VO2 Max and FTP comparisons

I submitted this as an improvement to a Garmin Tech the other day he said that he has submitted it as well, it makes sense that my 935 and fenix 5x should true-up all the data not just steps, but maybe I am missing something.

I think that the reason they don't has something to do with the Firstbeat licensing. My understanding is that the tech is licensed per device and they don't want stats derived from one device being supported on another that doesn't have that feature.

Like very early releases of the 235 had something it wasn't supposed to have (cycling VO2Max I think) but it was promptly removed with the first firmware update. I don't even get the LTHR from my F3 on GC, but I don't know if that's because how glitchy GC is or because I also have a 235 linked to that account.

it makes sense that my 935 and fenix 5x should true-up all the data not just steps, but maybe I am missing something.

One ought to remember – irrespective of whether you feel is acceptable, given the potential of current technology and/or the product pricing – that the Garmin wearable devices themselves are not fully-featured clients (or user interfaces) of the Garmin Connect service “in the cloud” for “anywhere, from any device or multiple devices” access to GC's representation of the user's current state and activity history. I don't think the watches are marketed as such by Garmin, either.

Some product users have formed expectations based on their (AMOLED-equipped, charging-required-every-day) mobile handsets about the display panels on Garmin watches, or on iOS and Android about the flexibility and capabilities of Connect‑IQ as an app development platform, or on Apple Health and Google Health about the interoperability of devices connected to Garmin Connect. I'm afraid it's up to them to recalibrate and compartmentalise, and not for Garmin to step up (no pun intended) and drive homogeneity across the consumer IT landscape.

But isn't it kinda crazy that we consider tweaking our MaxHR, zones etc. so that we can feel that our estimated VO2max values are more realistic?

It's only an estimate, in the same way energy expenditure tracking on any consumer fitness device is an estimate based on a bunch of parameters fed into a formula or algorithm. No, it isn't crazy that estimates don't work as well for everyone, and that there are margins of error that are orders of magnitude wider than for lab tests that measure VO[sub]2[/sub]'max and kilojoules burnt.

We are talking about a $500+tax brand new watch which main claim for existence is that it can estimate, record and update our fitness metrics.

It does exactly that.

Frankly, a $10,000 watch does not promise to tell the time more accurately, or with more technical/operational transparency, than a $1,000 watch or even a $100 watch.

I understand that no algo is ever perfect but I do strongly believe that Garmin/FirstBeat needs to provide more clarity for their estimation methods so that we know what to expect.

OK, I'll bite. Why would Garmin and Firstbeat need to do so? What are the legal and commercial impacts if they don't?

If someone can prove that the estimation method they employ is inaccurate for the vast majority of users, and publicise that ‘fact’, then it may put pressure on the companies to defend its validity and accuracy. (Your and my relationship is with Garmin, not Firstbeat, so I'll focus on that.) What Garmin does not need to do is offer users more:

• technical transparency, as in how things work internally, e.g. articulation of formulae used, hardware teardowns
  
• fine-grained user customisability, e.g. how often HR readings are taken, how long the backlight remains on under different circumstances
  
• openness and interoperability as a platform or ecosystem
  

even if some consumers (especially those who see themselves as IT-savvy and/or serious data geeks) have formed expectations based on relative pricing of their products in the market.

You don't need a new account and if you create one you will be missing all your historical data. If you are worried about old watches (and you shouldn't be) then just go to the devices page on Garmin Connect and delete them. Also delete them from Garmin Express and GC Mobile. Finally you can even deleted then from Bluetooth on your mobile to erase all trace of them

A few months ago, Garmin introduced a bug on the 735xt that calculated "crazy" LT-pace values (like 2:30min/mile pace). As a result, all the LT-Pace plot ranges have been auto-calculated to be something like 2:30min/mile - 15min/mile and there is no way for the user to fix that. Some changes like that are immutable (and god knows what else in the backend not visible to the user) that I simply have no trust that Garmin will fix.

I personally I care more to have a clean slate and attempt to collect the best data and adaptation using my brand new 935 and care less about my historical data. Some of my past data is also on Movescount but my main data "sink" is Strava and Runalyze. GC and GCM suck in my opinion.

Well given one of the outputs from a real VO2 Max test is your max HR (my highest ever HR was in one) logical that any algorithm needs to know what your max HR actually is especially when it is trying to work out a maximal parameter from sub maximal efforts.

Anyway if you don't enter your max HR correctly then training by HR makes little sense as you won't really know what effort level you are doing.

Auto setting of HR max on the watch is quite simple. If the watch sees a higher HR than the max in there at the moment, then it updates the max to that. That's OK if your default max HR is "low" but obviously not the other way. For instance my default would be 170 (220-Age) but I can't get to 170 any more so I need to manually alter mine downwards.

> I understand that no algo is ever perfect but I do strongly believe that Garmin/FirstBeat needs to provide more clarity for their estimation methods so that we know what to expect.

The firstbeat website has quite a few "white papers" should you care to read them and indeed try and understand them. I have to admit it is not that easy reading.

Simplistically the race predictions provide an indication of whether the computed VO2 Max values are in the ballpark.

I've found that my VO2 max get's ridiculously high when I use GPS only for pace. When I use a footpod it comes down to more realistic levels. I also think Garmin uses HRV from a chest strap to determine some of these values (including performance score)

I personally don't use Max HR to calculate HR zones. I generally get my highest HRs when I'm out of shape and overweight, but as I get into better shape, my aerobic fitness quickly outpaces my muscular fitness and have trouble hitting those higher HRs. The whole point of HR zones is to establish guidelines for how your body processes fuel. LTHR is a much better way to establish this. Other then getting a blood draw Lactate Threshold HR test (which isn't very fun), getting a muscle oxygen sensor would be the next best way to determine how you burn fuel at specific heart rates.

As to the original post. The FTP charts are incongruent and also should have age based ranges. Even if I was 20yrs old (don't I wish), my bike VO2 max is currently 54, 'superior' and my FTP is 3.8 watts/kg 'good'. Reality lies somewhere closer to good.

Sounds like 46 or 47 with and without chest HR suggests no significant statistical difference and that's without really delving into how you were doing in those runs.

There mightn't be a significant statistical difference, but I know just how difficult to get the VO[sub]2[/sub]max figure to increase by even one! It took me seven weeks since changing watches – and shaving my 5K personal record by two minutes – to hit 48 for the first time on the FR630. :(

Simplistically the race predictions provide an indication of whether the computed VO2 Max values are in the ballpark.

Upon getting the new 5K PR of 25′18″ – which was quite a hard effort for me, even though I wasn't a total wreck afterwards – and a new VO[sub]2[/sub]max of 48, the Race Predictor indicated that my 5K time to be something like 21′47″. Not a chance!

I generally get my highest HRs when I'm out of shape and overweight, but as I get into better shape, my aerobic fitness quickly outpaces my muscular fitness and have trouble hitting those higher HRs.

Same here. I don't think my heart's capacity for hitting heart rates in the high 180s have somehow evaporated in six months, when I only got fitter and faster, but these days 181 and 182 is as high as I would see in my activity records (partly because I'm not killing myself any more). Should I set my Max HR in the user profile to 182 or leave it at 186?

I actually experimented yesterday with lowering my Max HR setting to 182, and did an easier 5K. The FR630 reported a VO[sub]2[/sub]max of 46 (when the same type of effort in the past three weeks routinely got 47), and the Race Predictor now tells me my 5K time would be 22′40″. Nope, still no chance in hell of doing that; my legs just won't carry me that fast. After I got 25′18″ the other day, my legs were taking turns cramping painfully hours later!

Not that I reasonably expect Garmin and/or Firstbeat to somehow be able to divine just how good or bad my legs and knees are…

Well not really, it's hard for the watch to know what your level of fitness is when it gets started, have you been slacking for 6 weeks or are you tapering for a marathon ? I don't think it's too much to ask to set your "current" MaxHR. Actually there's a setting where you let it set your MaxHR I think. I haven't tried it as I had good data to work with so I'm not sure what it does. Does it just use the MaxHR level it records, or does it do some extra math ?

WEBVAN the watch "not knowing you initially" is not the problem. The problem is that after the watch "has figured it out", people continue to tweak the MaxHR so that the actual estimates are better. That's a problem for me.

The firstbeat website has quite a few "white papers" should you care to read them and indeed try and understand them. I have to admit it is not that easy reading.

Simplistically the race predictions provide an indication of whether the computed VO2 Max values are in the ballpark.

TIMGROSE are you referring to this list:
https://www.firstbeat.com/en/science-and-physiology/white-papers-and-publications/

I don't find the papers particularly difficult to read. My problem is that I have no clue which algorithms made it (and under what assumptions) on the 935. I totally understand that this is FirstBeat's proprietary IP / secret sauce if you wish but at the same time there must be a better way to explain the gross deviations I experience.

As I mentioned before, my MaxHR and RHR are accurate within the past 3 months but somehow my 735xt thinks I can run a 2:36 marathon. This is laughably away from my PR of 2:58 (in good race conditions). I wish there was a better explanation than "you have to artificially adjust your MaxHR down".