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 for non-runners

Former Member over 6 years ago

Can the VO2Max value be accurate for non-runners? I work out pretty much everyday, but i don't run. However, I've learned that the VO2Max value is calculated only during running or walking, and that running tends to be more accurate. (And I understand all the disclaimers about "Accuracy")

So what I am thinking of doing is running a 12-Minute cooper test once or twice per week to get the VO2Max value. How accurate (relative to itself of course) would this be for tracking fitness level?

I have the Forerunner 645 music and have had it for just over a week. On the first day I got it, I went for a walk just to try it out. I walked a little more than a mile, and it gave me a VO2Max score. Today, I did a 12-minute run for the sake of getting the VO2Max, and it gave me the same score as the walk a week ago. So is walking as "accurate" as running for this purpose? The thinking is i could go for 20-30 minute walks more often if that helps with tracking and accuracy.

Thanks
-M

0 chtay1 over 6 years ago

I think you'll need a number of activities (more than 2) before you'll start to get a reasonable VO2 max estimate. It simply may not have changed yet due to not enough data. Having said that I can't answer your real question about is walking going to give you a decent VO2 max reading. My gut says no though. By definition of what VO2 max is attempting to estimate I'd suggest that exercising closer to your hardest effort would allow a more accurate estimate but as I said I'm no expert at all.

0 Former Member over 6 years ago

Thanks for your response. I tend to agree with you, especially since the White Paper from the Cooper Institute says that walking has limitations and running can be "quite accurate". But I was curious about other people's experiences. Obviously i'm looking for consistency and a relative indicator... I'm not going to go argue with a Dr about it because "my watch said so".

I guess i wonder if going for a 12 minute "cooper test" style run once per week is enough to give it the data it needs to make reasonable estimates over the long term. But i hate running. Too much more than that, and I won't stick with it...

Anyway - thanks!
-M

0 BradVincent over 6 years ago

It is reasonably accurate (or at least consistent) if you run at least 2 miles twice in the same week. You don't need to do this every week, you can just do it one week to see where you are at.

A few things to watch out for:
1) Run on fast terrain. Supposedly it compensates for hills, but definitely not for mud, ice, obstacles or traffic. Trail running gives a low estimate of VO2Max.
2) Make sure you are well rested. The watch does not seem to compensate for fatigue, except maybe fatigue from running while wearing the watch. Doing a set of heavy barbell squats before your run will give you a low VO2Max.
3) It is not necessary to push yourself to your limit. The watch seems to come up with the same VO2 max if I am doing relaxing 10 minute miles at 130bpm or 6 minute mile speed work at 200bpm.

You could also train for, and run, a 5k road race as times correlate with VO2 max probably more accurate than using the watch. But I doubt your time would correlate if you just did a 5k without any training.

0 Former Member over 6 years ago

Obviously this will vary between people, but if I wear a HRM run strap instead of relying on the optical HR I get a higher VO2Max and a fast tempo or just below 5K race pace gets me higher readings, long and slow gives me lower readings. There does seem to be an inverse relationship between T.E. higher than 3.5 and VO2Max. When I used Firstbeat Athlete which would estimate VO2Max from something else I got my highest readings in 1 Mile races.