Lab vs Garmin VO2 MAX

My VO2 vs garments prediction
Some keen eyed viewers may notice that my maximum heart rate achieved only says I achieved 179bppm. I Eva gone back to them and asked if this is correct. They have come back to me with the data and found that that was for the lactate threshold testing. My maximum Hr on the vo2 test was 200bpm which as also adjusted my heart rate zones.
In this video I and some family members go for a vo2 max test at the Surrey sports park as part of Surrey university.
After the test I go over my data.

[@greghouston2521]

This is exactly the kind of technical video I like to watch and learn from!

[@cyclingunboxed]

There is a lot more detail that can be gone into but I hope it gets some people started. I appreciate the kind words!

[@thedomesticsurvivalist]

Interesting to see the scientific data and particularly when you put it into context of your own race date, diet and training ranges - good work!

[@timeonfeet]

Really interesting to see the difference between your watch and the lab test. I did a vo2 max test recently and it was very different to my watch (Coros rather than Garmin). Nice video and good to hear the breakdown of the data

[@LaDeigo]

Great content, thanks for sharing your info.

[@ccamire]

thanks for the video and sharing data. It helps everybody and especially me with lots of data points. I was surprised by the difference with Garmin. Like you said, your nutrition penalize you to bring more food on the ride. My fat curve is much higher. Eating more fat increased my lactate threshold to a higher power number.

[@Nick_007ia]

nice content! very very curious how diet and training fasted in middle of zone 2 will affect your performance :) waiting till then, cheers :)

[@BobBob-uv9fq]

It can give different readings depending on activities ,,maybe stronger in some areas than others ,also think it depends on what type of excercise ie interval training or long run ,low tempo etc

[@jamesrowe4861]

Great video, it is really refreshing seeing someone more “normal” do this sort of testing. Personally my ftp is 255 and you watch all these cycling KZbinrs who have 340 watt plus ftp’s and you start to think everyone is like that. But in reality I’m probably more on the normal side of things. 🤔 Keep up the great work. 👍🏻

[@cyclingunboxed]

You are so right. it seems like a kind of a show off contest wheres genetically they are abnormal. ii do also believe that most people are around where we are.

[@swites]

Yes most cyclists are in the 2.25 to 3.5w/kg range. From memory I think something like only around 10% or so are over 4w/kg?

[@jamesrowe4861]

@@swites that makes sense to me as I am smack bang on 3.5w/kg and I ride with a lot of different peeps and always seem to be able to hold my own. I guess the reason alot of cycling you tubers are on here is because they are in that 10%. I get frustrated when the gifted ones talk like everybody should be able to achieve 4-5 w/kg with a bit of training. Which I believe isn’t the case due to most of us normal peeps hitting our genetic ceiling of around 3.5 w/kg no matter how much training we do. Thx for your comment. I’m feeling more normal by the minute. 😊👍🏻

[@abcD-wf9yr]

@@swites hey there, so i m a runner and a cyclist and i hit my peak for start of september when i had a big running race. At that point i was in the top 2.5% and that was on the hardest stage of a relay race. My stage was 11.2 km. Meanwhile on the bike i was able to get a 4.3 w/kg ftp @ 72kg, 1.73 m. I dont think 10% of people hit 4 w/kg considering thats 1 out of 10 adults. The vast majority dont even work out. A few weeks ahead i tried out at the soccer club of the village and was the fittest out of these guys. 255 watts is totally fine, you are well on the way. Keep it up

[@swites]

@@abcD-wf9yr yeah more 10% of trained cyclists. My ftp is usually in the 4.2w/kg range . In mass start races (~5 to 600) generally I finish around 50th or so. Although the top National level riders finish 25 to 30minutes ahead in a hilly 3hr race!

[@attastealth]

Some comments on your results: For sure your fat utilization was not high since you ate beforehand. We usually only see an RER/RQ of ~0.7 when people are fasted (100% fat utilization). Secondly, we've had an issue in our lab when measuring max VO2 using breath-by-breath analysis (similar to the mask you wore). We have been finding (and with talking with the provider), that if you were able to finish your test holding a really high breathing rate (higher than 1 breath a second), the oxygen/CO2 probes do not have enough time to properly measure the values, resulting in an early plateau of measured VO2. So that could be one reason as to why your resultant VO2max was slightly lower than what you were expecting. If you have the raw data, it would be interesting to see when you hit your VO2plateau, how long you held it, and assess what your breathing frequency and Ve (L/min) were at those points. I would also suggest comparing your absolute VO2 values to take into account small variances in your weight, and maybe doing another test in a couple of months to see your VO2 trainability (another factor that is somewhat genetically determined). And lastly, while your VO2max values may not be as high as you hoped, the fact you've had some great performances shows that you might just be more efficient in the mechanical/power output side of things. Hitting 430W in your last ramp stage is no easy feat! I'm pushing similar numbers to you but have quite a bit more weight on my frame :) Best of luck with the rest of your rehab journey and getting back to top shape.

[@cyclingunboxed]

I appreciate the insights! Thank you

[@willfromfreeport]

Thanks for making the video. What is your max HR that you have set in Garmin, and how updated is it? I saw in other videos that the max HR can affect the VO2 estimate. I want to get tested one day (preferably when I'm deep into a training plan lol) to see how my watch compares to lab results.

[@cyclingunboxed]

Got it set to 201 for cycling and 207 for running. I got a little hummingbird heart that beats fast! That’s interesting you say that because it makes more sense now as to why it my be out. Good logic

[@Janusandersen]

Cool video, thank you! Wonder why they, in the 6-zone model they sent you, didn't directly use physiological markers to set the endurance zone. E.g. align the top of zone 2 to LT1 for HR and power...

[@cyclingunboxed]

It's a good question. Im not sure either. Maybe because if you only use LT thresholds it might only be a 3 zone model do you think? and possibly that lower power zone in z2 may have more fat utilisation for me. What do you think?

[@chrispyy606060606]

Great video, very informative. Did you find the stationary bike uncomfortable/not ideal fit wise? Were you able to see the power numbers as you were measuring lactate? Was also wondering if you noticed what wattage breathing changes occurred versus what the testing showed from a shift from LT1 to LT2.

[@cyclingunboxed]

It wasn’t that close to my usual set up but could put out the power comfortably so I don’t think it would effect the results. Yes you could see your live power. And no I didn’t notice actually. I’m sure if I emailed they would show me that because it would be an interesting one to look that. Although could repeat the test at home and use the garmin strap for breathing rate?

[@allancox4694]

Thanks for putting this together, certainly something I'll be doing. Will you go back for a review and how long will you leave it? I'm thinking 6 monthly to see if I've progressed.

[@cyclingunboxed]

Appreciate the kind words! I think 6 months is a good timescale too. Not sure if I will do it yet but it will certainly tempting in 6 months time

[@mazzeumusic]

Great content! Thanks for the video. I'm curious about the table at the end. Shouldn't VO2Max come before Anaerobic, since anaerobic means no O2 utilization? Also very interesting the Fatmax curve! Never saw one like this. How much Z2 training you've been doing for the TTs prep? Tks!

[@cyclingunboxed]

I believe it’s still because you are still pulling in and using more oxygen above your aerobic limit the harder you push. Even though you are getting most of your energy anaerobically. I usually get about 2-5 hours of z2 a week. With the fat curve, it is very heavily weighted on the food you have the night before and that morning which for me was very carbohydrate heavy.

[@mazzeumusic]

@@cyclingunboxed Thanks for the answers! Not 100% sold on the VO2 being above anaerobic on the table but thanks for the explanation hehe. And you'll probably benefit A LOT from more Z2 work. The fat reserves on the body are "infinite" so even though you had a carbo heavy dinner the night before, fat is still widely available to the body. That seems more a case of economy/fatburn then a heavy carb dinner Once again, not my goal to be a hater! I was just curious because some things looked very different from what I'm used to with my data and other info around. Thanks for sharing and being open about your numbers!

[@jono1457-qd9ft]

Yes the word 'anaerobic' is still used in the same unscientific way it was when I first started learning this stuff back in the 70s The same broscience that was being bandied about back then is still going around in the internet age.

[@mgdeburca9516]

Thanks for a really informative video. One question: in the final chart (showing your prescribed training zones) why is zone 6 labelled as VO2max and zone 5 is labelled anaerobic? It should be the other way round surely?

[@cyclingunboxed]

I would think that it is because zone 5 is above your LT2 so building loads of lactate that you can’t process. Then I guess vo2 max is above it because it’s above that power that you actually hit your vo2 max/ is above your vo2 max

[@williambob111]

I had this same question. That doesnt make sense to me.

[@SpeedBoosted136]

It's a bold mistake in the chart Vo2max is the zone5 and anaerobic is the zone 6. Also i see a lot of results that don't make sense, for example the HR and power of zone 3 and 4 don't make sense etc. There are many glitches. Is there a newer video with another Lab test??

[@ashleyhouse9690]

When it comes to "fat burning" in the athletic community I think there is a lot of confusion. What people really need to understand is not "why" but more appropriately "who" should be concerned with burning more fat over carbohydrates. As you have quite rightly identified the point at which we start to increasingly burn carbs over fat is the first lactate threshold or LT1. If you are an ultra-endurance athlete concerned with Ironman triathlons or maybe and ultra-marathon runner then conservation of carbohydrates over many hours of competition at lower intensities have been shown to yield performance benefits over the whole race. However, if you are someone who is only concerned with ultimate speed over shorter distances, like a time-triallist for instance or a road racer, then worrying about fat burning is a waste of time. You are much more likely to be performing closer to LT2 for much of the time where you will be burning through your glycogen stores at a much higher rate. For most normal non-fat adapted athletes like you and me, we will be burning around 0.5g of fat per minute at around LT1 or as you have shown in your graph 4-5 kcal/min. Again you have quite rightly stated that pro athletes can up that rate to around 1.2 g/min or 10-12 kcal/min. However, you won't appreciate what it takes to get to that level which is something like 18 months of a dedicated ketogenic diet which is tough. Not tough because it is particularly difficult to follow a ketogenic diet but tough because all the performance hits you will take in the first year to 18 months before the low carb diet starts to pay dividends. It will definitely leave you asking yourself “Why am I doing this?” And in reality the benefits really only accrue to ultra-endurance athletes who are interested in going as far and as fast as they can for relatively long periods. Do a web search for Dr Dan Plews who is an expert in this field for more detailed information. Another thing that was confirmed by the lab was that because you had eaten carbohydrates before the testing session, your fat utilisation was probably a bit low. This is because insulin is released to process the carbs you have eaten which also has the effect to cut off the burning of fat. In its simplest form, the body will tend to burn carbs in preference to fat to preserve your fat stores for what may be leaner times to come. This is why people tend to put on weight if they are eating a lot of carbs all the time as their insulin levels will be constantly high which also leads to insulin resistance and type 2 diabetes over time. This is also the theory behind training fasted because you start to exercise with lower insulin levels which allow you to tap into your fat stores from the start. Training fasted is not about increasing performance though, it is about training to burn more fat if that is important to you. My advice to the majority of amateur cyclists would be to forget about fat burning unless you really need to conserve glycogen stores over the long haul.

[@cyclingunboxed]

Great and insightful comment! More people need to hear stuff like this

[@gregmadison1321]

Not to fault your lab, but the accuracy of your CHO vs FAT utilization report is only as good as the calibrations of the O2 and CO2 analyzers. The CHO vs FAT ratio is simply mathematically derived from VCO2/VO2. It's also called the Respiratory Quotient, or simply R. So if either the oxygen or the carbon dioxide concentration is mis-read by the analyzers, then the RQ will be off. I have seen falsely high CHO utilization being reported because the Nafion tubing is not adequately removing water vapor from the breath sampling line, which falsely elevates the CO2 measurement. (CO2 sensor interprets water vapor as CO2). Would be interesting to see your baseline/pre-exercise RQ, which for most test subjects would be about .85 or less. If it isn't, then consider a recalibration and get a fresh dry Nafion sampling tube.

[@davidsrunningvlog7679]

The Garmin is usually off when it comes to Vo2 max, but surprisingly can get close. I just had a Vo2 max test done last month and mine was 53. My Garmin had me at 55, so it wasn't too far off. My lactate threshold was 148 and Garmin was spot on, predicting 148 as well. However, the big miss was in max heart rate. Mine was 172 based on the test, but the Garmin had me at 184. This seriously altered my HR training zones (using % of max HR).

[@pal_lokomotivet2679]

For the same reasons a broken watch is correct two times a day. Because you looked at it at the time the arms stopped

[@xristodoulos88]

Question: if your watch reads wrong but it adjusts the zones based on your wrong heart rate, it means that your zones are correct using the same watch. If you alter the max heart rate but you watch still reads wrong then your zones will not be useful . Am i correct? Or do i miss something

[@CannabisTechLife]

you can adjust your power and hr curves to be based on lactate threshold vs max hr. Sounds like since that is more dead on for you it would be wise to adjust it.

[@Pedreone]

It is known that a chest heart rate monitor gives more accurate numbers than the watch itself. Did you try that? For me it helped a lot.

[@xuchenglin6256]

LOL in order for Garmin’s vo2max estimation to work properly you have to enter you actual maximum heart rate accurately, unlike other metrics this one Garmin cannot predict.

[@filiperibeiro6853]

Nice video but a rough estimate that may help to identify possible errors in the laboratory is the ratio of the cost of o2 per Watts at vo2max ~9-10mL/min/W. eg if vo2max happens at 400watts we can expect a VO2 of 3,6-4 liters + ~800ml of pedal cost without load = total approximately 4.4-4.8L/min depending on the efficiency of the cyclist, numbers significantly higher than 3, 8L/min reported in your test.

[@cyclingunboxed]

Had to read this one a few times 😂 some great input! I really love it. Haven’t had anyone look at the calculation this way yet.

[@TimGrose]

Interesting test. With the Garmin (well certainly for running) the latest devices seem much more realistic. That said the major factor always seems to be the max HR setting. I see you got to 179 bpm in the test here but if your max on the Garmin is set to over 200 that's a huge difference and almost certainly explains the difference in VO2 Max. What HR do you see typically see at the end of TTs? Also is your HR data "reliable" say from a strap and not just from the watch alone? That said your TT times suggest much higher VO2 Max than the lab result or are just unfit at the moment?

[@cyclingunboxed]

Just had someone point the hr difference out and emailed the test center. Turns out the hr entered was wrong and I hit 200 on the test itself so that has been adjusted. It still keeps my vo2 max the same as it’s based on weight and o2 consumption isn’t it rather than hr. Usually average 180-185bpm on TTs. All my days is always from a strap. I never use optical.

[@TimGrose]

@@cyclingunboxed ah that makes bit more sense then but 50 VO2 Max for a 56 min 25M TT rider does seem very low. I have done some TTs in my time and certainly in 10s could get my HR up fairly close to max. I am mainly a runner but your TT times are in the same ballpark as mine and my current VO2 Max on the Forerunner 955 for running is 58. I haven't ridden for a while but when I was doing more my run and bike VO2 Max according to my Forerunner were pretty close.

[@cyclingunboxed]

I think the speed comes from being fairly slippery through the air for me. The difference in mine might me due to running efficiency? I'm only running once week at the moment to maintain for triathlons whereas you are probably much more efficient?

[@TimGrose]

@@cyclingunboxed My best recent 5K is 18:51 when VO2 Max was 59. Now 58 as been ill and coming back. My last notable bike 10M TT was in 2017 and on a fast course I did 22:20 averaging 301W and I am about 73 kg although rather tall 1.95m so imagine you are somewhat more "slippery" than me :)

[@cyclingunboxed]

Rapid on the run and a good chunk more power that me on the bike too! I would imagine yours is probably measuring closer to what your vo2 max is the do you think?

[@michaelm9871]

Runner not a cyclist here, but my garmin watch estimates about 4ml/kg/min higher than my apple watch for whatever reason. I don't look at either as an actual estimate of my real VO2 max, more a general indication of my cardio fitness over time.

[@michaelm9871]

It could also be a function of an incorrect weight recorded on the watch as well. If you've put on weight since the crash and the watch still thinks you weigh less, that could impact it.

[@vitskr1]

You should never care about specific number Garmin gives you. What you should care is dynamics, if you train properly this number goes up slowly. If it stays the same for a long time it means you need to change your routine.

[@ShervinShares]

what's your exact Heart Rate at 2 mmo/l for Lactate Testing?

[@cyclingunboxed]

it looks like 140bpm. How come?

[@ShervinShares]

@@cyclingunboxed learning a lot about Zone 2 training where you try to stay under 2 mmo/l for 45-90 minutes. Learned about it from Peter Attia, trying to see what other people's values are. Just curious! Have you ever tried Zone 2 training?

[@cyclingunboxed]

I have been doing it for about 3 years now. It worked really well for the first year but stagnated around 170 watts in z2. I could up the duration in z2 but it’s quite boring on the indoor trainer so I still only do 1-1.5 hrs 2-3 times a week

[@paulcrate9799]

Very Interesting.. Something I am keen to do as well to see where my numbers are

[@cyclingunboxed]

It’s definitely worth it I think. Just specify as your training a lot more or confirms what you are doing is correct.

[@fergusdenoon1255]

been doing the 100mile training on Garmin which has you doing loads of zone 2 riding, some easy zone 5 intervals, lots of 2+ hour rides, and my V02max keeps rising with every ride, and calculated using none of the tests you're doing in this video. so I'd think Garmin is using an estimation using submaximal exercise testing, which would require accurate resting and maximum heartrate values (which is what Garmin attempts to do), as opposed to oxygen carbon dioxide values used in this maximal test, I think the Garmin method would get more and more accurate measuring people who do more and more endurance rides rather than flat out efforts. I'd guess that a specialist short race sprinter has really poor accuracy with a Garmin calculating V02max whilst a long distance endurance rider has pretty decent accuracy.

[@markpattison6031]

Yes, Garmin algorithm(?) is very flawed for V02. Whether it’s correct aside, mine is completely impacted by my training phases. I moved from doing quite a few high intensity interval sessions (not following a plan for a couple of years) per week to a structured plan and during the base/build phase where I wasn’t even asked to get anywhere near intense, Garmin almost immediately dropped by V02 number by 10. The moment I went back and did one more intensive interval session, it’s up by 7. That’s just plain wrong.

[@cyclingunboxed]

It appears to do the same for me as you have described.

[@metekr3840]

Cool test I also thought that garmin is off. I am heavy rugby winger and tested vo2 is 47, garmin 37

[@cfau6290]

Well i would not read all too much in single lab results...for example under lab conditions i severly underperform, may have to do with temp or staring at a wall while doing an effort alone and in the case you show there is a stationary bike used as well which can make a huge impact. I think your outdoor vo2 max may be higher. On the other hand standard conditions in the lab allow the comparison of different collected data sets. So if you go to the same lab again it would be ideal to see if your rehab journey fruited in a higher vo2 max compared to the test done before! Good luck

[@RLkimura]

a yes, at the end of the video, there are your zones, and as I written, the top of the endurance is at 170-175 watt.

[@tvfieri4633]

Is your weight correct in the Garmin app? If it’s not exact that could skew the vo2 estimate.

[@cyclingunboxed]

It's a good suggestion but I do keep it up to date. I don't really fluctuate much

[@hysiakmike]

Something I’ve been meaning to do is go and get a proper test. I didn’t think garmin was accurate. Says mine was 73 at its highest when I thought I was nowhere near that. Same with the HRV this week it’s showing unbalanced and needing rest when all I’ve done is rest and this weekend I felt the best I’ve felt on the bike in a long time

[@cyclingunboxed]

I know what you mean. I thought mine was way off to behind with. Would be interesting to see if other watch brand software says similar things. Same with the HRV in the beginning for me. Although the garmin has got a lot better at predicting my how I’m feeling these past few months.

[@hebrews11vs5]

Even if the power is slightly low, the speed is pretty quick. And at the end of the day, it's about how fast you are, not the power. I always guessed Garmin over exaggerated vo2 max. Now we know for sure.

[@minkmoink]

Hi, What was your FTP before you do the test, Thx

[@cyclingunboxed]

Was at 263 when tested

[@ak9itrainingacademy]

I’ve seen several of these comparisons and this was the furthest off I’ve seen from the watch. It’s also the first I’ve seen comparing it with cycling instead of running. I wonder if that’s playing role?

[@cyclingunboxed]

It is interesting. I also wonder if cycling is less accurate. The running vo2 max is accurate though!

[@OUTDOORS55]

How much do you weigh?

[@cyclingunboxed]

I usually hover around to 80kg mark

[@PBlaik]

Interesting that this video popped up in my feed today.... I just did my first running Vo2 Max test today and the results were 59.4, which is higher than my Garmin's prediction of 54 which to be honest I expected was higher than real life... apparently it wasn't!!

[@cyclingunboxed]

I think you are the first person to comment on this vid to be the other way round!

[@krzysztoftylek787]

@Cycling unboxed Well the lab test got your HRmax set as 192bpm, and even by the lab docs they think you did not push hard enough in the test so they CALCULATED your 192HRMAX. If you were push there to say 189 or sth, you VO2 would be a lot higher. So either you did not push hard enough in the test, or you have your garmin set widely inaccurately. I am sure if you set your garmin with the same parameters, it will go down to similar values.

[@cyclingunboxed]

The hr on the sheet was done as 220- age but they did measure it on the graphs and shows I hit 201. There was also a plateau at vo2 max which is generally a good indicator you hit your limit

[@krzysztoftylek787]

@@cyclingunboxed so you hit your ceiling at 179 and continued further to 201 without improving? That is simply not possible.

[@cyclingunboxed]

@@krzysztoftylek787 I’m just not sure if they recorded it the correctly to be honest. At 400w for over 2 minutes that hr is normally way higher at 198+ for me usually. The rest of the data does seem to correlate with my time trial performances. I am intrested in doing the same test on my turbo trainer at home here but I was very much on my limit that day

[@herbertbloch4167]

You need a certain amount of Oxygen to produce a certain amounts of watts. So if you do your weekly 5' intervals at 325 watts and you weigh 75kg, the garmin should be able to come quite close to a realistic value. If these 5 minutes aren't all out or the values of your pm are wrong, this obviously leads to some variance.

[@LyJoyRuns]

Unless your are around 60 years old i question your data when your heart rate is in the low 120’s at LT2?

[@cyclingunboxed]

The hr data was incorrect there. I have put in the description the updated results.

[@And-rc9yy]

Interestingly I just watched a guy doing a test in a Bristol lab on KZbin. His Garmin was saying 55 but his actual lab results were 70. Funnily enough he wasn't particularly fit. He was an 18' 5k runner which is just ok, especially considering this guy was about your age.

[@cyclingunboxed]

That’s very strange. I’m no where near an 18m 5k so I can believe he must be at 70. That’s a much bigger gap than mine

[@And-rc9yy]

I'm an ex cyclist, now a 52 year old runner. I got tested 20 years ago but got a bad injury shortly after. I didn't train for maybe 17 years until Covid. I've been training hard ever since. I'm expecting my VO2 max will have dropped in those years. It's going to be interesting to see the results.​@@cyclingunboxed

[@ChristianAlkjr]

I experience the same. Algorithms maesure my VO2 max too high. I've always assumed it's because my resting heartrate is on the low side, and my heartrate max is on the high side, of the normal distribution in the population!?

[@cyclingunboxed]

I think I too have a similar situation with low resting and high max. It’s a good theory as to why it might be the case with the over prediction.

[@Drew_Warner]

How much did the test cost

[@cyclingunboxed]

Was £250 here which seems standard for the area I live in. It’s cheaper without the lactate testing though but I think if you are going for it, then go for both

[@jackiewong0806]

@@cyclingunboxed That price is great for such kind of test! Am in Seattle and planning to do similar test after watching your video and it cost about $425 here😂

[@erikg007]

Surprise surprise, just like your watch was telling you all the time before your last reading, your VO2 max is 50. Yes it can fluctuate over time, I have also had my readings to up a lot after a long recovery, but if you look at articles, you will find that over time - smartwatches are very accurate

[@XavierHipolito]

I think you should get tested in other lab. Just to compare values and training zones.

[@cyclingunboxed]

I actually would like to do that. It’s quite expensive though. About £250 a time

[@XavierHipolito]

@@cyclingunboxed Yeah, that could be expensive but try to reach some for 1 video sponsor maybe

[@timvanmonero2720]

i know people with 315W who are as fast as you are on a TT. very efficient.

[@cyclingunboxed]

Thanks! I like to think I’m quite slippery through the air for a tall guy

[@CenaSitnica]

430 watts to hit vo2max? But only 51? The rest of the results look just as wonky as the vo2max one. Did you ever get a second opinion on the raw data?

[@cyclingunboxed]

I have thought about this and have a hypothesis. As I am predominantly fast twitch I may have hit my vo2 well before and that could have plateaued but because of the fibre type I could keep pushing and build high levels of lactate. So the power was high but the o2 consumption could have stayed the same. I did ask about the data and they adjusted it for me as they used the lactate hr data for my vo2 max. That’s all sorted now though. On the testing

[@CenaSitnica]

@cyclingunboxed Makes sense.. if you were predominantly slow twitch , 51 at 430 watts would put you at around 105 kg bw. Maybe I should get mine tested, 4-5 months of consistent training gets it to 71 if I were to believe garmin. Did you have any use of the data in your training after the test, or was it just for fun?

[@cyclingunboxed]

It did! Mainly LT1 and LT2. I found these good for my power zones, good for where to sit for endurance and when I was going into the red. It’s about £100 cheaper just to do the lactate testing.

[@thomasbeasley3271]

Normally garmin is pretty accurate for vo2 max. I am a runner not a cyclist so not sure whether it is different but I have 68 vo2 max on garmin and I did a proper vo2 max test in a lab at a univeristy and got 65 vo2 max. Think it is accurate normally but strange that it is different I your situation. Maybe not fully taking into account your injury 🤔

[@cyclingunboxed]

It does seem very close to most people who have tested it directly like us. But yea, you may be right, it probably doesn’t take that into account!

[@luc4662]

0:07 “[vo2max] is measured in mL per kg”. That’s incorrect, you need to divide with a unit of time. Given unlimited time you can absorb an unlimited amount of oxygen…

[@BobBob-uv9fq]

My garmin and university test got the same number 45/ok for 55 I guess

[@BobBob-uv9fq]

Aiming to run marathon under 4 hrs when 60 ,,,,,Edinburgh

[@tengrisherpa4517]

Its high because garmin dont consider your heavy weight!

[@whydoyouneedmyname6508]

They are proving its not nearly as genetic as they think. Runners who thought they peaked at like 64 vo2.. did zone 2 training only training for 2 years and hit 84.

[@cyclingunboxed]

Do you know of the research papers? I wouldn’t mind looking? Would be good to know if that was all or some participants

[@derrickmurray3782]

VO2 max is not as important as how much you can perform against it

[@pal_lokomotivet2679]

This is lottery. Garmin has no way of knowing how efficient you are. Last time I tested I was 62 in a lab but 54 on Garmin. I have a good vo2 but I’m a horrible runner so Garmin estimated my vo2 way to low. It’s only accurate if you are a athlete with physical capabilities that fall near to the dataset Garmin uses to estimated it

[@fallback8314]

i was/am STRONGLY considering buying the garmin 45. are you saying i shouldn't??

[@pal_lokomotivet2679]

@@fallback8314 there is many other good things to a watch besides vo2 estimates. Garmin have the best sport watches but the vo2 is a gimmick

[@rualablhor]

Garmin -6, no? Hmm...-9😊 Garmin wants to make folks happy, encouraged and sell more watches, of course.

[@YoussefKareemBouiahadj-xn3od]

Why are you saying miles while measuring in km

[@cyclingunboxed]

For me KM is the superior measurement and will always measure that way but in the UK the time trials have always been historically set in miles. 10m, 25m, 50m, 100m. When you talk about them, that’s how you would refer to the distances.

[@YoussefKareemBouiahadj-xn3od]

​@@cyclingunboxed that's what I mean He said miles not me

[@YoussefKareemBouiahadj-xn3od]

​@@cyclingunboxedthats what i mean.. he said miles not me

[@jono1457-qd9ft]

You weren't properly warmed up. You also were maybe untrained in higher intensity aerobic work. I don't doubt that you have the ability to hold 400 watts for several minutes. Also, the chart shows the 'Anaerobic zone' below the VO2max zone. I'm sure you know how silly that is because of your knowledge of the subject.

[@cyclingunboxed]

We did have a 15 minute warm up beforehand. The heart rate was wrong on this video but they did send me the new data with the correct HR and it does line up much better. You are right my high end was probably hindered being close to the crash. But if when I look at the gaseous exchange data it does level off suggesting I couldn’t consume anymore fuel at a faster rate meaning I probably did hit my limits.

[@jono1457-qd9ft]

@@cyclingunboxed Thanks for the reply. I have been trying to work this stuff out for a very long time. Is gas exchange a good metric for examining the optimal workout? What I mean is, those days when you fly up a hill but don't breathe hard. That's when you know there's more to learn about training and oxygen kinetics. I do agree that maximal absolute VO2max is mostly genetic. So the secret is to optimise the VO2 plateau. That's what the best trained athletes are doing.

[@cyclingunboxed]

The gas exchange shows what type of energy source you are using to create ATP. I.e fat / carbohydrate ratio. But you can just as easily find the right training zones using lactate which is much easier to test in real life situations. It correlates with the type of fuels you are using. I believe most of the best trainers are using LT 1 and LT 2 to prescribe training now. Here is what it’s based on if you want to go deep into it: www.mariusbakken.com/the-norwegian-model.html I hope that helps. If it doesn’t let me know.

[@jono1457-qd9ft]

@@cyclingunboxed thanks. I'll have a read . I thought you were referring to a high RER reading at a not so high power output.

[@razvannegoita2885]

Dual record probably u have a PM that is faulty

[@cyclingunboxed]

What do you mean by PM?

[@razvannegoita2885]

@@cyclingunboxed power meter. I will also expect that kind of lab to have also dual power meter on that smart bike. During the test you had Erg mode on the bike?!

[@cyclingunboxed]

Ah I see. My power meters (both tt bike and specialised) all match with my smart trainer so I don’t think it’s a problem to be honest. Yea it was erg mode on the test.

[@razvannegoita2885]

@@cyclingunboxed I don t really like erg mode because all off them have a smoothing effect and in the end all Have that death spiral effect and I find it in my case I m losing some watts when I m doing the ftp test. I ll do a vo2 max test soon as I m also interested in my “real” vo2 :) tx for the video.

[@cyclingunboxed]

Interesting. I will give this a go for myself I think and compare the 2 back to back 1 week apart. Thanks for letting me know

[@dylanauker4031]

Go on fasted rides and don’t eat, but ride easy. Teach your body how to use fat