FORUM: Fitness and Exercise
TOPIC:

# VO2max setting on HRMs

 Search the Message Boards:

 PAPAMIKIE SparkPoints: (34,005) Fitness Minutes: (67,171) Posts: 3,628 9/20/11 4:04 A Formulas for Calories form factors Using VO2max: Men: C/min = (-59.3954 + (-36.3781 + 0.271 x age + 0.394 x weight + 0.404 x VO2max + 0.634 x HR))/4.184 Women: C/min = (-59.3954 + (0.274 x age + 0.103 x weight + 0.380 x VO2max + 0.450 x HR)) / 4.184 Without VO2max: Men: C/min = (-55.0969 + 0.6309 x HR + 0.1988 x weight + 0.2017 x age) / 4.184 Women: C/min = (-20.4022 + 0.4472 x HR - 0.1263 x weight + 0.074 x age) / 4.184 I have theise in excel to simplify doing the math.

 SULIGIRL SparkPoints: (5) Fitness Minutes: (0) Posts: 1 9/19/11 6:29 P Anyone out there use a program online (or downloaded) that factors in Vo2 and RMR?

 EPSIGSIREN Posts: 822 6/5/11 5:25 P I think the machine assumes that if your VO2max is higher you are more fit, more likely to have a lower resting heartrate and more likely to have a slower heartrate response to increasing workloads. So someone who is out of shape may jump right up to 140 beats/minute at a low workload where someone fit would have to be sprinting to get that high. So for any given heartrate the more fit person is burning more calories.

 JOLINAR SparkPoints: (93,883) Fitness Minutes: (50,655) Posts: 3,464 6/5/11 8:21 A IT is helpful, thank you. Now I'm kind of ticked that I bothered buying a HRM in the first place since it is telling me nothing LOL

 PAPAMIKIE SparkPoints: (34,005) Fitness Minutes: (67,171) Posts: 3,628 6/5/11 8:11 A I had V02Max testing done as part of a research project at a local university. This was last April. At the time I found 3 research projects in the 5 min I spent looking, that required the subject to undergo V02Max testing. so if you live near a university or college you may be able to get a lab test for free. As far as the estimate and heart rate monitor go. I use one for running. I reduce the calorie estimate by 10-15% from what is reported on a normall run. I have a friend who uses the same math for running and who bumps up the estimate by 10% so we have 20% adjustment that we make to make the reported calories work well with our real world results. Running and heart rate monitors are the best you are likely to do outside a lab, and so you can see that If she and I both got an estimate of 1000 calories burned for a given run, I woul look at it as 850 calories and she would look at it as 1100 caloreis. That is 250 calories differences. Why do we each make an adjustment. The reason is that over time I have found it works better for me with what happens in the real world. Weight losse, inches, etc if I reduce it, and she has found that it works better for her if she adjusts up a little. This is not an exact science. Hope this is helpful Popie

 JOLINAR SparkPoints: (93,883) Fitness Minutes: (50,655) Posts: 3,464 6/4/11 7:32 P Haha, yes it is confusing, but thank you! I know I need to stop worrying about the numbers.

 JOLINAR SparkPoints: (93,883) Fitness Minutes: (50,655) Posts: 3,464 6/4/11 4:44 P Are high school tracks a standard distance? We only have one track and I have no idea how big it is. Would it say somewhere at the track? There's no one to ask on a Sunday morning.

 JOLINAR SparkPoints: (93,883) Fitness Minutes: (50,655) Posts: 3,464 6/4/11 4:39 P I was looking at that - I might do it tomorrow. My problem is not determining my VO2max. I actually trust the number I got using my 5K time. I am just confused as to why my calorie burns appear lower using the less fit VO2 number. As I stated in my original post, I thought fitter people burn fewer calories for the same workout as compared to someone not as fit (assuming weight and gender etc are equal) because they are more efficient.

 GOPHEROON SparkPoints: (28,096) Fitness Minutes: (12,495) Posts: 2,310 6/4/11 4:30 P Jolinar, FWIW try the Cooper's test. At least you'll get another possible VO2max number and there's also a nifty table to compare your results: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cooper_test http://www.brianmac.co.uk/gentest.htm Takes only 12 minutes on the track, add a few for warming up first.

 JOLINAR SparkPoints: (93,883) Fitness Minutes: (50,655) Posts: 3,464 6/4/11 3:51 P I would use an online calculator but honestly, I can't really judge how hard I'm working. And doing intervals, it's hard to focus on how much "rest/recovery" time I'm actually getting. When I do Insanity, there's a warm up, a fairly lengthy stretch, then the intervals and sometimes the breaks are longer than others. I've always felt that exercise isn't a big factor in losing weight and that diet is much more important but damn, if I'm only burning 300 calories per hour for busting my butt, it's not worth it at all from a caloric deficit standpoint. Yes, there are other benefits to exercise and that's why I don't skip workouts even when my diet is crap. I would love to not care about the numbers and just eat/exercise by listening to my body but I can't. I'll never be intuitive.

 GOPHEROON SparkPoints: (28,096) Fitness Minutes: (12,495) Posts: 2,310 6/4/11 3:36 P I don't know which formula Polar uses, but one commonly found is this: Using VO2max Men: C/min = (-59.3954 + (-36.3781 + 0.271 x age + 0.394 x weight + 0.404 x VO2max + 0.634 x HR))/4.184 Women: C/min = (-59.3954 + (0.274 x age + 0.103 x weight + 0.380 x VO2max + 0.450 x HR)) / 4.184 -- Using the above formula, you'll note that e.g. men will burn about 6 calories more per hour per one added unit of VO2max. I tested my VO2max using the Cooper's test, and since my Polar is old as old as the hills, I take my calories burned numbers from an online calculator. I guess the mystery was how a fit person burns more than unfit one? My bet is that a fit person running at same average HR will run so much farther in the same time as to account for that additional burn of calories.

 JOLINAR SparkPoints: (93,883) Fitness Minutes: (50,655) Posts: 3,464 6/4/11 2:54 P My HRM is an older model so it doesn't automatically update the VO2. And yes, I know I'm not burning fewer calories LOL It's just showing that I am. I know it's all an estimate, I know, I know, I know. But Polar is supposed to be one of the more reliable ones and I have no idea how many I'm burning, and apparently, I can't even get a decent estimate if the discrepancy is that big. So "the higher the Vo2Max the more calories burned" - that's also what you see from your Polar? Does that mean fitter people burn more calories? I thought the opposite was true. I guess that is what I'm confused about. If having a lower (approximate) VO2 means I'm burning fewer calories than I thought, then fine. But that would explain why I've been having trouble losing, if my calorie burn has been overestimated so badly for the last 18 months.