How Apple Watch estimates VO2Max within 1.2 ml/kg/min without a treadmill test
empirical.health
empirical.health
Is it like that for min heart rate? I have bradycardia, but lectures in my blood pressure monitor go from 44 to 41
If so that would be a very easy translation error to make. ('Readings' and 'lectures' can be synonyms, in the sense of someone knowledgable reading something out loud.) But it could just be me misunderstanding: sorry, if so.
Realistically, does it even matter? It’s not a usable metric by any means nor is it particularly meaningful unless you’re an elite athlete (and even then, you probably don’t use the metric to tweak your training).
Of course, a vo2max doesn't explain everything as an endurance athlete. As a cyclist it has a big correlation to FTP, but there are also different metrics to be good at. Short sprints, recovery after bursts, plain grit for multi-hour rides etc. are all different skills not shown in a single number.
I suspect for me and probably many others in the "acceptable fitness level" category the main factor influencing what ends up being reported as VO2max is stress, both physiological and psychological. That correlates real good. At least for me.
Example: if your real max is 60, but your watch says 50, you may be wondering why hard training isn’t increasing it.
Another example: if your real max is 35 but your watch says 45, you may misinterpret the signal when it jumps to 55 relatively quickly after a few weeks of hard-ish work.
Plus, if the value is significantly inaccurate then who knows what else is inaccurate about it? I appreciate that Apple have put effort into making it accurate.
It also has race pace estimates for 5k, 10k, half mile etc and those are wildly off too. I think it bases these off Vo2 max, so its unsurprising. It thinks I can do a 42min 10k, that is just never happening.
A fair amount of people track this because it's a feature of pretty much every training/coaching app.
Impressive, going over 14km/h (~4m/s) sustained is no joke. Many folks would just cramp out at that point. OTOH, Garmin's "body battery" seems quite accurate for my spouse
All considered, the variance is quite high which in my experience does not make it that useful to track relative fitness changes.
The FTP calculation is also annoying because it can’t differentiate types of rides.
Ultimately, VO2max, whilst a good health indicator, it's not the be all and end all for running performance. VO2max doesn't take into account lactate threshold and running economy. Two athletes can have the same VO2max but quite different race results for common distances. One might have a very large aerobic capacity but very poor running economy, so metabolically, they require more effort to run at the same pace as someone with a lower VO2max. Also, as you get aerobically fitter, for running long distances, it has been observed that VO2max falls. Need to dig out the reference for this. Like anything, there's lots of nuance.
Some people mentioned race time predictions from VO2max. If you are into running you are better off using recent interval performances to predict race times and measure your fitness. You can use the hyperbolic critical speed model (Similar to FTP). It's only accurate for durations from a minute or so to 20 minutes. Other models can be used to fill in the gaps. This paper explains it [1]
I'm a big advocate of not getting too caught up in physiology when it comes to running. What really matters is "how fast can you run for race distances" and you can improve that by doing more running at or near race speed. E.g. for 5k, do intervals at 105% 5k race pace and longer runs at 95% 5k race pace. This is the essence of Renato Canova's percentage based training [2] which has been very effective for Kenyan Elite's and also myself!
I'm currently building out a training platform which uses the omni domain speed model (see below) as the basis for prescribing training paces and workouts. I'm currently using the system for myself to great effect. Managed to get my 5km race time from around 20 minutes to 15 minutes in under 2 years (and im 40).
[1] "Development and field validation of an omni- domain power-duration model, Michael J. Puchowicz, Jonathan Baker & David C. Clarke"
[2] https://runningwritings.com/2023/06/canova-marathon-book.htm...
Are these low 15s or high 15s? Regardless, that's fantastic progress.
Do you respond better to intervals or longer aerobic efforts?
I ask because Ive always wondered if training should be specialized for fast/slow twitch runners.
Specifically, do you focus on strengths or weaknesses.
Let me follow you on Strava :p
Low 15:00s. I doubt I'll be able to break 15 though as I'm just getting too old now. I used to train seriously when I was a teenager so maybe those adaptations stick with you as you get older.
It's a good question. I find that the most important thing is running at or close to race pace. I follow Canova's training philosophy quite closely. Definitely recommend reading the runningwritings link I posted above.
I do between 80km to 100km a week.
Most of my running is done at a moderate pace. I just do this to get mileage in. Most of it is quite hilly. Looking at about 300-400m elevation for each 10km and runs range from 10km to 20km. Pace is around 4:00/km to 4:20/km.
If I do a workout, I follow it with a recovery run. Pace around 4:40/km. If a super hard workout then I do two days of recovery runs.
I never run doubles because I have young kids and don't have the time.
The most important ingredients are the workouts. I never repeat the same workout. A typical one for 5km training would be: a few km warm up, then 3km @ 97% 5km pace, 2 min moderate, 2km @ 5km pace, 2min moderate, 1km @ 103% 5km pace, then a recovery pace warm down. About 15km in total. That's a hard workout and would be followed with easy running the next day. I would do that workout to improve lactate buffering and improve anearobic capacity.
For lactate threshold I'd do something like 20x400m at LT pace with walking rest for 3 minmutes inbetween. This is where I might use the hyperbolic model to figure out when all the metabolic byproducts are flushed out so you can basically do the next 400m mostly recovered.
Other workouts might be aerobic thresohld runs. So marathon pace running for 15km to 30km. These are the long fast runs that canova talks about. They are hard and you need a lot of recovery after. I really find they improve performance quite alot. They are not presecribed in most training plans and I feel they are a key missing ingredient.
I do a fair bit of hill reps and sprints as well. They are probably best for improving VO2max. Lots of rest inbetween reps, you need to be fully recoved for the next one to get the benefit.
Lastly, you need to keeo touching on all the various metabolic systems. If you don't use it, you lose it. Keep your training varied. Sprints, short interbvals, long intervals, long fast runs, hill reps, ladders, alternates, with varying levels of recovery and at different speeds. Make sure your training is additive. Don't remove any class of session, just add more different types.
Do strength/core workouts. Plyometrics. You need to be strong to bash out miles at MP and not get injured.
I use theragun after any hard workout. Helps recovery loads.
Eat. Alot. On hard workout/long run days I do about 5000kcal.
Most importantly, I think, don't listen to any of the 80/20 polarised nonsense, MAF method, or anything like that. One size fits all training regimes don't work very well because everyone is different. They work for beginners because _any_ running will have them improve.
For more experienced athletes, to run fast you need to practise running fast at the paces you will race at. So doing a training plan which prescribes 80% of easy running as a rule is no good. You only run easy if you need to recover. Every other workout/session needs to target some metabolic system to promote adaptinos which help you run faster. It's the workouts which really make a difference to your race performance.
edit: I'll just add that I do use physiology to guide the training paces. But when you've been training for a while you know that 1) Marathon pace is aerobic threshold pace. 2) Half maraton is lactate threshold pace. 3) 5km is critical speed. 4) 10km is between critical speed and lactate threshold. So whilst I do use physiology to guide trianing paces I don't use a zone system or anything like that. I just design workouts which I know touch on the various systems I need to improve.
That's 20 km/h. As my sibling poster said, this is absolutely insane.
> as you get aerobically fitter, for running long distances, it has been observed that VO2max falls
I'm surprised by this and can't find good info about it, has this been studied?
I'm sorry I can't find the paper which discusses VO2max and how it could potentially fall with lots of low aerobic training e.g. aerobic threshold running. The idea of the paper was to show that training to improve physiological markers like VO2max didn't necessarily translate to better race performance and infact sometimes training to improve the marker actually decreased it... One of the things they noticed was that certain marathon runners actually had a fall in VO2max but ended up with faster race times, illustrating that race performance is determined by factors other than VO2max.
Annoying, if I find it, I'll reply to your comment with the link. It's just one paper though, probably something in it but it's definitely not the consensus view of exercise physiologists.
Example: I do interval running, which the Watch just records as a run. If I am not running for part of it (i.e. a 1-minute rest interval), is the Watch actually capturing the right info to calculate my VO2?
https://www.firstbeat.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/white_p...
So, I guess I just use it as a motivator for going on walks or perhaps starting to jog again.
I know my cause and am fixing it though. As recently as 2020 I had a VO2Max of 48, and had lots of issues that resulted in me dropping my fitness regime. I’ve also had some health challenges that impact it that I’m hoping I can recover from soon.