Fortunately, this seems relatively simple to change (compared to other things with this magnitude of impact).
It was a transformative experience to go from 40 VO2max to 57 (as reported by Apple Watch, and losing 30lbs on the way) over the past 12 months. The best part about it is that I didn't even have to give up anything - the extra energy I gained from 90-120 minutes of aerobics per day also had the effect of making everything else more efficient.
It really doesn’t matter for most amateurs trying to improve their health whether the metric is accurate or not. The huge benefit of fitness trackers is that a metric is a metric is a metric. Eat less, exercise more, sleep soundly - you can’t go wrong, and if the metric is steps, or HR, or pace, or calories burned, or (in this case) estimated VO2max and seeing improvements in those metrics relative to a baseline is a motivating factor then that’s all that matters.
The problem with the VO2max metric is that there is no measurement of it outside of a few lab methods, certainly not in a fitness tracker, so they're estimating. It makes more sense to look at the other metrics that it CAN easily measure, like heart rate recovery to get a quantifiable and repeatable measurement. I agree for amateurs accuracy is not necessary, but repeatability is. If I weigh myself today and the scale says 10 lbs below my actual weight, and tomorrow it's 10lbs above my actual weight that's a problem. If it's always 10lbs below that's fine, the delta will be correct. You can't say that for VO2max you get out of a fitness tracker.
My watch says my VO2max is 36.8 which would put me very strongly in the long term negative health effects bucket and well below average. Meanwhile Garmin claims it's 51 which would put me in the top 15% of my age group. It can't be both. They're just made up estimations, and following them blindly could be dangerous. What if someone's is going up even though they're not actually doing a healthy amount of exercise? Or someone's is going down or maintaining even though they are, causing them to fall into negative thought or behavioral patterns? Better to stick with some other data points
I myself did a lot of exercising during the last 1 1/2 years using an apple watch for measures and I would also go with the previous comment:
Even thought the VO2max is not accurate (especially not compared to actually lab data) it is a nice graph with a tendency which REALLY helps.
High differences might come from different estimation techniques and thus this value is not comparable among different brands but it seems to be for your own value and progress.
During a lazier time it depleted a bit, now its going up again.
Most other graphs don't show it that nice. E.g. your avg hearth rate will not make huge changes (and drop which, even if its good, doesn't feel that good).
Edit: I actually did a Lab test (not VO2max) but an exercise ecg with lactate measurements. I couldn't choose between running and cycling. The problem is: if you choose the bike they can measure the values while you continue riding. If you choose running you have to stop now and then while they take a blood sample. Even there it isn't 100% accurate and might yield different results based on the used method.
I think you just want to track both over the long term - that is compare your watch with your watch and your garmin with your garmin.
But that is a huge gap, I think in general running creates more realistic VO2max data than cycling since there are too many factors at play (e.g. if you're in a group or not or using the drop vs. not).
My point is that for most adults in the world right now (western, industrialized, developing, modern, whatever) there is an obesity epidemic and any amount of focused self-care through exercise and diet will improve health outcomes. Eat less, exercise more. If an arbitrary metric on fitness tracker helps you reach that goal, then just do it.
Yes. But at least the watch is comparing against a previous measurement, making the baseline consistent.
It could have been named Vo5max and for me it'd have worked. In the real world, this number actually tracks pretty linearly with how much faster I'm able to climb a hill on a bike.
This post is a little braggy but it's also one of the best things I've did and I'm genuinely proud of it. The result and the process wildly exceeded my expectation at the time when I started last summer and it made me happier, more efficient, and even gave me time to reflect (since there's not much else you can do while going on a long ride/run) mentally.
If anyone is thinking about it - give it a try! The starting months are the hardest, but once it gets going a positive feedback loop takes over. I've been able to convince some people in my life to start exercising when they saw me change so substantially in a single year.
Full aerobics with no strength training. So far I only do cycling and running, averaging to about 110~ minutes per day (with weekends having longer times and weekdays shorter)
80% or more of it is spent at Zone 2/Endurance where I try to keep my heart rate below 145.
Just my commute is about an hour of cycling per day and I do some other sports two to three times a week for about two hours. It's not that hard to average out to about two hours of activity per day.
I find most people who devote themselves like this enjoy the process. If they enjoy it, it objectively improves their body, and they have the time - why not?
That's a massive change! It's realistic for an untrained person to expect a 15% change in a year with exercise; you went up almost 50%. What subjective changes have you noticed in your day to day?
It's a mixture of running and cycling and really less planning than what I should have.
Generally, my runs are between 5-10K and rides are 30km/20mi ish. More days than not I'll do both, but on other days I only get one done due to time issues. Weekends are usually for longer rides. I average around 200km/130mi on the bike and 40-50km of running per week. I've had to build up to this level gradually so it started from a much lower volume but I've been able to keep it pretty consistent for this year.
It's gotten to a point where if I don't do any exercise I would feel really bad physiologically so it drives me to go out everyday. But I essentially choose what to do at the hour and since most of the training is zone 2/endurance it doesn't matter too much.
> Fortunately, this seems relatively simple to change
Second:
> the extra energy I gained from 90-120 minutes of aerobics per day
Are you joking? You are asking average people to commit to 90-120 of c-v exercise per day? So, 7 days per week? This stuff is nonsense. Most people would quit after a week. I guess 99% of people could not sustain this for more than 3 months.
The hard part is getting started. Once you start it's self-perpetuating.
Zone 2 endurance aerobic exercise are in some way similar to an addiction but you'll need a certain volume to trigger it.
It is a little braggy but I also consider this one of the best things I've did in my whole life - and I myself didn't remotely dreamed of this result when I started last year.
It was a transformative experience to go from 40 VO2max to 57 (as reported by Apple Watch, and losing 30lbs on the way) over the past 12 months. The best part about it is that I didn't even have to give up anything - the extra energy I gained from 90-120 minutes of aerobics per day also had the effect of making everything else more efficient.