This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

VO2Max in Trail Running

(Note - I could've sworn we had a big discussion on the "coming" Vo2max in the Trail Running profile, but I can't find the thread now.  Maybe it was deleted?)

Anyway, there was much discussion in that thread about the "how" this would be done.  Well in DCRainmakers review of the coming Enduro watch, he has a long segment from FirstBeat's "HermanB" covering just that.  Thought those that participated in that phantom thread might be interested.  Here's the link and the segment quoted:

https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2021/02/garmin-enduro-gps-watch-in-depth-review.html

'At the most basic level, the analysis used to calculate VO2max compares how fast you are running compared to how hard your body works to maintain that pace. Given that we are using heart rate as the key input to determine your effort, it’s important to understand that there are times when your current HR accurately reflects your current speed and there are times when it does not.

 

So, there has always been a lot of filtering and prioritizing happening in the background to sort out things like uphill/downhill, stops/starts, intervals and naturally occurring changes in intensity, etc… all in pursuit of identifying when relationship between and internal and external workloads reflects your fitness level (VO2max) and when it doesn’t. For all the obvious reasons, trail running adds a substantial layer of complexity to this problem. Changes in elevation have been incorporated into the analysis for many years now and that remains the case for trail running-based VO2max – but only to the degree to which it has been previously used.

 

The new element in the mix here is how accelerometer data is being used.  We are basically looking for and identifying patterns in how you are running to recognize when more energy than normal is being used to keep pace. In other words, it’s about attributing the fact that your body is working harder due to the ruggedness and changes of the trail instead of simply assuming you’re working harder than normal because of inadequate recovery or a drop in fitness. Without taking this perspective into account, your VO2 max would almost always be underestimated during trail runs. Getting a VO2max estimate from your trail runs is kind of neat but I think the ultimate value here is probably that it also means you are getting more data fed into things like Training Status. Perhaps it’s worth noting that there isn’t a separate “trail running VO2max analysis.” The developments that make estimating VO2 max during trail runs possible are baked into the normal VO2 max calculation, making the whole shebang more robust.

 

From a user perspective, there is a setting that still allows a user to disable Trail Run VO2max calculations in the Trail Run profile.  A big benefit of the Trail Run profile in the past is that users could effectively use it to “screen out” trail runs so they wouldn’t affect their VO2max, Training Status, etc.  If users still want to exercise caution with VO2max on trail runs (especially, say, if they are wearing a pack), they can use this setting to still “disqualify” a run from generating a VO2max so it doesn’t mess with their other features.”

  • My guess is that after 955 is released 945 will get some of the features, like the in-device sleep and trail running vo2max.

    They are just now busy to getting the other new features which we don't even know yet to somewhat working for 955 release.

  • you have a good point there. Let's hope you're right.

  • I think too much time has passed since the feature has been in beta for the 6. Something fishy is happening.... We had climb pro descents in fenix 6 timeframe. But this one is getting behind.... 

    I really hope it will come because I do lots of trail and 945 is a great watch and desearves the feature. But as weeks pass and Garmin doesn't release it, my disbelief increases.

  • We don't even know if a 955 exists. And so much time between a feature in a 6 and a feature in a 945 is not usual. They were almost in sync, or the feature never came.

  • We don't. But if you are saying 945 is abandoned then why would it be abandoned without new model coming? I think that the 955 is good explanation and I think it's more realistic than "we are killing whole forerunner series", which would be another explanation. Or how do you explain why would Garmin abandon 945?

  • By abandoned I mean stop releasing new features, that need investment development teams money etc. 

    Because up till now everything possible has been offered for the 945. And there must be a day when... no more. It's artificial, but they have to develop the need for upgrade.

    Every brand does that. And most times, even if it's possible to maintain several products updated the cost becomes to high. So you abandon the update cycle for these products. 

    I don't blame Garmin if this is the case. They have showed great effort offering several major updates for the 945. 

    But of course I want VO2max for trail. But it is taking too long. And that's odd

  • Because up till now everything possible has been offered for the 945.

    That isn't true, where's eg. power modes?

    So you think that they just stopped 945 and reason is that they stop development, but nothing new is coming to replace it. So you believe they are killing forerunner series to save development costs?

    I highly doubt that.

    Yes, manufactures stop supporting old ones, or releasing new features to them, but how often this happens without newer model to replace the old one? 

    And it's been under 3 months from last beta. This really isn't nothing new, beta 4.41 to beta 4.87 had almost 4 months. 

    My suggestion would be, just relax and wait. We are smarter in month or two. Are we getting new model, new beta or nothing.

  • So, apparently they no longer have plans to do so.

    I had product support reply back to one of my emails that that said WHR for swimming wasn't coming to the 945 two days AFTER we received it in an update.  

  • We had 4 months between betas but no feature hanging between 6 and 945, almost sure.

    Power modes imply some extra hardware that isn't available in the 945, I recall Blake said something like that. I forgot power modes already., It won't come ever

    That could be the last major feature we'll get if we'll get it...

  • Hope I'm wrong! I much prefer vo2max to be right.