[Closed] Personal Fitness Levels

Seeing the average under 20 year old round my way, you have my condolences.

How does that questionnaire know my VO2 Max? Sound like nonsense

Hmm, could do better I'm 55 but my fitness age is 38.

[img] [/img]

Expected vo2 max of 65 and thee fitness of someone much younger; I'll take that. Think I'll have a bottle of wine & bag of chips to celebrate.

48 but fit as a 20 year old (or under). 58 V02 max.

Probably bullshit...

Sound like nonsense

Probably bullshit...

Probably, but let me enjoy it for an hour or two before contending with reality.

Having said that, can anyone educated in these things say anything about the questionnaire one way or the other?

I gave up when it asked for my height & weight!

46 but as fit as an average 20 year old...

Doesn't say much for the average 20-year-old. 😯

Having said that, can anyone educated in these things say anything about the questionnaire one way or the other?

And the worm-can opening champion award of July goes to SaxonRider!

52 with the fitness of a 20 year old 😯
I guess that gives me a bit of leeway to eat and drink whatever I feel like 😆

I think it would be far more reliable to work out vo2 from a recent race result rather than from resting heart rate.
Although i have to admit it got quite close to my current vo2

Wow thats a reliable test and so much easier than any other VO2 max test I've seen 😉
The health of the average 28 year old, I would get all excited but there are some fat lazy ones about....
Is this the new BMI/BS test?

Fitness of average under 20 year old - v02 Max 72.

51 and reckons under 20 🙂

I already know I'm far fitter than my 3 kids

Actual 31, I'm as fit as the average 30yo, VO2 Max 52.

No physical exertion was done in establishing how fit I am....

52, says under 39. About right I reckon. (same as my appearance, laydeeez. 🙂 )

60 with a 20 yr old's fitness, poor little bastards if that's true.

It's just stupid bollocks. But I don't care, cos it tells me I'm super-fit too 🙂

I did a proper fitness test about 18 months ago (as part of a big medical) - watt bike, heart rate monitor etc

I only got 5 years younger than my supposed level of fitness (I'm fitter now I'd say), which gave me an amber (as opposed to red or green). Was quite pleased but was expecting to get a green!

According to that survey I'm 48 but have the fitness of an average 23 year old, with a VO2 Max of 55.

The only part of that which is accurate is the 48 bit! My VO2 Max is actually 38 for example.

I answered all the extra question, (luchtime - bored) and at the end there were links to pages telling anyone interested how they worked out the results.

I ain't bored enough to R.A.T.S. though.

under 20 year old, im 26 😀

I assume that 32 year olds in races are fitter than average, and as I put most 32 year olds behind me I'm fitter than fitter than average 32 years old.

It's obviously flawed, if my VO2 max was what they suggest I'd have taken 20mins more up the Aubisque yesterday.

Resting heart rate or waking heart rate? The doc measures 55 so I put that in but waking heart rate is much lower. What's "all out"? People have different ideas of what flat out is - I never go flat out these days because going hard enough for the horizon to start wobbling is suicidal at my age (or so the cardiologist tells me when he stops the test at 220-age). I used get about another 10bpm in race conditions due to stress and adrenaline compared with pushing hard in training. 160bmp standing still on the start line was normal. Sitting down in a rally car steering and gently pressing pedals resulted in over 180bpm - about the same as riding a col really hard.

48/<20/62. I'm off to thrash some teens in an E12 race tonight.

Model is derived from a [url= http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24576863 ]nice publication[/url] with a model that was cross-validated with indirect predictions. Discussion:

"The present study demonstrates that a simple estimation of CRF predicts long-term risk of all-cause and CVD mortality in a general population of men and women who were younger than 60 yr at baseline. The reduced CVD mortality of 20%–22% per each MET-higher (approximately 3.5 mL·kg-1·min-1) CRF and the corresponding 8%–14% reduction in all-cause mortality are similar to estimates obtained in population studies that measured CRF directly by a maximal exercise test"

If you are over 60, the model is not valid. Also there are no prediction intervals given for VO2max

Basically, there is overwhelming evidence that moving about a bit makes you live longer. The units are METS, and you don't need many extra above sitting doing nothing, to have a good response on mortality. 30 min a day gives you 4/5 of maximal benefit, believe it or not. Half the world's population don't meet that level.

EDIT: it might help to know that Calories = METS x weight (kg) x time (hours)

So for cycling moderately fast, say 700 calories per hr, and 70 kilos, that's 10 METS. The model needs some estimate of METS for activity - hence frequency and intensity question. Racing is about 15-20 METS/hr.