Fitness Age and VO2max Estimator
#1
climber has-been
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,525
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Liked 4,065 Times
in
2,003 Posts
Fitness Age and VO2max Estimator
I found this questionnaire website in which you answer a bunch of questions, and it gives you a fitness age and VO2max estimate.
I tried it out, and its estimate for my VO2max seems pretty close at 56 (Garmin says 57, HRV4Training says 58).
It's part of a study by the Cardiac Exercise Research Group. Any way, here is the link: https://www.worldfitnesslevel.org/#/
I tried it out, and its estimate for my VO2max seems pretty close at 56 (Garmin says 57, HRV4Training says 58).
It's part of a study by the Cardiac Exercise Research Group. Any way, here is the link: https://www.worldfitnesslevel.org/#/
Likes For terrymorse:
#2
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,768
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Liked 2,103 Times
in
1,489 Posts
78 y.o., I got 46 y.o. and 45. I had a treadmill test which produced about the same athletic age.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
Likes For Carbonfiberboy:
#3
Grupetto Bob
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Seattle-ish
Posts: 6,959
Bikes: Bikey McBike Face
Liked 6,622 Times
in
3,346 Posts
Garmin states VO2Max is 47. Can’t believe how close the pole results are to Garmin.
Fitness level of an “average 37” YO? Oh crap - since most are slugs.
Fitness level of an “average 37” YO? Oh crap - since most are slugs.
__________________
Road 🚴🏾♂️ & Mountain 🚵🏾♂️
Road 🚴🏾♂️ & Mountain 🚵🏾♂️
Last edited by rsbob; 03-12-24 at 09:27 PM.
Likes For Kai Winters:
#5
Grupetto Bob
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Seattle-ish
Posts: 6,959
Bikes: Bikey McBike Face
Liked 6,622 Times
in
3,346 Posts
Don’t stay up past 2 AM at parties.
__________________
Road 🚴🏾♂️ & Mountain 🚵🏾♂️
Road 🚴🏾♂️ & Mountain 🚵🏾♂️
#6
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,051
Bikes: Ibis Hakka MX / team machince alr2 / topstone 1 / Cervelo zht
Liked 278 Times
in
204 Posts
my garmin 1080+ says 49 for vo2 max but I know in my case that has to be off. I bike about 6k a year but none of it's training hard miles. I know my cardio is not great. I can bike for about an hour or two at 150 to 160 heart rate but I would fall over if ran two blocks.
I can climb/hike stairs for an hour plus without being out of breath but when I hike a 25%+ hill I am sucking wind after about 20 minutes. I can keep going but I am going way slower.
I can climb/hike stairs for an hour plus without being out of breath but when I hike a 25%+ hill I am sucking wind after about 20 minutes. I can keep going but I am going way slower.
Your Cycling VO₂ Max is 49 which is superior for men ages 50-59. Your fitness age is 20. That's the top 5% for your age and gender.
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Eastern Shore MD
Posts: 1,207
Bikes: Lemond Zurich/Trek ALR/Giant TCX/Sette CX1
Liked 1,128 Times
in
560 Posts
According to that website - I should be out there racing a bit.
52 with a sub 20 fitness age and 61 VO2 max.
Garmin has me about 10 points lower... based on power and heart rate - more realistic.
52 with a sub 20 fitness age and 61 VO2 max.
Garmin has me about 10 points lower... based on power and heart rate - more realistic.
#8
Junior Member
So based on ethnicity, level of education, height, weight, weekly exercise, waist (!) and BPM this incredible [sic] website can estimate VO2max. Wow!
They should have one more question: Do you believe these results as being reliable, valid and correct?
Based on the answer it should be relatively easy to estimate not only VO2max but IQ as well.
The question is: what are they selling?
VO2max
They should have one more question: Do you believe these results as being reliable, valid and correct?
Based on the answer it should be relatively easy to estimate not only VO2max but IQ as well.
The question is: what are they selling?
VO2max
- Direct measurement: This is considered the most accurate method and takes place in a lab setting. You'll wear a mask connected to a gas analyzer while exercising on a treadmill, bike, or similar machine. The analyzer measures the amount of oxygen you breathe in and the amount of carbon dioxide you breathe out. This data is used to calculate your VO2 max, typically expressed in milliliters of oxygen consumed per minute per kilogram of body weight (ml/kg/min).
- Field tests: These are less precise than direct measurement but offer a more accessible alternative. They involve performing a specific exercise test, like the 12-minute Cooper run or the beep test. These tests use your performance and other factors like age, weight, and gender to estimate VO2 max through equations. Field tests are good for tracking changes over time but may not be as accurate for pinpointing a specific VO2 max value.
#9
just another gosling
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,768
Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004
Liked 2,103 Times
in
1,489 Posts
my garmin 1080+ says 49 for vo2 max but I know in my case that has to be off. I bike about 6k a year but none of it's training hard miles. I know my cardio is not great. I can bike for about an hour or two at 150 to 160 heart rate but I would fall over if ran two blocks.
I can climb/hike stairs for an hour plus without being out of breath but when I hike a 25%+ hill I am sucking wind after about 20 minutes. I can keep going but I am going way slower.
I can climb/hike stairs for an hour plus without being out of breath but when I hike a 25%+ hill I am sucking wind after about 20 minutes. I can keep going but I am going way slower.
__________________
Results matter
Results matter
#10
Perceptual Dullard
I found this questionnaire website in which you answer a bunch of questions, and it gives you a fitness age and VO2max estimate.
I tried it out, and its estimate for my VO2max seems pretty close at 56 (Garmin says 57, HRV4Training says 58).
It's part of a study by the Cardiac Exercise Research Group. Any way, here is the link: https://www.worldfitnesslevel.org/#/
I tried it out, and its estimate for my VO2max seems pretty close at 56 (Garmin says 57, HRV4Training says 58).
It's part of a study by the Cardiac Exercise Research Group. Any way, here is the link: https://www.worldfitnesslevel.org/#/
The R^2 = 0.61 for men and 0.54 for women, so not super great -- however, for a population-level non-exercise test based only on answers to a quick questionnaire, that's pretty damn good. The published equations for predicting VO2Max used waist circumference (WC in the formula below) but the authors say that if they used BMI instead there were "negligible" differences in fit. That said, they didn't give the equation coefficient for BMI.
For men, their prediction equation was: VO2Max = 100.27 - (0.296*age) - (0.369*WC) - (0.155*RHR) + (0.226*Physical activity index)
For women it was: VO2Max = 74.74 - (0.247*age) - (0.259*WC) - (0.114*RHR) + (0.198*Physical activity index)
Their PA-Index was some combo of the answers to three exercise questions (how often, how long, and how intensely do you exercise).
Bottom line, for this population-level non-exercise metric, be younger, weigh less, and get a lower resting HR. I'm guessing that almost all of us who are reading this sub-forum already are in the "top" group of their exercise questions.
Last edited by RChung; 03-13-24 at 10:36 AM.
Likes For RChung:
#11
climber has-been
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,525
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Liked 4,065 Times
in
2,003 Posts
You denigrate yourself unnecessarily. Just look around at other people. Your numbers are probably about right. Sure you could do better, but compared to what? When I was 18, I could run a 3000' plus climb with a brief walk midway where it was a little flatter. I assure you, that was not normal. Ultramarathoners walk the hills. Being one in 20 of your peers is not that great. Keep at it, become one in 10,000. As you get older and keep it up, you'll become ever more deviant. A good gym program has really helped me, especially when I was your age and just starting to get fit again. 6k a year is a LOT. Good for you. If you want to get better at running, you have to run. Work up to 2 miles/day and then do that almost every day. Fix you right up especially if you have some short hills. Short hills are everything if you want to get fit as a runner, 15' hills are great for cycling..
One of my favorite training rides is just doing a bunch of little hills: go hard on the uphills, go easy on the parts in between. It really bumps up my power, and strengthens the legs.
My ride buddy calls this route "Terry's Leg Breaker". It's not that brutal:
Likes For terrymorse:
#12
climber has-been
Thread Starter
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,525
Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1
Liked 4,065 Times
in
2,003 Posts
- be young
- have a tiny waist
- have a low resting heart rate
- exercise a bunch
Curious that all the factors are linear. Is that just because non-linear data fitting is too complicated?
#13
Perceptual Dullard
In this particular case, their endpoint wasn't to find VO2Max; they were trying to see if they could predict long-term mortality. So they used estimated VO2Max in another equation (along with some other variables) to predict long-term mortality. That latter (also linear) relationship has an R^2 of ~ 0.5. But for population-level relationships, finding something like "lose weight and exercise more" isn't a bad public health message to send.
Likes For RChung:
#14
Senior Member
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 1,051
Bikes: Ibis Hakka MX / team machince alr2 / topstone 1 / Cervelo zht
Liked 278 Times
in
204 Posts
They don't factor in height or weight just your waist size? This test seems flawed. If 170cm vs 200cm have the same waist size the 170cm person would be fatter.
seems like they should have used a waist to height ration number instead.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/healt...t-height-ratio
seems like they should have used a waist to height ration number instead.
https://www.omnicalculator.com/healt...t-height-ratio
#15
Perceptual Dullard
They wrote in their paper that they tried BMI in place of waist size, and it had "negligible" change in the fit of the equation. This is pretty common for these types of "predictive" studies: they're just looking for the best prediction rather than to understand the "causal path." If you're familiar with "technical time series analysis" for, say, stock prices, this is very similar to that approach: you don't really care about fundamentals or other "structural, causal" relationships or why a stock price goes up or down, you only care about whether you can predict changes in it. There are other times when you're interested in understanding why something changes, especially if you want to know how to modify behavior, but evidently prediction isn't really one of those situations.
Last edited by RChung; 03-13-24 at 04:11 PM.
Likes For RChung:
#16
Me duelen las nalgas
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,515
Bikes: Centurion Ironman, Trek 5900, Univega Via Carisma, Globe Carmel
Liked 2,814 Times
in
1,808 Posts
Same results I've seen from other quickie estimates. All wrong in my case. I've always been limited in VO2 max by lung scarring from childhood bouts with pneumonia and tuberculosis, and a minor heart murmur. I'm running the human equivalent to a Chevelle 283 with burnt rings and gummy carb.
#17
Same results I've seen from other quickie estimates. All wrong in my case. I've always been limited in VO2 max by lung scarring from childhood bouts with pneumonia and tuberculosis, and a minor heart murmur. I'm running the human equivalent to a Chevelle 283 with burnt rings and gummy carb.
Likes For PeteHski: