VO2max And Calories Burned

Actual test...

If possible and you want to know the true number then take the test if you can. I did it in Dec 2016 and got a number of 44.9. My 735xt had me at 42, Polar Beat app had me at 42 and all of the sites had me lower as well I also was able to get my max heart rate 165. But those numbers weren't that far off. I'm 63 years old, 5'11" weighing 166lbs, pretty much the same as I weighed when I took the VO2 max test. Right before I took the VO2 we did a body composition using a Bod Pod and I came in at 18% body fat. I'm currently using a Skulpt body scanner now that has me between 10-12%. I also incorporate a number of strength days as part of my daily training. In 2014 I was just at 250lbs. I've been running for just over a year and spent almost all of last year just building base and getting used to running. I was running pretty much high 12 min/mi last year and now I'm running low-mid 10 min/mi and working on getting faster. Last year I was running 50-60 miles a week. I guess some would say at a 12 min/mi pace no wonder. I've cut the mileage back to 25-35 miles a week now. So running at the pace I run now in zone 2 (based on Karvonen formula)at my current speed of low 10 min/mi which is the zone I ran in last year. So I agree with what you say about speed increasing with same heart rate (I'm still learning how to run fast though and practice doing it, but also use slower speeds for recovery days). Good luck and keep working on it, but not too much. I had a couple of over use injury's last year and trying to train a little smarter.

Wrong Calories indication on Edge Explorer 1000

SO during my Ski holidays i did the test between the Edge explorer 1000 Polar Beat and my old Polar RS800CX.
On the same exercise with 2 Heartbeat sensors(one with ANT+ and Bluetooth and one for the Polar RS800CX) a get the same calories on the RS800CX and polar Beat APP but 30 to 35 % less calories for the Garmin Edge. Deffenetly on the same HR range for all 3 and the same VO2max (42) tested in Lab conditions.
The calories on Garmin EDGE Expolrer 1000 is not correct. For me Garmin has a big problem in Calorie calculation.

I have no idea what basis you are using to say the Edge 1000 calculation is not correct. Just because it is lower and you don't like That?

For the past 4 weeks I have been cutting weight for race season and using Garmin calculated calories in MyFitnessPal and based on overall calorie deficit I am losing almost exactly planned weight per week.

If possible and you want to know the true number then take the test if you can. I did it in Dec 2016 and got a number of 44.9. My 735xt had me at 42, Polar Beat app had me at 42 and all of the sites had me lower as well I also was able to get my max heart rate 165. But those numbers weren't that far off. I'm 63 years old, 5'11" weighing 166lbs, pretty much the same as I weighed when I took the VO2 max test. Right before I took the VO2 we did a body composition using a Bod Pod and I came in at 18% body fat. I'm currently using a Skulpt body scanner now that has me between 10-12%. I also incorporate a number of strength days as part of my daily training. In 2014 I was just at 250lbs. I've been running for just over a year and spent almost all of last year just building base and getting used to running. I was running pretty much high 12 min/mi last year and now I'm running low-mid 10 min/mi and working on getting faster. Last year I was running 50-60 miles a week. I guess some would say at a 12 min/mi pace no wonder. I've cut the mileage back to 25-35 miles a week now. So running at the pace I run now in zone 2 (based on Karvonen formula)at my current speed of low 10 min/mi which is the zone I ran in last year. So I agree with what you say about speed increasing with same heart rate (I'm still learning how to run fast though and practice doing it, but also use slower speeds for recovery days). Good luck and keep working on it, but not too much. I had a couple of over use injury's last year and trying to train a little smarter.

At the risk of going a bit off-topic (and with apologies to the OP)....

How are you finding your Skulpt? I rarely use mine any more as I was finding I got totally different results every time I used it - I could even take consecutive measurements within a couple of minutes and get two completely dissimilar results.

As I can see you're happy to do 'proper' testing for things like VO2max and BF%, have you thought of properly establishing your HRmax rather than just using Karvonen, or using LTHR to establish your zones? I'm 48 and Karvonen will assume my HRmax is 172bpm; it's actually 200 and my LTHR is 178. If I trained based on Karvonen-derived zones I'd actually be training in lower zones than what I thought I was. Of course some will say just go by how you feel, but I've found that how much effort I think I'm putting into an activity doesn't always correspond to how much effort my body is actually putting into it.

I have no idea what basis you are using to say the Edge 1000 calculation is not correct. Just because it is lower and you don't like That?

For the past 4 weeks I have been cutting weight for race season and using Garmin calculated calories in MyFitnessPal and based on overall calorie deficit I am losing almost exactly planned weight per week.

Because if you test 3 different Engine and only one hase a result differance of 30% this one is the faulty one.

At the risk of going a bit off-topic (and with apologies to the OP)....

How are you finding your Skulpt? I rarely use mine any more as I was finding I got totally different results every time I used it - I could even take consecutive measurements within a couple of minutes and get two completely dissimilar results.

As I can see you're happy to do 'proper' testing for things like VO2max and BF%, have you thought of properly establishing your HRmax rather than just using Karvonen, or using LTHR to establish your zones? I'm 48 and Karvonen will assume my HRmax is 172bpm; it's actually 200 and my LTHR is 178. If I trained based on Karvonen-derived zones I'd actually be training in lower zones than what I thought I was. Of course some will say just go by how you feel, but I've found that how much effort I think I'm putting into an activity doesn't always correspond to how much effort my body is actually putting into it.

This is a good point. I had a stress test done recently and my MHR came out to 163. I'm 59 so its within a couple beats of the 220 - age formula.

I do think it is very important to know you MHR if you want to do effective heart rate training.

I don't plan on getting my VO2max tested. As long as I am training the right way, that will improve with time.

At the risk of going a bit off-topic (and with apologies to the OP)....

How are you finding your Skulpt? I rarely use mine any more as I was finding I got totally different results every time I used it - I could even take consecutive measurements within a couple of minutes and get two completely dissimilar results.

As I can see you're happy to do 'proper' testing for things like VO2max and BF%, have you thought of properly establishing your HRmax rather than just using Karvonen, or using LTHR to establish your zones? I'm 48 and Karvonen will assume my HRmax is 172bpm; it's actually 200 and my LTHR is 178. If I trained based on Karvonen-derived zones I'd actually be training in lower zones than what I thought I was. Of course some will say just go by how you feel, but I've found that how much effort I think I'm putting into an activity doesn't always correspond to how much effort my body is actually putting into it.

I have not used my Skulpt in a long time either, going to pull this out again now and see how it reads as they have done a few updates since the last time I used it.

My VO2 max...

At the risk of going a bit off-topic (and with apologies to the OP)....

How are you finding your Skulpt? I rarely use mine any more as I was finding I got totally different results every time I used it - I could even take consecutive measurements within a couple of minutes and get two completely dissimilar results.

As I can see you're happy to do 'proper' testing for things like VO2max and BF%, have you thought of properly establishing your HRmax rather than just using Karvonen, or using LTHR to establish your zones? I'm 48 and Karvonen will assume my HRmax is 172bpm; it's actually 200 and my LTHR is 178. If I trained based on Karvonen-derived zones I'd actually be training in lower zones than what I thought I was. Of course some will say just go by how you feel, but I've found that how much effort I think I'm putting into an activity doesn't always correspond to how much effort my body is actually putting into it.

Sorry for the delay. My max heart rate was established when I did the VO2 max and it's 165 which was pretty close to what I was estimating. Kavonen doesn't assume max heart rate with the apps/sites I use. You plug your known max heart and resting rate into the formula and the percentages are derived from that information. I was working out pretty close to the zones even if I based my percentages just on max heart alone. Yeah you can go by just how you feel but some days I feel better than others and also heart rates will vary based on a number of things. As for my VO2 max from what I understand and based on what I've read VO2 max tells me what my potential is, not necessarily how fast I can run, kind of like Audi 4 liter 8 cylinder engines, they have a lot of potential and produce different horse power in different applications, hence S vs RS. Not sure if this is a good analogy.

As for the Skulpt I'm not using the Aim but the latest one and it's been pretty consistent.

Because if you test 3 different Engine and only one hase a result differance of 30% this one is the faulty one.

That is false logic. All that testing does is prove agreement of 2 of the tested methodologies and has nothing to do with accuracy of any of the methods. Agreement and accuracy have nothing to do with each other.