for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

Garmin

218 watchers

larkim 17 Feb 3:52pm, 17 Feb 2025 26,664 posts	Quote Pin larkim V̇O2 max is expressed either as an absolute rate in (for example) litres of oxygen per minute (L/min) or as a relative rate in (for example) millilitres of oxygen per kilogram of the body mass per minute (e.g., mL/(kg·min)).
SPR 17 Feb 4:01pm, 17 Feb 2025 47,076 posts	Quote Pin SPR The units tell you which one is being used. Absolute is in Litres per minute and that's not what Garmin is doing (and it would have no way of doing that). Anyway this confirms it: support.garmin.com
larkim 17 Feb 4:17pm, 17 Feb 2025 26,665 posts	Quote Pin larkim Sorry for being insanely dense. So if someone who weighed 20kg less than me, but had the identical heart rate and speed history over the last 2 years - would we have the same VO2Max in Garmin's world or not?
SPR 17 Feb 4:43pm, 17 Feb 2025 47,077 posts	Quote Pin SPR Yes, you'd have the same VO2 Max as the watch assumes that and the training history is what leads to performance. Think of it like a modified Daniels VO2 Max. Your absolute litres of oxygen per minute consumed would be different of course and losing the 20kg should make you faster which Garmin would then show as an improvement in your VO2 Max. I should say my no way of calculating absolute is incorrect as you can technically calculate an estimate of that by using the relative number and your weight; you could then use that to calculate how much the relative number would change if you lost weight but the absolute number stayed the same.
Velociraptor 17 Feb 4:48pm, 17 Feb 2025 73,815 posts	Quote Pin Velociraptor The other changes I've noticed are that Base has been expanded to include steady runs with an average heart rate in the high 140s which Garmin would previously have called Tempo, and brisk walks are getting more of an Exercise Load score than previously.
larkim 17 Feb 4:55pm, 17 Feb 2025 26,667 posts	Quote Pin larkim OK, that makes sense. I know I am "heavy" (BMI is currently just over 25) in comparison to others so I assume that means I'm compensating for weight with a good capacity to absorb oxygen. If I lost weight I would get faster (within reason) and therefore have a higher "Garmin" VO2Max which might correlate closer with the lab test I had about 15 months ago. I'm presuming my lab test one did account for my mass. To get down to a BMI of 20 I'd need to lose about 15kg. I believe the rule of thumb is 2s per mile improvement per lb, so I'd be a good 30s per mile faster over a 10k 😲
SPR 17 Feb 5:03pm, 17 Feb 2025 47,078 posts	Quote Pin SPR Interesting @Velociraptor, my progressive runs are badged as tempo recently, sure they used to be badged as threshold. @larkim yes pretty much. Your lab test should have been an absolute number which they converted into a relative number based on your weight so in theory that also goes up as you lose weight.
jda 17 Feb 5:21pm, 17 Feb 2025 18,488 posts	Quote Pin jda There’s an unknown efficiency factor in converting oxygen to speed. The Garmin estimate is insanely high for me but still seems to work as a relative estimate of when I’m fairly fit vs not so fit.
Rosehip 17 Feb 5:43pm, 17 Feb 2025 34,509 posts	Quote Pin Rosehip Velociraptor wrote:The other changes I've noticed are that Base has been expanded to include steady runs with an average heart rate in the high 140s which Garmin would previously have called Tempo, and brisk walks are getting more of an Exercise Load score than previously. yep, this is my experience - it wants me to do 'base' runs in zone 3 and tempo is at threshold heart rate. I mostly ignore it - unless like today zone 2 pace is zone 3 hr and I can't jog any slower
SPR 17 Feb 6:53pm, 17 Feb 2025 47,080 posts	Quote Pin SPR HR for base runs hasn't changed here, I don't remember any of the HRs for other runs though as I don't follow the suggestions. I just remember thinking it was high for me and I wouldn't run that AVG HR for a base run when fit. It's 75% of max so probably reasonable though.