New software update for S9P-S9B-S9-S5P-S5 and S3 devices 2.20.28

[DMytro]

@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.

[cosme.costa]

@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.

[A Former User]

@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.

[freeheeler]

@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

[Łukasz Szmigiel]

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?

[freeheeler]

@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

[Djordje S]

@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 :))))))

[freeheeler]

@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

[Łukasz Szmigiel]

@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.

[Brad_Olwin]

@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.

[Łukasz Szmigiel]

@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.

[A Former User]

@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.

[isazi]

@mountainchris you do not need VO2max for that, you’re already doing it right.

[cosme.costa]

@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).

[isazi]

@cosme-costa for me Suunto gives the same results as the Cooper test I did last week. But maybe all this VO2max discussion is not really for this topic.

[A Former User]

@isazi thanks. did not know that. but HR gets lower with age. is it really correct to calculate factor without this? But I think only HRmax is getting lower. Interesting view… Will check my EF…

[cosme.costa]

@isazi Yeah in my case, Cooper test VO2max is 5/6 points bigger than watch value but before the test I more or less knew the result because I know pretty well my pace for 12 minutes in a flat surface. I think the algo for running (flattish run) is ok and accurate with the watch, my “complain” is when ascent is involved and the big drop that happens there if you aren’t Kilian Jornet.

As an example, today I run 15 km of trail running with what I consider nice pace (route has some technical parts), 429 m of ascent and relatively low HR, VO2max hasn’t changed from last activity but I’m pretty sure that if I would have run in the flat with today’s NGP my VO2max would have increased provably one point.

And yes, maybe this discussion, should be in a separate topic…

[Łukasz Szmigiel]

@cosme-costa this is exactly my point as well. Why have a number in a watch that occupies space (memory), has a dedicated screen and provides confusion to new users if it’s unreliable to the point that it’s being suggested to ignore it?

[DMytro]

@brad_olwin my point isn’t as strong as for other.
I just find it very irritating, you know, like a fly buzzing around, to have a value that is not representative of my true fitness, which I can’t hide/turn off.
Same goes for the inaccurate step count for which I couldn’t care less except it irritates me to know of inaccuracy.
Arguably, it’s my problem not suunto’s.

[isazi]

@łukasz-szmigiel well, Suunto did not have it originally on the S9, and reviewers were enraged because A SERIOUS WATCH NEEDS VO2MAX! So they added it, and paid Firstbeat (Garmin) to have it. The fact that they have it now means they are still paying Firstbeat for the license.