VO2max estimate

Might find info here https://assets.firstbeat.com/firstbeat/uploads/2017/06/white_paper_VO2max_30.6.2017.pdf

Thanks Messner. I've seen that paper, however I couldn't find anything regarding elevation.
On the Firstbeat website it seems their technology is able to estimate VO2max from either HR+GPS, HR+Watts or HR+Speed. https://www.firstbeat.com/en/consumer-feature/vo2max-fitness-level/

However, the Vivoactive3 is only able to calculate VO2max only from activities utilising GPS as far as I know. If so, this means you would have to run on flat ground outside in order to get reliable data, which in my case renders the whole thing quite useless.

Why no Vo2Max on TM runs: While you may get fairly accurate results distance and pace wise on the treadmill you use there is no way for Firstbeat/Garmin to be able to know when someone else isn't getting good data from an indoor run so they err on the side of caution and give no data instead of potentially poor data. I get close to good results on the TM's at my gym but the calibration on the machines in the fitness center where I live is horrible so it can vary greatly from one machine to the next and they'd rather not rely on questionable data.

Taking elevation into account: If you look closely at the Firstbeat papers you'll see that they're not looking at the whole activity but rather parsing out the parts that provide good data of sufficient time. Scroll down to the second graphic in the link in your post to see how they're breaking it down, there's even a part of that which shows a hill on the run that the graphic breaks down to show that elevation is corrected for. The barometer in the watch shows that you're going up hill and takes the resulting rise in HR into account.

Uselessness: The algorithms only require a 10 minute run outside to get an initial Vo2Max score and another every 2 weeks to keep it current. With the current models even an outdoor walk with GPS active will work.

The reason why I'm raising this is that I mainly do two outdoor activities:

1. Walking my dog (start-stop-start-stop)
2. Mountain hiking (slow tempo, great elevation, high pulse)

Both giving terrible VO2max estimations (bottom 15% of my age and gender...), which I know has to be quite wrong given that the other activities I do 3-4 times a week are TM running, indoor rowing, indoor biking, ellipse, but none of them will be taken into account regarding VO2max.

I get your point regarding accuracy of treadmill distance, but I really believe those inaccurancies are peanuts compared to the data variation in the outdoor activities I do.

You forget that on treadmill you can change the incline a lot. So VO2max will be very different for same person in same shape but due to different inclines used on treadmill.

Okay, so if data quality from treadmill running are as terrible as you argue, why does Firstbeat technology seem to provide this, just not enabled by Garmin on the VA3?

And when we are talking about accuracy, what about GPS accuracy in regards of real time running speed...?

My point is this; I understand that the calculation needs reliable data, but I don't understand the reasoning behind which methods are included and which are not. Yes, different inclines on a treadmill would affect the results, but so would running in mud compared to running on asphalt. Following that logic, maybe Garmin would have to exclude running altogether then?

We've not even mentioned the oHRM which we know could easily be off by 20-30bpm. Maybe Garmin should disable vo2max using oHRM as well?

I think VO2Max should be disabled in all circumstances except a planned run on flat, level ground. Presumably, in the context of this discussion, at sea level. To the best of my knowledge, all the published studies that considered methods of estimating VO2Max outside the laboratory, were done using carefully controlled test conditions. I've already complained that the VA3 tries to do VO2Max when running on wet, slippery trails strewn with obstacles, when the data cannot possibly be useful. Of course, the VA3 can't guess the external conditions, which is why I think that VO2Max should be a thing that has to be measured deliberately, rather than just collected ad-hoc.

In any case, I would be hugely surprised if the method used by the VA3 was accurate enough for altitude to make any difference -- not a couple hundred meters, anyway. A couple of thousand, maybe.

Now you're just engaging in reductio ad absurdum. On higher end watches there is a Trail Run app so that Vo2Max isn't affected by running on looser surfaces and power walking steep inclines.

As far as the TM thing goes; perhaps Firstbeat will work with treadmills if they use the ANT+ FE-C standard that transmits the speed and incline data which Garmin watches don't support. I don't know for sure but it sounds reasonable.

Yesterday I used the Walk app on my 645 when walking my dog because there had been an update that required a GPS lock to calibrate the altimeter. That activity gave me the same Vo2Max number that I got 2 weeks ago after a marathon.

No matter what since these stats are estimations instead of direct measurements they should be looked at as trends instead of hard numbers. Regardless of what the age grading the current Vo2Max score your watch has come up with, if when doing your usual activities that score is going up your fitness is improving. My current Vo2Max score has me in the superior range for my age, and I am in good shape, but not as good as shape as I was last fall when my score was 5 points higher. It's a relative value and depending on your use case it might be closer to what a lab Vo2Max score would be or it might not.

Also keep in mind that these formulae and algorithms require you have a good HRMax value in your user profile. If you rely on the 220-age formula it might be way off of your true HRMax. The formula method puts my HRMax 14bpm lower than what I've seen using a HR strap in the past year and only 4bpm above my actual lactate threshold estimate.

Now you're just engaging in reductio ad absurdum. On higher end watches there is a Trail Run app so that Vo2Max isn't affected by running on looser surfaces and power walking steep inclines.

I agree, and I think we've had this discussion before. I'm also aware that my running activities are not mainstream.

But still...

When we consider simple VO2Max estimators like the older Cooper 12-minute run test, we have a pretty good understanding of the limits of accuracy. We know the kinds of people who get good estimates from such a test (basically, people in their thirties and of normal-ish weight and height); we know how accuracy is likely to be affected by deviations from the ideal test conditions. But Garmin/Firstbeat claims to be able to provide a VO2Max estimate without standardized test conditions. They say that their method produces such-and-such accuracy in some (not well defined) circumstances. They don' t (so far as I know) say anything about their sample sizes or their test subjects (gender, height, weight, ethnicity, medical history...)

Without this information, I'm not sure we can rely on the results even to show a trend. I could be wrong, but how would I know?

It would be more creditable, in my view, for Garmin to explain clearly the circumstances in which their VO2Max procedure works best, and provide some indication how it will be affected by departures from those circumstances.

Sorry Lars. You got a post in while I was writing my last post, so the "reductio ad absurdum" wasn't directed at you. One of the flaws of the "don't quote the post directly above you" policy in the forum.

Yes we did have this conversation before, and I agree that Garmin does a poor job of communicating in general not just about how some of these features work, how to get the best results from them, and what their limitations are.