|
Jul 2020
11:07am, 29 Jul 2020
7,987 posts
|
jda
Not sure what to make of the garmin VO2max. It does seem to correlate to overall fitness for me, but with significant deviations from what I would expect. I'm sure the absolute value of the number itself is probably not that well calibrated, but that doesn't really matter.
|
|
Jul 2020
11:35am, 29 Jul 2020
30,633 posts
|
SPR
CW - A jump of two might not be a real jump of two as Garmin will evaluate 60.45 to 60 but 61.55 to 62. My file value on Garmin was 1.15 higher on the Garmin between today and yesterday, but my performance condition was +4!
That said I can see how a break/ taper could in theory could allow the calc to have more range and not be constrained by historical data.
I think Garmin have had HRV for awhile, they just don't show it to you. I don't think VO2 max calcs have changed, just the predictions based on them. As I've only had my 245 for a week, I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt, but my old predictor was a lot better for 5k Vs what my new one says currently (3 years of 7 secs or less difference between predicted and race times).
|
|
Jul 2020
11:49am, 29 Jul 2020
30,634 posts
|
SPR
I do agree that beats per mile in great for measuring base fitness. There is a bit more to being in shape though, certainly for shorter races anyway. Whether VO2max (or effective VO2max) is the best way to measure that, I'm not sure.
|
|
Jul 2020
11:57am, 29 Jul 2020
30,635 posts
|
SPR
Actually performance condition was 6-7 mid run but 4 at the end which makes sense especially on a faster run.
|
|
Jul 2020
7:24pm, 29 Jul 2020
9,420 posts
|
chunkywizard
SPR, race predictor will be far better on 245 vs old Garmin but it takes a while to learn you. The old Garmins just used a look up table based on VO2Max and the new one, for me, are far closer.
|
|
Jul 2020
8:19pm, 29 Jul 2020
30,646 posts
|
SPR
We shall see CW. There's a few reports of it being pessimistic for some, hopefully I'm not one of those people. In theory a dropoff for someone like me at HM and mara likely makes sense and having accurate predictions about HM shape would be good if considering doing one in the winter (assuming there are some races as there's no XC till Jan).
I get the lookup table issue and I can't imagine there were many that converted as tight as the table but as I was matching the 5k and didn't do any of the rest, it didn't matter and I could use other references when it came to the longer distances anyway.
I forgot that the VO2 max calc is supposed to account for heat now which again in theory is good.
|
|
Jul 2020
8:42am, 30 Jul 2020
562 posts
|
njosmith
Not sure if I have some settings set up incorrectly but the time predictions on my Garmin (735xt) make no sense and never have. I just looked up to see if they have improved over time and they have got worse. When I first got the watch it was predicting 18 min something. Just now it is predicting 16:47 for 5km. Right now I would struggle to get that time for 4km. HR reading have always been relatively consistent and at least made sense.
|
|
Jul 2020
8:44am, 30 Jul 2020
563 posts
|
njosmith
And since we are on the 3:15 thread. The marathon time predictions is 2hours 40. Ummmm.
|
|
Jul 2020
8:51am, 30 Jul 2020
3,758 posts
|
K5 Gus
Presume you have your weight, age, sex, etc set correctly ?
|
|
Jul 2020
8:54am, 30 Jul 2020
564 posts
|
njosmith
Weight would be least accurate but would be correct within a couple of kgs
|
RW sub3/3.15
Jan 2025