New software update for S9P-S9B-S9-S5P-S5 and S3 devices 2.20.28
-
@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?
-
@łukasz-szmigiel
VO2max is a value measured in a laboratory as I understand. our VO2max is estimated based on experience but without influence of nature elements.
for the watch it’s impossible to incorporate that. and for the developers who write the algorithm it is very difficult to find a reasonable balance of influencing factors.
it’s good to look at the value every now and then but I’ve decided to not take it too serious -
@freeheeler my problem with vo2max is that one walking activity decrease number,so after that I have to run who know how many days in order to return it on some normal value :))))))
-
@djordje-s
I know what you mean… but I don’t have any other idea than trying to understand how it works and trying to read the values in a reasonable way. we can’t change how it works unfortunately… we can only track instead of walking let’s say inline skating and change the sport mode after uploading to SA in order to avoid a messed up VO2max graph over time -
@freeheeler I know it’s an estimation. But what sense does it make if it drops 5 units after a simple trekking workout while it takes a month of running to get it back to previous estimation.
That’s why I think it shouldn’t be linked to every running activity but per user’s need instead.
-
@łukasz-szmigiel and the rest of you. Why do you care about this number. As @freeheeler said a lab test is necessary to get a VO2Max. And then, what does it mean? If you are trying to get more fit pick a hill or segment for a bike or run. Are you faster or slower? That will tell you if your fitness is increasing or decreasing. Or, do a Cooper test every three or six months. The watch gives you a silly number that doesn’t matter much.
-
@brad_olwin I don’t. I used it last year as a little game of crossing 50 as I’ve always been right under. After I did, I don’t care
It’s not troubling me, but it seems weird that for a platform that’s about accuracy, this estimation is unreliable. It creates confusion.
-
@brad_olwin I use it for meassuring running efficiency. My VO2max value increased much working on technique. Running better leads to better pace in HR2 Zone and an increase in VO2max. I do not use it much for high intense training.
-
@mountainchris you do not need VO2max for that, you’re already doing it right.
-
@brad_olwin as @łukasz-szmigiel comments I do not care much about the number either, but I also believe that if the number is not reasonable shouldn’t be presented, at least not in the watch. If I want hundreds of non-useful metrics I can always go to other brands. I think that before the upgrade the value was reasonable accurate but right now is too sensitive and “someone” should do some fine tunning.
In my case and with running the value in the watch is quite close to my lab results, only some points lower but new algo does what it wants and goes down to easily when ascent is involved, not proportional, I think it should consider NGP.
The other day I did my first Cooper test, I already knew about it but never did one, in my opinion it can be useful for checking evolution but for the value that the formula gives we are in a worse situation than with the watch because Cooper test only uses distance and age whilst the watch also uses HR (and probably more metrics).