Sorry Garmin

Andy W said:

But that is true for any device that estimates v02max .

neither the Number or conclusion is via firstbeat or Garmin but both are well known metrics that meanings are generally agreed upon .

Apple devices will come to the same number and hence same conclusion so not sure what your gaining .? 

Same number yes. But Garmin rates lower for the same number. It rates me at poor to fair at say 30, where the apple watch rates that same number as above average. When I google that number for my age, it says above average, except for devices that use first beat of course.

For example... 3 or 4 years ago I did a 12 week half marathon training program. I was doing 4 runs per week. 1 short, 2 medium, and 1 long run. On the other 3 days, I was doing a 4 mile walk. But because I am not a fast runner, my VO2 max declined during those 12 weeks. It was just frustrating having my fenix barking at me the whole time, calling me a sissy, and telling me I am not good enough because I can't run at a fast enough pace. My final run I did 13.57 miles, and it took me 3 hours and 28 minutes, but I ran the entire time.

I have come to terms with the fact that I am never going to be an elite athlete. I'm 65 now, and just want to maintain my health and wellness. My AW is making me feel good about it, where my Garmin is making me feel "NOT" good about it.

My AW is making me feel good about it, where my Garmin is making me feel "NOT" good about it.

That's exactly what I was telling before: they carefully and intentionally engineered their marketing labels for VO2max value ranges so that users could feel and say this (same numbers, different labels). They undoubtedly know their stuff about marketing.

Dude, congrats for putting in effort and trying to stay healthy! However, you need to accept the fact that half for 3:30 hours is simply slow. This is exactly 6 km/h. Relaxed walking is 4 km/h.

2 years ago i started out and my vo2max Was 34 now its 54... If i can do it you can do it aswell. I dont know how you train, but start look at that first. I am a runner and i run 3-4 times a week; all quality sessions with 2 days of HIIT/intervals 1-2 days of long runs.

agrarina said:

Dude, congrats for putting in effort and trying to stay healthy! However, you need to accept the fact that half for 3:30 hours is simply slow. This is exactly 6 km/h. Relaxed walking is 4 km/h.

I know it's slow It's a 15:56 minute mile pace. But that does not mean my fitness level is not above average. Garmin was telling me my fitness level was poor. If I was wearing a fitbit or an apple watch, or some other device that does not use first beat, then it would be telling me that my fitness level was above average. It's like I am not getting any credit at all for running for almost three and a half hours non stop, because I run at a slow pace.

I'm not blaming Garmin. If they want to gear their devices for more elite athletes, that is their decision. I just want to get my 30 minutes to an hour of exercise every day, and not have to feel like I'm not doing enough.

Actually that's exactly what it means , a 65 year old with a vo2max of 36 is in the middle 50% of all 65 year olds the very definition of average to be in the top 20% you'd need a v02max of 37+.

 It doesn't matter what you label them the scales are based on 'normal people' you can move the scales and increase the zones at 5 zones you would be in zone4 which we can label good or brilliant but the truth would be for 5 zones 36 is just above average which makes sense if you think the bottom 40% couldn't complete a half marathon at any speed. But of that 60% that can the vast majority would be under 2:30.

i think the problem here is that garmin takes great pains to ensure accurate vo2 calculations based on VERY specific measurable variables. that's why they require a power meter for cycling vo2 max for example. check out their other requirements, it's pretty wild stuff:

https://support.garmin.com/en-US/?faq=lWqSVlq3w76z5WoihLy5f8

now you may not agree with the resulting data for whatever reason, but i can tell you having actually had a vo2 max test in the past and having that number match exactly to what garmin told me it was, i've been a believer for a while now. YMMV and who knows if they've somehow managed to screw up the algorithms over the past few years (had my test in 2007)

apple just seems to take a wild guess based on your age and weight. by comparison it's pretty laughable:

https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT211856

can it be accurate? sure, i suppose, but i'd take garmin data any day of the week. again, YMMV

apple watch is a fantastic smartwatch. the best there is actually. but as a fitness device for anything other than basic stuff it's terrible. that's right i said it. no navigation, no ant+, no external device support whatsoever outside of hrm (no power meter, no foot pod, no cadence, no external temp), 1 day+ battery, cumbersome controls, missing majority of sports i do, relying 100% on paid / subscription apps to fill gaps, on and on). it may be perfect for you, and i hope it is, but for me it's not even in the realm of consideration. now, i do hope it spurs garmin to improve, which i think it will. we don't need separate diving watches or other niche devices based no nothing but color and software. when ppl complain that their battery life went from 20 days down to 10 with the latest update i hope they take it seriously. and they really need to work on the sleep tracking algorithms.

having said all that, i'm still wanting to know what you were expecting by posting this in a garmin fenix 7 support forum...

yep. also if only off-road enthusiasts bought jeep wranglers they'd go bankrupt again. some people just want overbuilt, best in class products

In closing I'll just leave this here. A 3% to 5% variance to never have to go through the utter BS of an actual vo2 max test again in this lifetime is a deal I'll make 1000% of the time. 

https://youtu.be/u-5UOPwCWHk