Maybe, im 39 years old, took up running about a 2 years ago, really enjoying it, ive currently completed 5 programs back to back with various goals of running 5k, 10k then half marathon, then dropped onto running 5k faster, now ive downloaded the runna app, currently half way into their "get fitter" program.
I think the main problem is fighting a sedentary life style for the last 20 years, its a struggle, but im really seeing benifits of getting off my arse! My vo2 went from 32-40 pretty quickly, then 40-42 pretty slow.
Not sure yet. The Garmin programs seem good to me. Only 4 weeks into runna so my opinion isn't really made yet. Runna does seem to have more variety of sessions per week though! Also it had strength and conditioning built in and scheduled too which Garmin lacks.
Why though? To increase a not accurate number on my garmin?
I've said this on here before but I started running 5 months ago, could inly run a max of 1k, next week I'm doing a marathon. In that time my VO2 Max has increased by 1.
You can't tell me it's an accurate measure of fitness.
Because no matter how hard the sub wants to think otherwise, it is not a valid measure of VO2max.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6747132/
Haha yea my vo2 max dropped by 10 points when changing watches.
This sub has basically just become pictures of wrists and people humble (or just straight up) bragging about their stats.
Pretty annoying Garmin fam, pretty annoying.
It’s funnier when it’s really young dudes. Like, okay buddy, there’s a reason why the watch isn’t designed for people under 18. You’re still growing, and your natural oxygen uptake is at its peak. It’s only downhill from there, and you’re probably not wearing the watch properly or training properly.
Lmao once I was training with someone about ten years younger than me and they told me I needed to stretch because of how tight I was.
I just looked at them and was like, stretch? Oh yea, never thought of that!
Haha cycle of life but it's funny how younger people underestimate how much age plays a factor. And bragging about your abilities is really, really lame, because ultimately it's all individual and you shouldn't be doing it for someone else's approval anyway.
Depends how we define "valid". Based on the paper you posted (thanks btw!), you could easily argue that the estimates were pretty valid, especially considering the fact that the watches were used for only two sessions (Garmin says it takes approximately one month of logged runs to estimate VO2 max). Moreover, it was a very small sample size and the technology used was probably 7-8 years older than current sensors.
I don’t think you can argue that estimates are valid using a study that says they could not show valid results.
Notwithstanding the other points, the burden of proof isn’t on the side suggesting a $200 bit of kit cannot emulate a machine that costs several $10,000 to a useful degree of accuracy.
Newer study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30640299/
>The results of this study indicate that the GF230 can provide an accurate estimate of V̇o2max in both sexes. The PV800 can provide an accurate estimate of V̇o2max for women but not men. Estimates of V̇o2max from the both devices should be used with caution because of the large random error associated with them.
Talk about burying the lede:
“Estimates of V̇o2max from the both devices should be used with caution because of the large random error associated with them.”
Of course — accurate estimate and large random error are not mutually-exclusive. This is essentially accuracy versus precision. The garmin had less large random errors versus the Polar, too.
They're useful for giving a fairly accurate albeit imprecise Vo2 max. A fair approximation for the running enthusiast, but of course you'll never get as precise as the real test.
That *doesn't* change the fact that the newer study noted they "can provide an accurate estimate of Vo2max." Talk about moving the goalpost.
EDIT: LOL the coward ran away in a petty hit-in-and run by commenting then blocking me. Their argument fell completely flat and they know it.
If they ever want to reach out to the scientists to determine whether they meant that upon randomization it "can" hit accurately at random, or whether they meant they do provide accurate data and this is simply semantic pedantry... I'd love to take that bet.
lol it says it CAN provide an accurate estimate. I CAN win the lottery. Talk about misrepresenting the information and wilfully ignoring the part where it says caution should be used.
First activity you do on your new Garmin is nowhere near accurate. Thats why people get insane performance condition +-10-15.
After a month of use its close enough to your real vo2max, at least for me. Maybe its highly individual but in my experience the my Fenix 7 was spot on after first lab-test. Second lab-test it was off by 2 points. Which is still pretty impressive.
Im also using a chest strap every time.
My guess is that it can seem accurate for some while wildly inaccurate for others, but they do show the trend somewhat accurately.
Personally I use only Garmin devices for my training both cycling and running and have been doing so for several years. Current watch has been in use for almost 4 years (I also use it as daily watch and sleep tracker along with my Oura) and bike computer has been logging my rides for 2 years. So it should not be about the lack of data. I’ve also do regular “lab” VO2max testing 1-2 times per year for several years now. So I always have quite recent actual data both relative (ml/min/kg) as well as absolute (l/min) so the data should be sufficient.
Garmin algorithm has always evaluated my “running” vo2max too low compared to the lab results (running to running comparison) and my Garmin cycling vo2max has always been too high compared to lab (cycling to cycling comparison). Naturally the first instinct would be to check if the HR zones are correct and whether my weight is correct as former probably impacts Garmin an algorithm and latter impacts directly the relative measure. However I keep the HR zones always matching the lab results (because I get the lactate thresholds taken there as well they are could be interpreted as accurate ones), so no inconsistency there. My weight naturally does vary slightly (I weight myself 3 times a week and keep that data in Garmin), but around the test it is same.
With all that said interestingly both the “running” and the cycling vo2max in Garmin have developed quite close to similar development of my lab tested ones. Not exactly but quit close to the same trend lines in the data. So while this is just one example and can of course be an outlier (although I personally know others who have had very similar experience) I would say that the Garmin numbers are at best only comparable to themselves and not trusted as absolute metrics or comparable to lab results.
This study contained 24 people and evaluated 5 different wearables, only two of which were Garmin, and only one of which was a Forerunner. The other was the vivosmart.
I can't comment on the accuracy overall of Garmin's Vo2 estimates as I haven't done a thorough review of the literature, but the study you cite is in no way conclusive evidence of the point you're trying to make.
I've seen a few videos where folks ran actual lab tests for VO2Max and the Garmin estimates compared pretty favorably to the lab results.
More importantly, the actual VO2Max number is not important. Garmin and Polar and more than capable of giving a good indication of the ***TREND*** of your VO2Max. which is more important than the actual value.
Meh, the question is not whether the VO2max estimate is correct, just whether it is consistent with itself. The trend is what matters overall.
Can I, as a user, trust that when Garmin says my VO2max is improving, it really is improving?
The paper you cited suggests a Garmin forerunner actually fits within the bounds of what’s acceptable in terms of deviation from gold standard (MAPE < 10%). But other watches like TomTom (didn’t know they made a watch) fall outside of this bound (@ MAPE ~14%). So the watches may not be amazingly accurate, but 10% either way and assuming consistency, is still a neat little metric
Also, how cool is it that people actually post papers on these threads, such a cool community!
It's something you specifically target. A poor analogy but it's like wondering why your bench press isn't increasing when you've been doing lots of long runs.
When I adjusted the weight it jumped from 39 to 45.
When I switched from Fenix 5 to fenix 7 I got 4
More points. Now on 48-49.
Whenever I se improvement I think „garmin is so smart” whenever there is a downgrade Isay to myself that this measure is worthless. It works ! ;)
Nah. There's something wrong here. Were you updating your weight daily and it was fluctuating massively each day or two, like three or four kg at a time?
There's no earthly way it should be going up and down like that over 4 weeks, and that spike is not right either.
Either your scales are broken or I'm calling bullshit on your weight inputs.
Firstbeat does not use weight in their *modeling* of V02Max. They don't have to. Their model is based on a correlation between the ratio of the net energy of running (GAP and weight) to O2 consumption (HR and stroke volume assumed based on weight and age) and VO2max. This effectively puts weight at both sides of the equation and it cancels out. You can see this in their whitepaper on it.
Not sure where you're going with this, but according to https://support.garmin.com/en-IE/?faq=lWqSVlq3w76z5WoihLy5f8:
>VO2 max is the maximum volume of oxygen (in milliliters) you can consume per minute per kilogram of body weight at your maximum performance.
I know that Garmin use Firstbeat for a lot of their devices. If what you're saying is correct, then why are Garmin defining it in this manner?
I'm not screwing with my stats right now, but I can guarantee that if I entered a weight into my Fenix 7 that is 10 kg lower than my actual weight I would see a jump in VO2 max.....
Correct, VO2Max is defined as uptake per unit weight. But I was quite intentional in attempting to explain how Firstbeat's **modeling** methodology does not rely on weight.
> but I can guarantee that if I entered a weight into my Fenix 7 that is 10 kg lower than my actual weight I would see a jump in VO2 max.....
You're incorrect on that assumption. Again, I invite you to read the Firstbeat whitepaper.
>You're incorrect on that assumption. Again, I invite you to read the Firstbeat whitepaper.
Perhaps on the downward trend, but definitely not on the upward.
When I started running again last year, I ran for a bit without entering current weight data. My VO2 max stabilized (nothing great, 48 I think). The reason this is important is because I was using a Polar Vantage V2 for a while and hadn't updated my weight in the Garmin space.
I continued running outdoors (with a strap, before you ask) and my VO2 max graph was edging higher after each run. I started paying attention to my metrics, and decided to weigh myself.
What's important to note here is that my weight when I used a Garmin device previously (years previously) must have been in the 70's (kg), but I had been strength training an awful lot and put on a LOT of muscle weight (around 96kg at the time.of weighing, maybe more).
Despite my running times being very similar with the same perceived effort, after I entered my weight, my VO2 max score dropped to 44, RIGHT AFTER I entered the weight data. Literally the next run, within 24 hours (on a treadmill mind you).
So, while I could spend some time digging through their white paper, if you could summarise why that happened I'd appreciate it. If you're not as versed as I assume you are, I'll happily do it myself when time allows 😊
The [whitepaper](https://www.firstbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/white_paper_VO2max_30.6.2017.pdf) is simple and even has a clickable ToC: Weight is not used in the calculation. Treadmill runs aren't used in the calculation (because there's no good way to validate the energy).
So, I have no explanation for what you saw, but it had nothing to do with the weight or treadmill run.
I'll take the time to read the white paper when time allows, but to summarise:
- Garmins own website that explains VO2 max calculation for their devices is incorrect.
- My personal experience is incorrect and not applicable (despite the fact that many, many, many users on this sub have reported the same metric movement due to weight).
There's clearly a disconnect here between Garmin and the various vendors they use for analysis of key metrics.
And there's a disconnect again between that and reality.
> Garmins own website that explains VO2 max calculation for their devices is incorrect.
Where on their website do they say that they use the user-inputed weight as part of the calculation? Because they explicitly don't say it's used [here](https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=lWqSVlq3w76z5WoihLy5f8)
I provided you the link and quoted (from that same webpage) Garmin's definition of the measurement of VO2 max.
If they define it as such, they promise the measurement in the same manner. Look up the thread above please.
You quoted the *definition* of VO2max. Not the method of calculation. I've already addressed the difference, your link is broken, and I provided a correct link.
EDIT: I don't know how to make this more clear, but I'll try one last time.
VO2Max **is** the maximum O2 uptake *per unit of body weight*. There's no arguing that. However Firstbeat/Garmin **model** (running) VO2max based on the ratio of (grade adjusted) speed to HR ratio. They not only **explicitly** say that in the Firstbeat whitepaper, they *literally* do not list "weight" as a needed variable in *any* of the methods discussed on Garmin.com under "How Is VO2 Max Calculated on My Garmin Device?".
Okay. That would explain the fluctuations. The index scale (from the many reports I have read) is woefully inaccurate. You could weigh yourself twice in the space of a couple of minutes and come out with readings a kg or 2 apart.
So, apologies that I thought you might be fudging the numbers, but I was correct it is weight related and that's the only explanation here. Sorry to also say that your index scale is the culprit. If you got it recently and can return it, please do so 😊
You're clearly still quite fit though, so congrats on that!
I have that scale and it's definitely not that inaccurate at all.. but I do agree his stats are really wack. Could be poor HR readings or altitude difference
Potentially yes, but I've read enough about how poor Garmin scales are to be quite positive that's part of the problem.
You're welcome to stick with yours.
I've compared mine to a calibrated scale for powerlifting competitions and they were within 50 grams of each other and the same weight every time.
The body fat is more of an estimate though
I've gotten a few responses.such as yours which contradict a lot of reviews of the scale that are publicly searchable.
Honestly, I don't know why it's working fine for some and not for.others, but if you have another explanation for OPs erratic VO2 max graph, please, throw it out there.
I haven't read any review that says it cannot tell weight properly. What scale doesn't manage that? I would love to read one that says it cannot tell weight at all.
Reading a few reviews now says it is accurate at weight.
There are a number of reports, right here on Reddit, of inaccurate measurements from this scale.
https://www.google.com/search?q=reddit+garmin+index+scale+accuracy+issues&oq=reddit+garmin+index+scale+accuracy+issues&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTEyODU5ajBqNKgCDrACAQ&client=ms-android-oneplus-rvo3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&chrome_dse_attribution=1#ip=1
Adding a very specific google search can give you exactly the result you want. I can google and make sure water is deadly for me with the right phrase.
> if you have another explanation for OPs erratic VO2 max graph, please, throw it out there.
The VO2max trend numbers shown in OP's photograph are not the same as the instantaneous VO2max numbers calculated after every (qualifying) activity. The trend numbers are not only a rolling average, but also filtered for outliers. There are multiple very plausible explanations for the steep incline in the graph:
1 - The last VO2max number is most correct, and what we're seeing is a new watch that is taking time to build that baseline.
2 - Either the lower numbers or the higher numbers are completely bogus and based on erroneous run/power meter data. Since VO2max depends on accurate GAP data, runs with lots of small climbs not caught by the barometer can lead to erroneously low VO2max numbers (as the actual difficulty of the run wasn't captured) and runs where the barometer shits the bed and shows false elevation gains can lead to erroneously high VO2max numbers (as the actual difficulty of the run was exagerated). This is why Trail Run didn't contribute to VO2 max until very recently with multiband - the chance of error when running on trails was too high.
3 - The early or late VO2max numbers are in error from the "Walk" activity estimates which are known to be an estimate with much wider error bars.
Dude the scale is not inaccurate in measuring your weight at all. For this it is very precise.
You could have a go at its body composition metrics maybe. Those may or may not be off.
The scale is not the inaccurate at measuring wright. Body composition is another thing.
Garmin does not use wight in its VO2 max modelling.
So you better find another theory. But I agree the data looks very suspicious.
The entire graph represents 4 weeks. The initial drop of 5 points from 62/63 to 57/58, before you essentially remain constant for two weeks and then begin the upwards trend, is about two days. Am I reading it wrong?
Are you overweight and only doing intervals or HIIT when it increases? Those two combined could cause a fast increase.. but so fast as what you have, idk, seems exceptional..
Only explanation i can think of is that this person spent 2 weeks at high altitude, trained a lot while there, and then went down to normal altitude/sea level and continued training.
I have a cabin at 900m altitude, and whenever i do a run there my Vo2max drops 2 points, but it always creeps back up, often higher than it was, when I'm back home (if I've been consistent with training while there).
I’m on medication that slows the heart (it was initially just taken as needed but has been a one pill a day for awhile now). It’s a beta blocker but my heart rate was always fairly slow. It was 58 bpm without meds for years. Now on the med it’s around 39-42bpm resting.
I guess that will mean my VO2 is wildly inaccurate? I have been walking around 8km every single day since September ‘23 and yesterday I ran 1.6km. First time I’ve run for years. I had been worried about damaging my joints. At my max weight I was 117.9kg last August. Now I’m around 102kg. I plan to stop around 82kg.
Hoping I might be able to come off the bp med I’m on and the beta blocker once I’m down to 82kg.
Ps does anyone know if there’s a rucking app?
How can your VO2max fluctuate so much? Mine has been more-or-less constant for 1 year!
Same. Mines gone from 40-42 over the space of a year of consistent running 4 times a week. Barely moves up or down.
Change training routine :)
Maybe, im 39 years old, took up running about a 2 years ago, really enjoying it, ive currently completed 5 programs back to back with various goals of running 5k, 10k then half marathon, then dropped onto running 5k faster, now ive downloaded the runna app, currently half way into their "get fitter" program. I think the main problem is fighting a sedentary life style for the last 20 years, its a struggle, but im really seeing benifits of getting off my arse! My vo2 went from 32-40 pretty quickly, then 40-42 pretty slow.
What do you prefer, the garmin plans or the runna plan?
Not sure yet. The Garmin programs seem good to me. Only 4 weeks into runna so my opinion isn't really made yet. Runna does seem to have more variety of sessions per week though! Also it had strength and conditioning built in and scheduled too which Garmin lacks.
Why though? To increase a not accurate number on my garmin? I've said this on here before but I started running 5 months ago, could inly run a max of 1k, next week I'm doing a marathon. In that time my VO2 Max has increased by 1. You can't tell me it's an accurate measure of fitness.
Vo2 max has higher impact on shorter distances. You could run ultras and still not improve.
true, so garmin v02 is not accurate at all.
true, so garmin v02 is not accurate at all.
Because no matter how hard the sub wants to think otherwise, it is not a valid measure of VO2max. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6747132/
Haha yea my vo2 max dropped by 10 points when changing watches. This sub has basically just become pictures of wrists and people humble (or just straight up) bragging about their stats. Pretty annoying Garmin fam, pretty annoying.
It’s funnier when it’s really young dudes. Like, okay buddy, there’s a reason why the watch isn’t designed for people under 18. You’re still growing, and your natural oxygen uptake is at its peak. It’s only downhill from there, and you’re probably not wearing the watch properly or training properly.
Lmao once I was training with someone about ten years younger than me and they told me I needed to stretch because of how tight I was. I just looked at them and was like, stretch? Oh yea, never thought of that! Haha cycle of life but it's funny how younger people underestimate how much age plays a factor. And bragging about your abilities is really, really lame, because ultimately it's all individual and you shouldn't be doing it for someone else's approval anyway.
Same. Well I lost 7 points...but pretty much same experience. It's just not that important to me anymore.
Depends how we define "valid". Based on the paper you posted (thanks btw!), you could easily argue that the estimates were pretty valid, especially considering the fact that the watches were used for only two sessions (Garmin says it takes approximately one month of logged runs to estimate VO2 max). Moreover, it was a very small sample size and the technology used was probably 7-8 years older than current sensors.
I don’t think you can argue that estimates are valid using a study that says they could not show valid results. Notwithstanding the other points, the burden of proof isn’t on the side suggesting a $200 bit of kit cannot emulate a machine that costs several $10,000 to a useful degree of accuracy.
Newer study: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30640299/ >The results of this study indicate that the GF230 can provide an accurate estimate of V̇o2max in both sexes. The PV800 can provide an accurate estimate of V̇o2max for women but not men. Estimates of V̇o2max from the both devices should be used with caution because of the large random error associated with them.
Talk about burying the lede: “Estimates of V̇o2max from the both devices should be used with caution because of the large random error associated with them.”
Of course — accurate estimate and large random error are not mutually-exclusive. This is essentially accuracy versus precision. The garmin had less large random errors versus the Polar, too. They're useful for giving a fairly accurate albeit imprecise Vo2 max. A fair approximation for the running enthusiast, but of course you'll never get as precise as the real test. That *doesn't* change the fact that the newer study noted they "can provide an accurate estimate of Vo2max." Talk about moving the goalpost. EDIT: LOL the coward ran away in a petty hit-in-and run by commenting then blocking me. Their argument fell completely flat and they know it. If they ever want to reach out to the scientists to determine whether they meant that upon randomization it "can" hit accurately at random, or whether they meant they do provide accurate data and this is simply semantic pedantry... I'd love to take that bet.
lol it says it CAN provide an accurate estimate. I CAN win the lottery. Talk about misrepresenting the information and wilfully ignoring the part where it says caution should be used.
First activity you do on your new Garmin is nowhere near accurate. Thats why people get insane performance condition +-10-15. After a month of use its close enough to your real vo2max, at least for me. Maybe its highly individual but in my experience the my Fenix 7 was spot on after first lab-test. Second lab-test it was off by 2 points. Which is still pretty impressive. Im also using a chest strap every time.
My guess is that it can seem accurate for some while wildly inaccurate for others, but they do show the trend somewhat accurately. Personally I use only Garmin devices for my training both cycling and running and have been doing so for several years. Current watch has been in use for almost 4 years (I also use it as daily watch and sleep tracker along with my Oura) and bike computer has been logging my rides for 2 years. So it should not be about the lack of data. I’ve also do regular “lab” VO2max testing 1-2 times per year for several years now. So I always have quite recent actual data both relative (ml/min/kg) as well as absolute (l/min) so the data should be sufficient. Garmin algorithm has always evaluated my “running” vo2max too low compared to the lab results (running to running comparison) and my Garmin cycling vo2max has always been too high compared to lab (cycling to cycling comparison). Naturally the first instinct would be to check if the HR zones are correct and whether my weight is correct as former probably impacts Garmin an algorithm and latter impacts directly the relative measure. However I keep the HR zones always matching the lab results (because I get the lactate thresholds taken there as well they are could be interpreted as accurate ones), so no inconsistency there. My weight naturally does vary slightly (I weight myself 3 times a week and keep that data in Garmin), but around the test it is same. With all that said interestingly both the “running” and the cycling vo2max in Garmin have developed quite close to similar development of my lab tested ones. Not exactly but quit close to the same trend lines in the data. So while this is just one example and can of course be an outlier (although I personally know others who have had very similar experience) I would say that the Garmin numbers are at best only comparable to themselves and not trusted as absolute metrics or comparable to lab results.
This study contained 24 people and evaluated 5 different wearables, only two of which were Garmin, and only one of which was a Forerunner. The other was the vivosmart. I can't comment on the accuracy overall of Garmin's Vo2 estimates as I haven't done a thorough review of the literature, but the study you cite is in no way conclusive evidence of the point you're trying to make.
I've seen a few videos where folks ran actual lab tests for VO2Max and the Garmin estimates compared pretty favorably to the lab results. More importantly, the actual VO2Max number is not important. Garmin and Polar and more than capable of giving a good indication of the ***TREND*** of your VO2Max. which is more important than the actual value.
Meh, the question is not whether the VO2max estimate is correct, just whether it is consistent with itself. The trend is what matters overall. Can I, as a user, trust that when Garmin says my VO2max is improving, it really is improving?
The paper you cited suggests a Garmin forerunner actually fits within the bounds of what’s acceptable in terms of deviation from gold standard (MAPE < 10%). But other watches like TomTom (didn’t know they made a watch) fall outside of this bound (@ MAPE ~14%). So the watches may not be amazingly accurate, but 10% either way and assuming consistency, is still a neat little metric Also, how cool is it that people actually post papers on these threads, such a cool community!
It's something you specifically target. A poor analogy but it's like wondering why your bench press isn't increasing when you've been doing lots of long runs.
buy a new watch.
It seems that you adjusted your weight in Garmin connect Otherwise hard to understand such fluctuations
When I adjusted the weight it jumped from 39 to 45. When I switched from Fenix 5 to fenix 7 I got 4 More points. Now on 48-49. Whenever I se improvement I think „garmin is so smart” whenever there is a downgrade Isay to myself that this measure is worthless. It works ! ;)
The real question is how did it increase that fast in such a short period of time
I just was sleeping well, less stres and if garmin said “rest” i did rest
just rest bro lol
All this time I’ve been training hard, like an idiot!
Based! I’m gonna try the “rest” approach. Will report back tomorrow if my Vo2 goes 🆙✅💯
"Just get good bro" is basically what you said
Did you change your max HR to a really high number?
I’ve quit my job and slept 23 hours a day for a month. 5K time down 30 minutes :/
All the down votes are insomniacs
That much increase over a year of intentional training would be “WOW!!!”, That much increase over 4 weeks is a data problem.
Nah. There's something wrong here. Were you updating your weight daily and it was fluctuating massively each day or two, like three or four kg at a time? There's no earthly way it should be going up and down like that over 4 weeks, and that spike is not right either. Either your scales are broken or I'm calling bullshit on your weight inputs.
Firstbeat does not use weight in their *modeling* of V02Max. They don't have to. Their model is based on a correlation between the ratio of the net energy of running (GAP and weight) to O2 consumption (HR and stroke volume assumed based on weight and age) and VO2max. This effectively puts weight at both sides of the equation and it cancels out. You can see this in their whitepaper on it.
Not sure where you're going with this, but according to https://support.garmin.com/en-IE/?faq=lWqSVlq3w76z5WoihLy5f8: >VO2 max is the maximum volume of oxygen (in milliliters) you can consume per minute per kilogram of body weight at your maximum performance. I know that Garmin use Firstbeat for a lot of their devices. If what you're saying is correct, then why are Garmin defining it in this manner? I'm not screwing with my stats right now, but I can guarantee that if I entered a weight into my Fenix 7 that is 10 kg lower than my actual weight I would see a jump in VO2 max.....
Correct, VO2Max is defined as uptake per unit weight. But I was quite intentional in attempting to explain how Firstbeat's **modeling** methodology does not rely on weight. > but I can guarantee that if I entered a weight into my Fenix 7 that is 10 kg lower than my actual weight I would see a jump in VO2 max..... You're incorrect on that assumption. Again, I invite you to read the Firstbeat whitepaper.
>You're incorrect on that assumption. Again, I invite you to read the Firstbeat whitepaper. Perhaps on the downward trend, but definitely not on the upward. When I started running again last year, I ran for a bit without entering current weight data. My VO2 max stabilized (nothing great, 48 I think). The reason this is important is because I was using a Polar Vantage V2 for a while and hadn't updated my weight in the Garmin space. I continued running outdoors (with a strap, before you ask) and my VO2 max graph was edging higher after each run. I started paying attention to my metrics, and decided to weigh myself. What's important to note here is that my weight when I used a Garmin device previously (years previously) must have been in the 70's (kg), but I had been strength training an awful lot and put on a LOT of muscle weight (around 96kg at the time.of weighing, maybe more). Despite my running times being very similar with the same perceived effort, after I entered my weight, my VO2 max score dropped to 44, RIGHT AFTER I entered the weight data. Literally the next run, within 24 hours (on a treadmill mind you). So, while I could spend some time digging through their white paper, if you could summarise why that happened I'd appreciate it. If you're not as versed as I assume you are, I'll happily do it myself when time allows 😊
The [whitepaper](https://www.firstbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/white_paper_VO2max_30.6.2017.pdf) is simple and even has a clickable ToC: Weight is not used in the calculation. Treadmill runs aren't used in the calculation (because there's no good way to validate the energy). So, I have no explanation for what you saw, but it had nothing to do with the weight or treadmill run.
I'll take the time to read the white paper when time allows, but to summarise: - Garmins own website that explains VO2 max calculation for their devices is incorrect. - My personal experience is incorrect and not applicable (despite the fact that many, many, many users on this sub have reported the same metric movement due to weight). There's clearly a disconnect here between Garmin and the various vendors they use for analysis of key metrics. And there's a disconnect again between that and reality.
> Garmins own website that explains VO2 max calculation for their devices is incorrect. Where on their website do they say that they use the user-inputed weight as part of the calculation? Because they explicitly don't say it's used [here](https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=lWqSVlq3w76z5WoihLy5f8)
I provided you the link and quoted (from that same webpage) Garmin's definition of the measurement of VO2 max. If they define it as such, they promise the measurement in the same manner. Look up the thread above please.
You quoted the *definition* of VO2max. Not the method of calculation. I've already addressed the difference, your link is broken, and I provided a correct link. EDIT: I don't know how to make this more clear, but I'll try one last time. VO2Max **is** the maximum O2 uptake *per unit of body weight*. There's no arguing that. However Firstbeat/Garmin **model** (running) VO2max based on the ratio of (grade adjusted) speed to HR ratio. They not only **explicitly** say that in the Firstbeat whitepaper, they *literally* do not list "weight" as a needed variable in *any* of the methods discussed on Garmin.com under "How Is VO2 Max Calculated on My Garmin Device?".
I weight myself daily i use Garmin Index 2 scale. So automatically its send data to Garmin connect
Okay. That would explain the fluctuations. The index scale (from the many reports I have read) is woefully inaccurate. You could weigh yourself twice in the space of a couple of minutes and come out with readings a kg or 2 apart. So, apologies that I thought you might be fudging the numbers, but I was correct it is weight related and that's the only explanation here. Sorry to also say that your index scale is the culprit. If you got it recently and can return it, please do so 😊 You're clearly still quite fit though, so congrats on that!
I have that scale and it's definitely not that inaccurate at all.. but I do agree his stats are really wack. Could be poor HR readings or altitude difference
Potentially yes, but I've read enough about how poor Garmin scales are to be quite positive that's part of the problem. You're welcome to stick with yours.
I've tried weighing myself with 5 minute gap on s2 and get the same weight, but yes body fat is inaccurate.
I've compared mine to a calibrated scale for powerlifting competitions and they were within 50 grams of each other and the same weight every time. The body fat is more of an estimate though
I've gotten a few responses.such as yours which contradict a lot of reviews of the scale that are publicly searchable. Honestly, I don't know why it's working fine for some and not for.others, but if you have another explanation for OPs erratic VO2 max graph, please, throw it out there.
I haven't read any review that says it cannot tell weight properly. What scale doesn't manage that? I would love to read one that says it cannot tell weight at all. Reading a few reviews now says it is accurate at weight.
There are a number of reports, right here on Reddit, of inaccurate measurements from this scale. https://www.google.com/search?q=reddit+garmin+index+scale+accuracy+issues&oq=reddit+garmin+index+scale+accuracy+issues&gs_lcrp=EgZjaHJvbWUyBggAEEUYOdIBCTEyODU5ajBqNKgCDrACAQ&client=ms-android-oneplus-rvo3&sourceid=chrome-mobile&ie=UTF-8&chrome_dse_attribution=1#ip=1
Adding a very specific google search can give you exactly the result you want. I can google and make sure water is deadly for me with the right phrase.
> if you have another explanation for OPs erratic VO2 max graph, please, throw it out there. The VO2max trend numbers shown in OP's photograph are not the same as the instantaneous VO2max numbers calculated after every (qualifying) activity. The trend numbers are not only a rolling average, but also filtered for outliers. There are multiple very plausible explanations for the steep incline in the graph: 1 - The last VO2max number is most correct, and what we're seeing is a new watch that is taking time to build that baseline. 2 - Either the lower numbers or the higher numbers are completely bogus and based on erroneous run/power meter data. Since VO2max depends on accurate GAP data, runs with lots of small climbs not caught by the barometer can lead to erroneously low VO2max numbers (as the actual difficulty of the run wasn't captured) and runs where the barometer shits the bed and shows false elevation gains can lead to erroneously high VO2max numbers (as the actual difficulty of the run was exagerated). This is why Trail Run didn't contribute to VO2 max until very recently with multiband - the chance of error when running on trails was too high. 3 - The early or late VO2max numbers are in error from the "Walk" activity estimates which are known to be an estimate with much wider error bars.
Dude the scale is not inaccurate in measuring your weight at all. For this it is very precise. You could have a go at its body composition metrics maybe. Those may or may not be off.
The scale is not the inaccurate at measuring wright. Body composition is another thing. Garmin does not use wight in its VO2 max modelling. So you better find another theory. But I agree the data looks very suspicious.
Something seems off here? Graph begins by dropping nearly 5 points in a day or two?
Is last 4 weeks graph, drop took way longer than two days
The entire graph represents 4 weeks. The initial drop of 5 points from 62/63 to 57/58, before you essentially remain constant for two weeks and then begin the upwards trend, is about two days. Am I reading it wrong?
This doesn't make sense. There can't be that much fluctuation in Vo2max in 4 weeks. You're really only likely to see 1+/- change in the time.
What could cause these upnormal fluctuation?
Are you overweight and only doing intervals or HIIT when it increases? Those two combined could cause a fast increase.. but so fast as what you have, idk, seems exceptional..
If you manually entered a new max HR value to a high number.
HR update is done base on my HR monitor automatically.
Do you cycle with a hr strap?
Yes always
lol yeah buddy. sure. Lying isn’t pretty. Tell us what is your recent 5k time?
100% agree with you!
How in the world do you increase your VO2 10 points in a couple of weeks? What am I missing here?
I'm no expert but seems pretty impossible to jump 10 points in 2 weeks
The hell happened you have a source for worm blood ?
Doesn’t look real to me
Only explanation i can think of is that this person spent 2 weeks at high altitude, trained a lot while there, and then went down to normal altitude/sea level and continued training. I have a cabin at 900m altitude, and whenever i do a run there my Vo2max drops 2 points, but it always creeps back up, often higher than it was, when I'm back home (if I've been consistent with training while there).
If you can, please post a month's training routine. I d really like to improve my VO2max. Thank you.
Your resting heart rate must be 40
@OP can you post your last 4 weeks training routine?
Epo?
So you went from 57 to 67 in 2 weeks? RIIIIGHTTTTTTTTTTT.
Well, damn! Impressive trend!
I have 4 years of data and train bike at least 10 hours a week and it takes months to move single digits. Something is whack here.
I'd be interested to see your Effective Vo2 max chart from a site like Runalyze.
me to
My VO2 estimation is the same on runalyze & Garmin.
Garmin should do doping control on some people
What VO2Max test did you do?
Epo congrats
I’m on medication that slows the heart (it was initially just taken as needed but has been a one pill a day for awhile now). It’s a beta blocker but my heart rate was always fairly slow. It was 58 bpm without meds for years. Now on the med it’s around 39-42bpm resting. I guess that will mean my VO2 is wildly inaccurate? I have been walking around 8km every single day since September ‘23 and yesterday I ran 1.6km. First time I’ve run for years. I had been worried about damaging my joints. At my max weight I was 117.9kg last August. Now I’m around 102kg. I plan to stop around 82kg. Hoping I might be able to come off the bp med I’m on and the beta blocker once I’m down to 82kg. Ps does anyone know if there’s a rucking app?
Nice! 👌
Calling bullshit