Forums >General Running>Garmin's VO2 Max estimate
I have a questions regarding the VO2 Max that Garmin provides. Do anyone know what this is based off of?
While I don't really believe the numbers it provides for me and the race time predictions based on that VO2 max number, knowing that I'd need the required training and mileage for each race, I have a hard time believing my VO2 max is 46, and a 3:36:00 marathon and a 22:40 5K are equivalent performances.
not bad for mile 25
DO NOT QUESTION GARMIN. It's really good for my ego that it tells me I'm on a par with an excellent 20 year old.
I don't know anything about the garmin's vo2 max estimate but I believe those are relatively equivalent performances, maybe slightly off, as they are both very close to my PRs (3:37:22 and 22:21). I like plugging race times into Jack Daniels' VDOT calculator if I want an idea of equivalencies or whatever.
Yes, more seriously, Daniels puts me at 38 vs. Garmin's 46, and my PRs are also close to your times.
I have a hard time believing those calculators as well because for me a 22:50 5K and a 4:30 at Monkey were off the same training. Maybe I needed more mileage (but then I'd think that would have resulted in a faster 5K) or I should have tried a saner course for the marathon and see what that equated to.
Was your 5k running straight up a mountain? That would be the equivalent of Monkey. My one and only Monkey was 5:13. You need to stop running that stupid race!
MTA: And more mileage would surely help!
46 sounds low to me for those performances, but perhaps with faster times...VO2max changes more, ie, 22 vs 20 vo2 is much different than 30vs 28...
It's cool to know, perhaps lets you know you CAN get faster/better, or you've pretty much peaked... but it's just a number at the end of the day.
300m- 37 sec.
You can send your garmin stuff to https://runalyze.com/, which also gives vo2max estimates and a lot of other information. They also have explanations of how the estimates were determined and references to the formulas and such. The estimates assume your running efficiency, vo2max, etc generally match up and that you're working about as hard as you can (for whatever the distance is). If you're not too efficient, if you don't like the way it feels to run hard, if you're kind of lazy (raises hand), etc then the estimate is likely to be low. I find all the numbers and stuff interesting even while I realize that they are just numbers.
My cardiologist had me do a treadmill vo2max test as a stress test recently. My measured vo2max was just a little lower than garmin's estimate. I didn't find the testing protocol too enjoyable so I think I stopped early. I was at a 16% grade on the treadmill and my legs were burning like crazy... I think my garmin is pretty dang close and, should my cardiologist have me do another one of these tests again, I think the numbers will be closer since I plan not to wimp out again. The numbers from runalyze are closer to my tested vo2max...
You can send your garmin stuff to https://runalyze.com/, which also gives vo2max estimates and a lot of other information. They also have explanations of how the estimates were determined and references to the formulas and such. The estimates assume your running efficiency, vo2max, etc generally match up and that you're working about as hard as you can (for whatever the distance is). If you're not too efficient, if you don't like the way it feels to run hard, if you're kind of lazy (raises hand), etc then the estimate is likely to be low. I find all the numbers and stuff interesting even while I realize that they are just numbers. My cardiologist had me do a treadmill vo2max test as a stress test recently. My measured vo2max was just a little lower than garmin's estimate. I didn't find the testing protocol too enjoyable so I think I stopped early. I was at a 16% grade on the treadmill and my legs were burning like crazy... I think my garmin is pretty dang close and, should my cardiologist have me do another one of these tests again, I think the numbers will be closer since I plan not to wimp out again. The numbers from runalyze are closer to my tested vo2max...
This is interesting-is that part of the standard protocol to get vo2max or was that the goal of the test? I've never even thought to ask. I also do not like the testing-other things hurt a lot more than my cardiac output forcing me to stop, which doesn't allow me to mimic how my heart works in the real world. I believe I stop in the 160s because of the incline, but can get into the high 180s on a hard run. I'll find out again soon as I'm due this year for a repeat.
I don't know if there's a standard protocol, I bet there are a few. For this test they asked me what a comfortable pace was for me, to which I said 10 minute miles. Then they suggested the test be run at a bit slower pace so they set it to 12 minute miles (which is about my recovery pace, like heart rate in the low 120s). During this protocol you warm up at no incline for 5 minutes followed by increasing the grade by 2% every minute. The pace stays the same the whole time. I think it would have been better to use 10 minute miles so I wouldn't have ended up at such a steep grade. It's a theory anyway...
I also stopped in the 160s but that's more like the heart rate I get to for tempo runs. I had a similar result when doing a regular stress test (bruce protocol).
runktrun
It's VO2Max estimate may be close, but it can't account for efficiency and mechanics.
Right now, mine says I could run a 16:19 5k, and when I'm really fit, a 15:57 5k....
My aerobic engine might be able to sustain that, but my poor hammies cannot.
Not running for my health, but in spite of it.