Related
Options

Fitness Age

RDav
over 3 years ago

Was an independent Fitness Age widget (not the V02 max measurement) supposed to be on the Fenix 6 Pro after the recent update. Only had the watxh 10 days, wondering if I have missed toggling something.

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to Dr Phil

    I went from 37 under the old regime to 51.5 under the new scheme, with 49 being "achievable" by doing vigorous exercise 30 min/day for 3 days/wk.  It's clear from looking at the data set that the new scheme is NOT taking into account my exercise before the update (which was way more than being recommended). 

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to wxman123

    I think they could probably word it better. Even though it says that I've reached my achievable fitness age, it suggests that reducing my BMI to 22 would improve my fitness age by 2 years. Like Phil, I'm not doing that. I used to actually have a BMI of 22 a few years ago when I was solely focused on cycling. My resting heart was in the low 40s and my VO2 max was in the low 60s instead of the low 50s and upper 40s respectively where it is now. However, I'm more focused on being more well rounded with my fitness and have focused on resistance training so like Phil my body composition is actually quite similar to where I was at a BMI of 22. Just quite a bit more muscle mass. What's interesting is that since the Vigorous Activity and Resting Heart Rate is on target according to whatever metric they're using it doesn't give me any suggestions for improving my fitness age in those areas. Only BMI. So...Interesting but whatever.

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to Zange

    I have to disagree, but my disagreement is more with what Garmin is doing. The old Fitness Age metric was, I believe, accurate in terms of fitness, as it was based on VO2 max, which is easy to compare over age groups. At 46, mine was apparently comparable to an average 32 year old. The new Fitness Age should, I maintain, be called something like physiological age, as that would reflect the obvious incompatibility of a 66 year old being physiologically comparable to a 32 year old.

    It would have been best for Garmin to keep the older metric as a fitness age, since it was accurate as a measure of aerobic fitness, and the new one as a better overall indicator of one's physiological status.

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to Dr Phil

    Good points. Re VO2 max, I agree I'm unlikely to push it above 48 or, at best, 49 this year, even if I work out harder. It did hit 49 last summer before I crashed and separated my shoulder.

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to wxman123

    Interesting. Your 'achievable' is six years under your chrono age, while mine is 11 years under. I'm 66 YO, with fitness age of 55.5, and a possible .5 year reduction if I do more vigorous exercise.

  • 0 over 3 years ago

    Mine claimed this morning that I've reached an achievable fitness age of 46, I'm 56 and my previous fitness age was 20 so I lost 26 years over night and has nothing to improve on. Thanks a bunch! Smiley

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to ∞

    Same here: I'm 60 years old, until the day before yesterday my fitness age was 42 years, now it is 51.5 years. And I've already reached my possible age ...

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to NAVIEDIT

    Maybe this works more precisely / honestly now? Even if some don't like the result that much anymore…

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to Volker

    Couldn't care less about these metrics, to be honest. Any numbers derived from wrist based heart rate readings, are flawed for me.