Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Owned my Series 7 for two days. Still no Vo2 max.
- Thread starter BuldozerX
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Can take some time... I experienced this as well with newly bought AWs.
Hard to say what exactly is keeping the watch from calculating it, but maybe it's not yet calibrated finally.
Hard to say what exactly is keeping the watch from calculating it, but maybe it's not yet calibrated finally.
No I don't remember unfortunately.... two, three maybe four exercises that exceeded the 20 minute minimum I'd say. At some point, the reading was there and I really don't know what exactly was different.
When you say you did two walks and two runs, do you mean you did running and walking workouts? For me, it calculates VO2 Max when I run a walking workout, but not when I run any other workout -- I assume I don't move vigorously enough to register in any other workout mode. 
Works for me. I received my series 7 on launch day and I checked health and mine is there. Before the 7 I had a series 4.
Something happened to my vO2 reading back in September. It was high and suddenly went to the low range and has stayed there since. Meanwhile, my running pace and duration has steadily progressed.
Might have something to with most of my runs are indoors and most are done though the Peloton app and not through the standard Apple Watch workout app. And it’s not anything medical as I’ve been checked out several times since then.
But at least for me, my vO2 reading is completely messed up for now.
Might have something to with most of my runs are indoors and most are done though the Peloton app and not through the standard Apple Watch workout app. And it’s not anything medical as I’ve been checked out several times since then.
But at least for me, my vO2 reading is completely messed up for now.
Try putting in your weight. I noticed it always recalculates when I put in a new weight.
as an owner of both a 945 and AW6 - another thing you might notice is once the AW starts reporting VO2, it may read lower than your Garmin. Garmin Connect is saying 42, while Apple Health says 35 (and Trends said 37). Using the Cooper test, I'm closer to 40.
I just assume it's because Garmin has more history and AW needs time to catch up. I think I read somewhere that Garmin also includes more activities for their calculation.
I just assume it's because Garmin has more history and AW needs time to catch up. I think I read somewhere that Garmin also includes more activities for their calculation.
I improved VO2 max from Above Average to High by getting older.
Still undecided on which is easier: getting older or working out harder.
What I find odd is there's no range called average. I had a single day when my VO2 went above average, then it was back to below average. The difference between above and below average is 0.1. I feel like a lot of my readings should actually be classified as average.
I haven’t been able to get that measurement at all. And for years. I do almost nothing but cardio and choose specific workouts yet cannot get that reading. I’m showing you today as an example.
Edit: Throughout the years I used a Series 4, Series 6, and as of Saturday a Series 7
Edit: Throughout the years I used a Series 4, Series 6, and as of Saturday a Series 7
Attachments
I am not an AW user, but a long term Garmin user. You do not want VO2 max calculated from a walk, it will be a complete guess. Instead run for 20 - 30 mins twice outdoors warming up before and run hard.
Garmin have learnt their lesson about VO2 max being all over the place if attached to every activity and for instance this is optional on trail runs now. You can have a VO2 max of 53 for instance, but a technical muddy and hilly run will record something in the high 40s. If you don’t want it from this kind of activity I wouldn’t bother. It’s not the most meaningful measurement anyway.
Garmin have learnt their lesson about VO2 max being all over the place if attached to every activity and for instance this is optional on trail runs now. You can have a VO2 max of 53 for instance, but a technical muddy and hilly run will record something in the high 40s. If you don’t want it from this kind of activity I wouldn’t bother. It’s not the most meaningful measurement anyway.
I'm lucky if I can run for a full minute, lol.
I know the VO2 max reading is meaningless at my activity level -- I'm trying to find a pattern between my walks and the VO2 score, and there is really no correspondence I can discern. At one point, the readings stayed level no matter how fast I walked, now it's doing a gradual trending down, again with no seeming correspondence to my level of exertion.
Lol, my garmin watch says my vo2max is 25 ("fitness age" of 79 , my true age is around 50). The more I run, the more it decreases (or because I'm getting older). I hope that the AW that Santa Claus will bring me, will offer me an higher vo2max, but I don't know why I doubt about it...
, my true age is around 50). The more I run, the more it decreases (or because I'm getting older). I hope that the AW that Santa Claus will bring me, will offer me an higher vo2max, but I don't know why I doubt about it...I thought i did when I set it up...exactly where should I enter it to make it work...TIA
Mine is going down the more fit I get as well. I’m currently 52 — eight-ish months ago it was reporting “above average”. I can run faster and father with a lower mean HR these days and it’s reporting “low”.Lol, my garmin watch says my vo2max is 25 ("fitness age" of 79
I’ve sort of given up on it. I’m not a high-level athlete by any stretch, just trying to stay fit, so it’s not really all that important. Like I posted before, I’m guessing it’s because I run indoors on a treadmill more often these days (pavement kills my legs).
That goes to my concern that this feature is flawed, and inaccurate. That a simple watch could correctly calculate such a complex physiological metric is amazing, and, in my mind, doubtful. It would be only a 'rough estimation', an 'educated guess', but nothing that I would rely on. Is it a search for a 'feature' that they can say 'See! It's not the same boring old watch, we have VO2 Max, which is a major new feature!'. Sure, it's a 'feature'. That is undeniable, but is it accurate, is it traceable to a standard, if I went to my cardiologist and had a VO2 Max test done, would it be in the range of this devices result, and what are the acceptable ranges of error? 10%? 20%? 40%? At what point does it become useless and just a functional ploy for press, and more sales.
People will buy this because it's new. Some people will buy it because it has that 'feature'. Is it usable, accurate, reliable. Your post adds to the impression that, no, it's not...
Got my read today. 31, and it's bellow avrage. Been running almost every day since summer. 50 on Garmin. What a joke.
Along these lines, I just remembered that the Nike+ Fuel Band was 'tweaked at one point. My 'data' was lower than it was before, and then I found out about the 'tweak'. It infuriated a lot of the users, and increased the calls for what Nike was using to calculate a 'fuel point'. They were rather tight lipped about the whole thing, and that added to the appearance that the product was a joke. For the record, the original Peloton (and likely the current one too) calculated the power that they show on the screen. No one knows what they use to come up with their result and it just added to my frustration with 'training on the bike that goes nowhere'. I had very little faith that the numbers were real, and after installing power pedals and calibrating them to the bike, proved it. Peloton was calculating the power off by nearly 20%, and actually varied somewhat over the range of power that was output. The lower power, the lower the deviation, the higher the power, you get the idea. But the Peloton is not a 'training device', although the new bike is likely 'more accurate'. (I can't test that) There are actual trainer bikes for being more accurate and reproducible.
Many people doing any form pf 'training' often rely on telemetry data from multiple sources to show how their exercise is progressing. Are they getting better, worse, under training, over training, need to push more, need to back off. Some people laugh at it when I've gotten into this subject, but it can be dead serious for some people/athletes. Having a link to reality is very important for the idea that it is actually measuring you, and not cooking some numbers that over weigh some parts and under weigh others. People will talk/brag about their FTP, they will complain about their HIIT workouts and their VO2max. But I've probably bored most of you. But one last thing: The Fuel Band rocked the world because reality wasn't reality, and they wouldn't tell users what reality they were measuring. Peloton bikes, at least the first version, were in many cases wildly inaccurate in their 'estimation' of power, and the perceived effort to actually ride the bike. Some bikes were 'hard', and some were 'easy', and that was in their own studio. The new bike does a 'calibration' when it's turned on each time, and I would hope that it will have some greater grasp on reality.
And that ALL telemetry devices for people to use for exercise have some degree of basis in reality. Hope...