Go Back  Bike Forums > Bike Forums > Fifty Plus (50+)
Reload this Page >

Fitness Age and VO2max Estimator

Notices
Fifty Plus (50+) Share the victories, challenges, successes and special concerns of bicyclists 50 and older. Especially useful for those entering or reentering bicycling.

Fitness Age and VO2max Estimator

Old 03-12-24, 03:55 PM
  #1  
climber has-been
Thread Starter
 
terrymorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,233

Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3535 Post(s)
Liked 3,686 Times in 1,849 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/#/
__________________
Ride, Rest, Repeat. ROUVY: terrymorse


terrymorse is offline  
Likes For terrymorse:
Old 03-12-24, 07:39 PM
  #2  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,587

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3915 Post(s)
Liked 1,967 Times in 1,403 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
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Likes For Carbonfiberboy:
Old 03-12-24, 08:42 PM
  #3  
Grupetto Bob
 
rsbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Seattle-ish
Posts: 6,344

Bikes: Bikey McBike Face

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2651 Post(s)
Liked 5,823 Times in 2,999 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.

__________________
Road 🚴🏾‍♂️ & Mountain 🚵🏾‍♂️








Last edited by rsbob; 03-12-24 at 09:27 PM.
rsbob is offline  
Old 03-12-24, 08:50 PM
  #4  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Northern NY...Brownville
Posts: 2,593

Bikes: Specialized Aethos, Specialized Diverge Comp E5

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 247 Post(s)
Liked 469 Times in 275 Posts
I'm 68 and Garmin says it's 57 and I have the fitness level of a fit 21 year old...tell my prostrate that...the rotten sob
Kai Winters is offline  
Likes For Kai Winters:
Old 03-12-24, 09:31 PM
  #5  
Grupetto Bob
 
rsbob's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2020
Location: Seattle-ish
Posts: 6,344

Bikes: Bikey McBike Face

Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 2651 Post(s)
Liked 5,823 Times in 2,999 Posts
Originally Posted by Kai Winters
I'm 68 and Garmin says it's 57 and I have the fitness level of a fit 21 year old...tell my prostrate that...the rotten sob
“Hilarious”, my stubborn and stingy prostate commented, “but too close to home”. Fitness of a 21YO?
Don’t stay up past 2 AM at parties.
__________________
Road 🚴🏾‍♂️ & Mountain 🚵🏾‍♂️







rsbob is offline  
Old 03-13-24, 03:00 AM
  #6  
Senior Member
 
sean.hwy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,025

Bikes: Blur / Ibis Hakka MX / team machince alr2 / topstone 1

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 426 Post(s)
Liked 274 Times in 201 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.

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.
sean.hwy is offline  
Old 03-13-24, 03:38 AM
  #7  
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2023
Location: Eastern Shore MD
Posts: 929

Bikes: Lemond Zurich/Trek ALR/Giant TCX/Sette CX1

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 599 Post(s)
Liked 847 Times in 431 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.
Jughed is offline  
Old 03-13-24, 06:10 AM
  #8  
Junior Member
 
rowerek's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Treasure Coast/Palm Beach County, Florida
Posts: 101

Bikes: Colnago C40 2004, 1985 Centurion Elite RS, Specialized Roubaix Elite

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 66 Post(s)
Liked 73 Times in 33 Posts
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
  • 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.
rowerek is offline  
Old 03-13-24, 10:28 AM
  #9  
just another gosling
 
Carbonfiberboy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Everett, WA
Posts: 19,587

Bikes: CoMo Speedster 2003, Trek 5200, CAAD 9, Fred 2004

Mentioned: 115 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3915 Post(s)
Liked 1,967 Times in 1,403 Posts
Originally Posted by sean.hwy
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.
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..
__________________
Results matter
Carbonfiberboy is offline  
Likes For Carbonfiberboy:
Old 03-13-24, 10:33 AM
  #10  
Perceptual Dullard
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,469
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 946 Post(s)
Liked 1,211 Times in 521 Posts
Originally Posted by terrymorse
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/#/
Woah. So I guess exercising doesn't have much effect on VO2Max.

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.
RChung is offline  
Likes For RChung:
Old 03-13-24, 11:01 AM
  #11  
climber has-been
Thread Starter
 
terrymorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,233

Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3535 Post(s)
Liked 3,686 Times in 1,849 Posts
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
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..
I'd go further and say all hills are great for cycling: < 1' hills for sprint power, 3-5' hills for VO2max, 10-20' hills for threshold, > 20' hills for tempo/endurance.

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:

__________________
Ride, Rest, Repeat. ROUVY: terrymorse


terrymorse is offline  
Likes For terrymorse:
Old 03-13-24, 12:09 PM
  #12  
climber has-been
Thread Starter
 
terrymorse's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Palo Alto, CA
Posts: 7,233

Bikes: Scott Addict R1, Felt Z1

Mentioned: 10 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3535 Post(s)
Liked 3,686 Times in 1,849 Posts
Originally Posted by RChung
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)
So if you want a high VO2max:
  • be young
  • have a tiny waist
  • have a low resting heart rate
  • exercise a bunch
Sensible.

Curious that all the factors are linear. Is that just because non-linear data fitting is too complicated?
__________________
Ride, Rest, Repeat. ROUVY: terrymorse


terrymorse is offline  
Old 03-13-24, 12:47 PM
  #13  
Perceptual Dullard
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,469
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 946 Post(s)
Liked 1,211 Times in 521 Posts
Originally Posted by terrymorse
Curious that all the factors are linear. Is that just because non-linear data fitting is too complicated?
Nonlinear fitting isn't complicated but it can be tedious, and there's a bias-variance trade-off. In effect, what that means is that you typically look for simple interaction or polynomial terms and if you don't get a big bang out of them you don't look much farther. (I teach some of this stuff, and I tell my students that linearity is both a powerful framework and a strong set of handcuffs).

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.
RChung is offline  
Likes For RChung:
Old 03-13-24, 02:48 PM
  #14  
Senior Member
 
sean.hwy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2020
Location: San Jose
Posts: 1,025

Bikes: Blur / Ibis Hakka MX / team machince alr2 / topstone 1

Mentioned: 1 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 426 Post(s)
Liked 274 Times in 201 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

sean.hwy is offline  
Old 03-13-24, 04:05 PM
  #15  
Perceptual Dullard
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 2,469
Mentioned: 36 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 946 Post(s)
Liked 1,211 Times in 521 Posts
Originally Posted by sean.hwy
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.
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.
RChung is offline  
Likes For RChung:
Old 03-14-24, 12:49 AM
  #16  
Me duelen las nalgas
 
canklecat's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2015
Location: Texas
Posts: 13,513

Bikes: Centurion Ironman, Trek 5900, Univega Via Carisma, Globe Carmel

Mentioned: 199 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4560 Post(s)
Liked 2,804 Times in 1,801 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.
canklecat is offline  
Old 03-14-24, 06:02 AM
  #17  
Senior Member
 
PeteHski's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2021
Posts: 8,694
Mentioned: 16 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 4527 Post(s)
Liked 5,030 Times in 3,109 Posts
Originally Posted by canklecat
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.
You can’t really expect such estimates to take into account specific issues that clearly skew you from the norm.
PeteHski is offline  
Likes For PeteHski:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.