Why doesn’t Wahoo provide VO2Max estimates from the 4DP assessment and the ramp test.
I know it’s only an estimate but it seems an estimate using those tests would be better than other estimates from , say garmin cycling and Apple Watch walking estimates.
Because it is only an estimate, its not a useful metric. It would be a pointless implementation short of bragging rights.
Its much better to measure and track what can actually be measured. i.e. HR, cadence, power, running pace.
Yeah I agree with @JGreengrass the VO2MAX number itself isn’t actionable.
What is actionable is how it changes over time, and I’m perfectly happy to use MAP power as a proxy for it.
I think the only number I’m currently tracking is w/kg. More important to me is how I’m feeling overall. But having said that, my VO2max is currently 1,000,001 and I’m better than Tadej.
I disagree, respectfully. I am tracking VO2 max. That’s the main reason I got the Frontier X2 HRM. Knowing VT1 and VT2 is a more precise measurement than HR zone estimation.
Having said all this, I know it makes no difference in my practical application. I’m 55 y/o, ride for fitness / fun, and enjoy a good glass of bourbon when I feel like it. I am not training for anything. I do, however, find the data motivating to track.
How do you know what your VT1 and VT2 are?
It is generated for each activity. This was a fun ride on my fat tire Dolomite (55 lb bike w/ 4 inch tires). I haven’t done a Full Frontal or Half Monty with the Frontier HRM yet, as I am getting ready to go on vacation. Once I’m back, I’ll begin my training block for an Everesting and will include a Full Frontal early on.
It is guestimated for each activity. It just guessing of slightly better data than a wrist based optical HR sensor.
The Frontier X2 is a 2 lead ECG device the same as the Wahoo Tickr, Trackr, and every other chest strap from Polar, Garmin etc.
Check out what DC Rainmaker has to say about it.
I’m not educated enough to argue the quality of their data vs. Wahoo Tickr. It does what I am looking for and has reliable reviews for the accuracy of the VO2 data. I would note they did receive FDA 510(k) for the X Plus (after the DCRainmaker response), so I wouldn’t necessarily agree with the suggestion their marketing is “scammy.”
I’m not trying to sell anyone on it, but it’s the only device I’ve found that provides VO2 “guesstimate” or estimate or reasonably accurate. The definition of slightly better data than a wrist based optical HR sensor is probably debatable… but again I’m not interested in fighting that battle. Ultimately, I made a financial decision I’m happy with so far, not much different than putting a Brooks Special Addition saddle and Campy Record cranks on my 55lb Dolomite.
One of my students (executive MBA) is a pediatric cardiologist and has a VO2M testing set up (both a treadmill and a stationary trainer) in his lab. He tests his patients before any major surgery or procedures to assess candidacy and recovery potential. So, he offered me a test and I accepted. My Garmin (Forerunner 965) estimates were standing at 55 cycling, 53 running (though I’m told that running is typically higher than cycling because of muscle group usage differences).
I tested on his cycling trainer and got a 51 (I’m 64 years old, 60 kg, about 3.6-3.7 watts/kg). He explained that wearables all use some kind of algorithmic approach to estimation, and they are all pretty decent. Some overestimate and others underestimate. Also, I couldn’t wear cycling shoes on that test because he only had straps (so wore ON running shoes) and that would have had a negative impact.
Watches and other wearables can only guess-timate because they aren’t able to count the O2 going in vs. the CO2 coming out (I found the whole mask setup pretty uncomfortable and distracting). However, I’m betting those algorithms are pretty close to “real.” Also, the testing conditions do matter. HOWEVER however, I think the real value is tracking relative changes over time. The absolute number is less important than the direction of change.
Having said that, one thing I’ve noticed about my Garmin is that anaerobic workouts reduce my VO2M and it takes a while (and a few Z2 or Z3 rides) for it to catch back up. Again, it’s the way the algorithms are estimating, I guess…
Did you use a mask with a tube in your mouth, or just a mask over the mouth?
The numbers do matter if you are trying to estimate how you rate for your age.
The numbers only matter if they are being measured
Maybe.
If I do not measure my blood pressure, the numbers still matter because they reflect a reality that matters.
This is a good analogy. BP matters and if you measure it you can change it with medication and/or lifestyle changes. For amateurs certain workouts can increase VO2max. I would appreciate an easy way to estimate it. Like other metrics it isn’t perfect and shouldn’t be used in isolation to make decisions.
I declined the tube.
I can understand why.
