New software update for S9P-S9B-S9-S5P-S5 and S3 devices 2.20.28
-
@suzzlo
hence I am more efficient at lower speeds… -
@freeheeler I think you (and me, and everyone) should be efficient at the speed you are used to train.
Also, I think this algo is designed to give value to us (amateur athletes) and not to be a lab test substitute…
I mean, it works in also in not high demanding sports like walking.BR
-
keep in mind vo2max can drop and rise for many conditions especially a health related issue such as inflamation
-
@dimitrios-kanellopoulos What is the criteria, when there is no VO2max calculation at the end of running / trailrunning?
-
@mountainchris I dont know
-
@dimitrios-kanellopoulos maybe also first running calibration (I have a new watch)
-
@mountainchris said in New software update for S9P-S9B-S9-S5P-S5 and S3 devices 2.20.28:
@dimitrios-kanellopoulos maybe also first running calibration (I have a new watch)
It took a good long time for my values to stabilize after starting a new watch. At least a month.
-
There should be an option to deactivate VO2max for hiking. It messes up running VO2max a lot. VO2max is getting useless because you do not see your VO2max running anymore.
I wonder if ascent is really calculated fully in. Normally my VO2max is 53 - 55 and with fast hiking with much ascent only 43-35… Can’t believe…
-
@mountainchris it should be on / off. The same way hr for workouts is implemented.
-
@mountainchris or just split into walking/running vO2max.
-
@dmytro Since a few days I used hiking profile. This messed it up. Before I used mountaineering. There was never a VO2max calculated. So in running I had my pure running VO2max. That was accurate. I hope that mountaineering is still after update without VO2max.
Even if it would be walking, I can’t believe the difference and wonder if all ascent is calculated in. But I hope my solution before to use mountaineering still works
-
@mountainchris I think it does
-
@dmytro
I just tried, nothing to worry for @mountainChris, mountaineering has no VO2max estimation.
I recall that VO2max is only active for “walking/running” activities. Mountaineering is a combination of hiking, scrambling, climbing, abseiling… wouldn’t make sense to make an estimation. -
@mountainchris As I have stated in other posts and at least for me, the VO2max for activities where ascent is considered is not as good as it should. In my case using Trail Running profile, it keeps going down except if I do a light trail running where I can keep a nice pace.
I also think that is not easy to adjust, in activities with ascent there are many factors to be consider, not only ascent like: grade, type of terrain, technical or not…
BTW another way that VO2max is not calculeted is not tracking HR. -
@cosme-costa I would expect that at least physical effort for ascent (mass x gravity x ascent) is included. But I don’t know the VO2max formula. Maybe this effect is neutralized with descent and in sum you are slower than in flat terrain. That’s why VO2max could be probably less in case of speed hiking steap terrain. Could be a reason.
-
@mountainchris I’m no biophysicist, but I think this amount of work is a very small fraction of what our body does, so small even that it may well be neglected. Why?
In order to climb, we contract our muscles - which are highly inefficient ( compared to my standards at least XD). Let’s try to get a feeling for the efficiency grade: thermodynamically any system can have maximal efficiency grade of 50% - this is unachievable for a realistic system though. I would bet the muscle efficiency to lie about 10-20%. And this factor I fear is highly personal and thus can’t be accounted for in an analytical formula. And this is just one factor of the equation - humans are complicated.
Way out? Measure HR and apply algos that are derived from a huge dataset to hopefully find an ± plausible average. As you see though, these values aren’t necessarily precise enough. -
@mountainchris I do not know how the algo works either but in my case at least, the previous algo was more stable and I think more real. If I check NGP, for me, it works better and is more close to my feelings.
Regarding the compensation with the descent, here we have the same, depending on how technical it is you can be slower than going up.
So I think the algo works fairly well for light/easy ascents where we can keep low HR at decent speed but not when it becomes technical. The downsize, in my opinion, is that you have your running VO2max relatively OK and for one hike or trail running it goes down very easily and then you need some runs to make it go up again.
-
@cosme-costa will use mountaineering again for all ascent predominant activities including trailrunning with significant ascent. Then a can use the trail running profil for activities which are more flat. In past I got there very good values.
-
@cosme-costa said in New software update for S9P-S9B-S9-S5P-S5 and S3 devices 2.20.28:
Regarding the compensation with the descent, here we have the same, depending on how technical it is you can be slower than going up.
So I think the algo works fairly well for light/easy ascents where we can keep low HR at decent speed but not when it becomes technical.exactly what I assume, too
-
The difference in VO2max calculation is noticeable when there is wind vs no wind, when it’s warmer vs colder, or when you’re running on a nice and even surface vs dirt road.
Therefore, it would be best to let the user decide when to calculate the VO2 according to needs and running profile.
Assuming that accuracy is important.
Right now, VO2max calculation is simply too inaccurate when doing multiple activities in changing environment to have it “set it and forget it”.
But then, it’s just a number. Why bother?
