Ciao all from Tuscany
I have a question about the relative accuracy of my VO2 max reading on my Garmin connect App. I have a SRAM Force AXS power meter and wear a Polar heart rate monitor. While I am quite fit for a 67 year old, own a bunch of KOMs for my age group, I’m suspect of a VO2 Max of 68, given my age. Would like to hear what thoughts are out there on this topic.
Grazie!
If you have done recently 5 or 6 min max effort, it can be calculated from those values for validation:
I haven’t tried with 6-min effort, but 5-min effort was very close.
Yeah, 68 is crazy high at ANY age, not to mention in your mid-60s. Something is definitely off.
You have to input an accurate, physiologic maximum heart rate for this to be accurate. It cannot be based on a formula or just the max you see in your sessions.
1 Like
I’d say it can be estimated rather than calculated. And when we estimate something rather than directly measure it, there’s some estimation error. That is, your actual VO2max could be (I’m spitballing based on some peer-reviewed lit that I’ve glanced through) +/- 10 mLO2/kg min from the estimate.
If someone is after the psychological benefit of having a high VO2max relative to their age, then what I would suggest is that if you’re above average, go celebrate. If you’re below average, realize that VO2max probably doesn’t measure the other ways you’re healthy, and also go celebrate.
I’m serious, here. VO2max is a one-number summary. In the general population, it can be a good proxy for cardiovascular health, and many peer-reviewed studies have shown that higher VO2max is correlated with lower mortality. If you’re using VO2max as a measure of athletic potential … it has limitations.
Do you have your max HR set properly? I.e. did you test it and then plugged it in?
Yeah, I do agree all you have said. Still, those formulas can help OP to estimate whether his watch provided value is anywhere near in ballpark.
I mean, if it is near or even off by 10 mL/kg/min, this value is still very high for his age. And if it is off by half, then something is obviously wrong and he can look into watch settings as others have suggested.
1 Like
I made the mistake of selecting an “auto detect max heart rate” option on my garmin once, and at some point it changed my manually inputted max HR based on an anomalous high reading. So then my VO2 max reading started climbing and climbing, and it wasn’t based on my increasing fitness but on my incorrectly high max heart rate setting. I went back and turned that off….so check that your max HR is set correctly, and the “auto detect max HR” option isn’t selected on.
2 Likes
I just want to reiterate that it’s not just off by a little. It’s way off. Here’s a chart from FirstBeat
2 Likes
Well, this is all very good information. Thank you!
Using on online calculator, realizing it’s only an approximation, my VO2 max is 51. High, yet, more realistic.
1 Like
Off by a lot for sure. Thanks for the FirstBeat chart.
1 Like
As I noted in my initial question, I wear a Polar chest strap monitor. Believe it’s quite accurate. Thank you nonetheless for the Garmin info.
He’s right about the MaxHR setting. If your Garmin blips out for 1 second and records your max way higher than it is, which is common, it messes up your metrics.
1 Like
Lol, I need to put on nearly 40kg to be average for VO2max with the formula; obese on the NHS chart 
I would also make sure your weight is correct in Garmin connect. That can really mess up the calcs if it’s a value in lbs input in kgs for instance.
1 Like
I’m sure it is quite accurate. But one bad reading and the numbers are off.
Happens to me once or twice a year. Usually when I’m going downhill on a cold, dry day.
1 Like
The excellent are minimum, not maximum values. Plus they are sourced from sedentary populations. You can be quite a bit above those values if lifelong active.
75% above?
1 Like
The figure of 68 isn’t unheard of for people in their 60s. On right of curve to be sure, but not to be dismissed without further context.
Agree, those numbers are “excellent” in terms of the general population.
I’ve often thought there should two levels above this… something like “supreme or athlete” and “elite”
Ive always been about 10 - 12 above the excellent numbers, and my performances are nothing special. Cycling, running in Top 10 and the odd podium in small events but only top 20%-25% in bigger events in my peak form. In triathlon normally about 25%-30% of a big event.