab setting. The only time I had the test it showed a 13. My watch was giving me a 50. The lab techs sniffed at the watch. But I had another data point. I’d just run a 3:38 marathon. I’m reasonably sure something was askew on the test. Perhaps the mask wasn’t on correctly. Another thing was that they put me on the treadmill cold and dialed up the speed, so that my heart rate went from whatever it was while I was sitting doing paperwork to breathless running. I guess my question on the last detail. Would that affect the lab results? Is there a best-practice on how the test is administered, or does it just not matter?
I would actually argue that who cares what your VO2Max is. It really doesn't matter. What matters is how you use it and the trend over time. PS There are also numerous studies that the watch makers footnote that can be accessed to show how they are arriving at their data. Many scientific studies have been performed with data points more than N=1.
A watch is not real world measurements of V02 max, it's a one size fits all estimate. My watch says below what I think it is compared to a lab test.
As this video is trying to explain, this VO2 MAX number is just there, a part of your bodily function of daily life. IF you are doing any exercise, running included, your body will adapt and *use your intake oxygen as efficiently as possible* along the lines of your specific bodily-functions and training. That's it ... Period.
--
The number is totally hidden from humanity unless tested for and is totally a non-important matter to even consider unless you are a PRO athletic of some sort. It is like the air we breath, *do you need to know the contents of everything you breath in? Nope, just breath in&out and the body works AOK with it.*
--
Software is always buggy, to include design flaws, which is not a news flash..lol
Garmin V02 max is as good as the Lab