Related
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

VO2 Max and FTP comparisons

timgrose
over 8 years ago
Perusing the manual http://static.garmin.com/pumac/Forerunner935_OM_EN.pdf
then the VO2 Max and FTP tables are interesting.

On Zwift you are in the top category over 4 W/kg. Here that is only good enough for Excellent and Superior starts at 5.05 W/kg which I view as very "Superior"! Not many Zwift racers can manage that...

On the other hand for VO2 Max "Excellent" is only 51.1 and even Superior is still a relatively modest 55.4

My last FTP test put me a shade over 4 W/kg (293W, 71 kg) and yet my VO2 Max on the 935 for cycling is 59 and running is 60. VO2 Max values from the Firstbeat algorithms tend to be a little flattering but I am certainly well over 55 on race predictions for sure.

So perhaps a bit of a conflict here between these two tables? Either that or I need to be pushing out a good 50 more watts!!!
  • 0 over 8 years ago
    Heh… my FR630 tells me my VO[sub]2[/sub]max is close to 48, but given my one-mile and 5K personal records, the calculator tells me my VDOT is 38±0.2.


    What times are you getting with the Race Predictor for that 48 VO2Max ? Previously I pointed out that Garmin's VO2Max/56 ~ VDOT/54.7.
  • 0 over 8 years ago
    What times are you getting with the Race Predictor for that 48 VO2Max ? Previously I pointed out that Garmin's VO2Max/56 ~ VDOT/54.7.


    We tried to compile a chart on these when the 620 came out. I don't think anything has changed.

    https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?91743-What-are-your-FR620-VO2-max-estimates-race-prediction-times
  • 0 over 8 years ago
    What times are you getting with the Race Predictor for that 48 VO2Max ?


    I only remember the projected 5K time, which was something like 21'47". I don't think my legs and knees will carry me for 10km if I jogged, so I didn't pay any attention to the rest of the nonsense.

    We tried to compile a chart on these when the 620 came out. I don't think anything has changed.


    The projected times look right for VO[sub]2[/sub]max of 46 (i.e. what I got yesterday, having adjusted my maximum heart rate downwards) and 48 on the FR630.
  • 0 over 8 years ago
    We tried to compile a chart on these when the 620 came out. I don't think anything has changed.

    https://forums.garmin.com/showthread.php?91743-What-are-your-FR620-VO2-max-estimates-race-prediction-times


    Thanks, wasn't aware of that chart. It's strange for 60 and above Garmin VO2Max=VDOT pretty much then they start to diverge, 56=54.7, then 40=36.7 - wonder why that is...
  • 0 over 8 years ago
    Actually interesting look at chart again. My best PB of those, according to that chart, is 5K and would be 67-68 VO2 Max. As I go up distances it drops slightly until marathon which is 64-65. That's logical as I was always basically a middle distance runner so my best distances (800 & 1500/Mile) aren't even listed.

    Also those HM/Marathon conversions look very challenging for a marathon runner.

    So one takeaway is that you can't expect to be as good at all 4 distances at the same time or indeed ever.

    Further I had a lab VO2 Max test shortly before I did my 5K PB and got 70.5 so "theoretically" I was the same 3 "points" higher than my predictions on the watch now tend to be. The big however is that, as I said I was an 800/1500 runner then, and if I convert my 1500 capability at the time to a 5K time (using say age graded tables) then, lo and behold, I get one that suggests a VO2 Max of 70-71.
  • 0 over 8 years ago
    OK, you did ask. What's the big frolicking deal about the VO[sub]2[/sub]max estimate by a consumer fitness device not being as reliable as you'd like? If you really want an accurate assessment, then by all means, have a lab test done.

    I understand your imminent participation in the Boston Marathon is a big deal to you. What your watch tells you ahead of it shouldn't be, though.


    ASmugDill, it's not a "big frolicking deal" I agree with you. I just love data, metrics and anything quantified and as a consumer and runner who loves technology, I genuinely care about the accuracy of our watches. I care about Garmin improving their estimators as I strongly believe the more reliable/actionable information we gather from our devices, the better athletes we become. If I didn't believe that, I would have stuck with my Forerunner 10 ;-)

    Lastly, I am not relying *at all* on a GPS watch during any race, including the Boston Marathon. I pace myself by feel, a pace band (or calculating splits in my mind) and elapsed time / wall clock. I do however *love* to analyze my data post-race.
  • 0 over 8 years ago
    Your HM & marathon times are in broad agreement with perhaps the HM being very slightly better.
    But what your are 5K and 10K times? Those distances are more relevant to the ability to perform well in actual VO2 Max tests.

    Unfortunately I don't have any race times shorter than HM :-( I might be running a 10k over Memorial Day (May 29) so maybe that will end up being more inline.

    Then there is the question of your threshold HR and your pace at it?

    Logically the high VO2 Max suggests you are a lot better at shorter distances than long ones.

    According to 735xt my LT-HR 168 and LT-Pace 6:26/mi or 4:00/km

    It is also interesting that you can so regularly get so close to your max HR. I can't. What sessions are you typically doing to achieve that?

    Intervals mostly. I looked at my Garmin Connect and during the past 3 months these are some representative sessions, including the one of 189 HR-max. Note that these are *not* maximal (all-out) efforts.

    2017 JANUARY 4
    Max HR: 189 bpm
    https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1510844879

    2017 JANUARY 19
    Max HR: 184 bpm
    https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1533009110

    2017 FEBRUARY 5
    Max HR: 185 bpm
    https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1559830521

    2017 MARCH 9
    Max HR: 184 bpm
    https://connect.garmin.com/modern/activity/1611577174
  • 0 over 8 years ago
    Also those HM/Marathon conversions look very challenging for a marathon runner.

    I set a 5k PR on April 1st of 21:05 which puts me at 47 on the version of the VDOT table that I have which predicts a 1:36:28 HM time. That's not unreasonable on a flat course with perfect weather and me being well rested and fed etc. but 1:38-1:40 is the more likely out come but still not beyond imagining. the 3:21 Marathon time however... I think if I got my FM time down to that my 5k would be under 20:00.