What Is Your Fitness Score?

[bcalvanese]

Mine came out to 41 (excellent for men my age).

I do cardio (power walking/running/biking) just about every day and just turned 60 in August.

Curious what other folks fitness score came out to.

[datalore]

---

When I was 57, I was obese and so out of shape I could barely walk a mile at a slow pace, and then had to lay down right after cause I felt like I was going to die.

I had a stress test done back then and it did not  come out good so they did a catheterization and determined that I had suffered a mini heart attack at some point because the bottom of my heart was slightly enlarged.

On top of that they told me I had COPD, and just about all my blood work was a mess. They told me either to start exercising, lose weight, and quit smoking or I would not be around too much longer.

I started walking 2, 3, sometimes 4 times a day. I got a fitness tracker and started measuring my walks and logging my food. I set it to lose a pound a week, and in the first year I lost about 57 pounds. I went from barely being able to walk 1 mile at about a 3 mph pace to being able to power walk 10 miles at about a 4.5 mph pace. I had trouble keeping my heart rate in a good zone just from power walking so I started running. Started with 30 seconds of running and 2 minutes of power walking. Now I can run 5 miles.

My resting heart rate went from the high 80's to the mid 60's. I cut my bad cholesterol in half and more than doubled my good cholesterol, and all my blood work is normal now.

I just recently had another stress test done and it turned out great. The cardiologist told me my heart is very strong now. I told him that when I do cardio I keep my heart rate in the peak zone for sometimes over an hour, and he told me that is why my heart is so strong now.

This is why my motto is...

if you ain't huffing and puffing and sweating, you ain't doing it right...:)

---

What a great story that illustrates the power of exercise. One of the most startaling studies we did was of nursing home residents. We took a group of octaganarians and just had them walk and do light resistance traning and over the course of the study not only did their numbers improve, but more importantly the exercise group all talked about how the quality of their life had improved. It was amazing to see the results. 

[datalore]

---

@N8teGee wrote:

Mine is 44-48, apparently good for a man my age (32).

The score doesn't really mean anything on its own though. Maybe they should explain the score a little more or even have data to compare it with. 

---

I agree with you that fitbit could do a better job of explaining what those numbers mean and the methodology behind them. They do say it's an estimate of VO2 max. It really is just an indication of how well your body processes and delivers oxygen during exercise. It should probably be called VO2 efficiency really. It can be a good indication of your overall fitness and health. Maybe the point is to get us  hooked on improving our scores so we'll keep buying fitbits. lol

[shipo]

So I just looked at mine, I'm 60 and my score is 50, and looking at the metrics Fitbit uses for determining the score and figure there are ways I can improve that score rather substantially.  If I read correctly, the best thing you can do to provide the Fitbit software enough data to determine your score is if you track a 1.5 mile run on a flat course at your best speed for that distance.  With that said, the shortest/fastest course I've done since I got my Ionic was a very hilly and technical (i.e. lots of roots, rocks, and ruts) 6.5 mile trail run at about a 9:00 minute pace, while other runs have been in the 8 to 12 mile range, all on trails, and all at about a 9:30 pace, so I'm not kicking it up into the optimal distance/speed zone.

Looking at the forecast maybe this coming Thursday (high of 63°F and partly cloudy), I figure I can go out for a nice easy three or four mile warmup, and then start a new run and burn through a two mile distance at say a sub-7:50 pace; should be interesting to see how my score changes.  🙂

[datalore]

---

@shipo wrote:

So I just looked at mine, I'm 60 and my score is 50, and looking at the metrics Fitbit uses for determining the score and figure there are ways I can improve that score rather substantially.  If I read correctly, the best thing you can do to provide the Fitbit software enough data to determine your score is if you track a 1.5 mile run on a flat course at your best speed for that distance.  With that said, the shortest/fastest course I've done since I got my Ionic was a very hilly and technical (i.e. lots of roots, rocks, and ruts) 6.5 mile trail run at about a 9:00 minute pace, while other runs have been in the 8 to 12 mile range, all on trails, and all at about a 9:30 pace, so I'm not kicking it up into the optimal distance/speed zone.

Looking at the forecast maybe this coming Thursday (high of 63°F and partly cloudy), I figure I can go out for a nice easy three or four mile warmup, and then start a new run and burn through a two mile distance at say a sub-7:50 pace; should be interesting to see how my score changes.  🙂

---

In my old job I loved testing 60-70 year old runners in front of hot shot college athletes just to see the looks of shock on their faces when they saw the numbers. I really would like to dig down into fitbits data and methodology on cardio score. I'll bet your score will improve substantially. I think fitbit has dropped the ball here somewhat by not focusing in on how users should interpret the score. We had a saying: data without context is called numbers. I think fitness trackers are in their infancy and the next big breakthrough will be providing actionable insight based on the data. We'll get there and I think that actionable insight is more important than any new sensors or technolgies, or at least it can be. 

[shipo]

@datalore, I wonder if the SDK will offer any methodology of looking at and analyzing the data.

[Jim_R]

Question, Mr Datalore, since you have had professional experience with fitness testing and VO2 Max.  The Fitbit documentation says their fitness score approximates VO2 Max and that it considers age and sex in its calculation among other things.

The definition of VO2 Max per Wikipedia is “the maximum rate of oxygen consumption measured during incremental exercise“.  There is no mention of adjustments for age or sex.  So it would seem that VO2 Max is a raw number, like weight on a scale, that you don’t adjust the result of for age, etc. Therefore if 2 people had exactly the same oxygen consumption at the same level of intensity they should have the same VO2 Max regardless of age or sex.

Would you agree that if Fitbit is adjusting their fitness score for age and sex they really aren’t approximating VO2 Max as well as they could?

[shipo]

@Jim_R, I did a little reading up on the whole VO2 Max and Cardio Fitness Score thing over the weekend.  If I understand it correctly, the VO2 Max calculation doesn't change with age or gender, however, the Cardio Fitness Score is weighted by age, gender, and a few other metrics.  Said another way, if you take two individuals, both with the same size, weight, and VO2 Max score, but with different ages (say 30 years old versus 60 years old), then the older person will end up with a score much higher than the younger person.

[Jim_R]

>>if you take two individuals ...

Apparently so.  And just how they're doing this adjustment is not documented.  My only issue is saying it approximates VO2 Max.  I think that is misleading, although reasonable people can differ about what approximate means.  If I'm 100 years old (not!) and my fitness score is 70 because I can still breathe and move some, and then I get a real VO2 Max test of 10, I would think I'd been mislead.

[shipo]

@Jim_R, you know what, I think I lied...

Now that I think back on the stuff I read Friday, maybe the absolute score is not weighted by age, however, where you fall in the various ratings is age graded.

From http://www.whyiexercise.com/VO2-Max.html:

What I find interesting about the above charts is they look very similar to the Fitbit charts, but with a "Superior" rating added to the top.

[Jim_R]

>>where you fall in the various ratings is age graded.

Absolutely. Although, if Fitbit is going to age adjust your fitness score, you can't just look it up on the site you linked to, since the numbers there are unadjusted VO2 Max scores.

Btw, isn't King Tut amazingly good looking, age adjusted? 😉

[Jim_R]

Wait.  Rereading your last post I see I missed the point.  Yes likely they just mean the fitness category is age/sex adjusted.  They could clarify that if they wanted for overly literal people like me.

[bbarrera]

Fitbit provides two types of VO2max scores:

- a very rough estimate, which is a range of values

- an estimate based on running on flat terrain

The first is a very rough estimate, and I'd say its a "feel good" score based on what I've seen. The second estimate is better, but no 3rd party validation like we have with other vendors. And limited to running. At least on Charge 2, the VO2max estimate has been shown to be somewhat hit or miss so take what you get with a grain of salt. And keep in mind genetics largely determines your score.

[datalore]

---

@Jim_R wrote:

Question, Mr Datalore, since you have had professional experience with fitness testing and VO2 Max.  The Fitbit documentation says their fitness score approximates VO2 Max and that it considers age and sex in its calculation among other things.

The definition of VO2 Max per Wikipedia is “the maximum rate of oxygen consumption measured during incremental exercise“.  There is no mention of adjustments for age or sex.  So it would seem that VO2 Max is a raw number, like weight on a scale, that you don’t adjust the result of for age, etc. Therefore if 2 people had exactly the same oxygen consumption at the same level of intensity they should have the same VO2 Max regardless of age or sex.

Would you agree that if Fitbit is adjusting their fitness score for age and sex they really aren’t approximating VO2 Max as well as they could?

---

I'd actually have to see their methodology to have a definitive take on that. I will say that we used it just as a raw number. You have to remember this was in the early 2000's and the methodology has changed somewhat to account for age and gender. Obviously a 30 year old triathlete should be at the peak of her conditioning and will probably have a higher score than her 62 year old mother, even if the mother is also a triathlete. The interesting thing is the daughter may not have that much of a score advantage on her mother even accounting for age, and also the daughter got her genetic potential, well half, from her mother, but  potential without training is just potential. I can't speak for fitbit, obviously, but we accounted for age and gender as the control group and a way to analyze the numbers. I'm not going to bore everyone with a science discussion here, I'll just say there are good reasons you might want to use age and gender as a benchmark. It was interesting to see people [even elderly sedentary people] improve their scores through simply training the cardiovascular system. The only real way to get accurate VO2 max is to test in a lab under controlled conditions. Fitbits application is actually an estimate, and like most estimates it can be wildly off one way or the other. Just having been on the board here and knowing a bit about @shipo and his background I'd expect him to score in the superior range, not just for men his age, but for men period. 

[datalore]

---

@bbarrera wrote:

Fitbit provides two types of VO2max scores:

- a very rough estimate, which is a range of values

- an estimate based on running on flat terrain

The first is a very rough estimate, and I'd say its a "feel good" score based on what I've seen. The second estimate is better, but no 3rd party validation like we have with other vendors. And limited to running. At least on Charge 2, the VO2max estimate has been shown to be somewhat hit or miss so take what you get with a grain of salt. And keep in mind genetics largely determines your score.

---

I couldn't agree more with you; you should take that number with a big grain of sea salt. You should take this estimate for what it is, an estimate. I think the estimate can be good to give you a general idea of your fitness level and the numbers can give you something to aspire to reach. There is no fitness watch that can give you an accurate VO2 Max score. Third party verification can maybe, depending on methodology, give you a better estimate, but it's still going to be an estimate.  It has to be done in a lab under controlled conditions to be accurate. 

[bbarrera]

FirstBeat VO2max estimation is licensed and used in running watches and bike computers by companies like Garmin. Its been validated to be within 5% which is pretty good, and here is an interesting article:

https://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/can-your-watch-estimate-your-vo2-max

Another article on that same website puts its best IMHO "For most runners, however, knowing your VO2 max provides little useful guidance, in part because it’s simply a measurement of your current maximal aerobic capacity."

Same for cycling, VO2max doesn't tell me anything about my current fitness level. My max aerobic capacity is unchanged over this year, but my actual fitness level has changed quite a bit. After taking a few months "off" (riding 3-4 hours/week instead of 6-10 hours/week) I'm slower and can only keep up with the fast guys for about half the ride on our Wed night group ride. Like running, economy of motion and lactate threshold play a bigger role in fitness level.

I guess if you are getting back into shape, or losing weight, it could be motivational to watch your VO2max go up. 

VO2max is really good at ranking potential performance, my cycling VO2max is around a 43 and losing 20 pounds would go up to 47. Maybe with some focused VO2 training I could bump it to 48 or 49. But I'll never be as fast as guys my age/size/fitness that have scores in the 60s.

VO2max is mildly interesting to know, like knowing your IQ score. All it tells me is that I was genetically predetermined to be a good endurance athlete, and not world class. 

[bbarrera]

---

@JonRFit wrote:

I think the fitness score is a bit of a joke. I am almost 30, can hit a sub 6 min mile, bench 315 for reps after running 2 mi - yet my scores dead average at 48.  If I'm not in the highest levels of fitness for my age, who is?

---

@JonRFit At 6 min/miles the 12 minute Coopers Test would estimate your VO2max at 60.

[datalore]

---

@bbarrera wrote:

FirstBeat VO2max estimation is licensed and used in running watches and bike computers by companies like Garmin. Its been validated to be within 5% which is pretty good, and here is an interesting article:

https://www.runnersworld.com/sweat-science/can-your-watch-estimate-your-vo2-max

Another article on that same website puts its best IMHO "For most runners, however, knowing your VO2 max provides little useful guidance, in part because it’s simply a measurement of your current maximal aerobic capacity."

Same for cycling, VO2max doesn't tell me anything about my current fitness level. My max aerobic capacity is unchanged over this year, but my actual fitness level has changed quite a bit. After taking a few months "off" (riding 3-4 hours/week instead of 6-10 hours/week) I'm slower and can only keep up with the fast guys for about half the ride on our Wed night group ride. Like running, economy of motion and lactate threshold play a bigger role in fitness level.

I guess if you are getting back into shape, or losing weight, it could be motivational to watch your VO2max go up. 

VO2max is really good at ranking potential performance, my cycling VO2max is around a 43 and losing 20 pounds would go up to 47. Maybe with some focused VO2 training I could bump it to 48 or 49. But I'll never be as fast as guys my age/size/fitness that have scores in the 60s.

VO2max is mildly interesting to know, like knowing your IQ score. All it tells me is that I was genetically predetermined to be a good endurance athlete, and not world class. 

---

I happen to agree with you again. VO2 max is just a number and I think the next great innovation in trackers is providing on device, dynamic, actionable feedback. I did read the article and a 5% variable is actually not that bad, but it's still an estimate. And again I'd like to dig in the the methodology; after all there are lies, **ahem** lies, and statistics.  I think one day we'll be able to get an accurate read from a wrist based watch, but we aren't there yet and that's simply due to the technology, but as it always does technology will catch up. 

[bbarrera]

---

@datalore wrote:
And again I'd like to dig in the the methodology; after all there are lies, **ahem** lies, and statistics. 

@datalore Dig away:

https://www.firstbeat.com/en/science-and-physiology/fitness-level/

The short version:

- 79 runners preparing for a marathon

- 2690 runs over 6-9 months

- for comparison each runner's VO2max was lab tested 4 times during the period

and again, its only mildly interesting to know your VO2max. Here is what I got from mine - no matter how hard I try, I'll never be an elite or world class (age group) endurance athlete. Think I first realized that in middle school and high school back in the 1970s....

[datalore]

---

@bbarrera wrote:

---

@datalore wrote:
And again I'd like to dig in the the methodology; after all there are lies, **ahem** lies, and statistics. 

@datalore Dig away:

https://www.firstbeat.com/en/science-and-physiology/fitness-level/

The short version:

- 79 runners preparing for a marathon

- 2690 runs over 6-9 months

- for comparison each runner's VO2max was lab tested 4 times during the period

and again, its only mildly interesting to know your VO2max. Here is what I got from mine - no matter how hard I try, I'll never be an elite or world class (age group) endurance athlete. Think I first realized that in middle school and high school back in the 1970s....

---

Thanks I'll actually dig in; I'm a nerd and love this stuff. I did notice the title of the white paper was VO2 estimation, not score, a subtle yet significant distinction.

This paragraph is the kicker:The method utilizes only reliable data periods and has been found to be very accurate. In order to obtain consistent results, the exercise conditions should, however, be standardized because for example running surface, wind, and high altitude may affect the moving speed.

That's science speak for this test would be better under controlled conditions. Algorithms will get there, but still not reliable to the degree they should be, but man are they close. 

 One of the negatives of the tracker revolution, in my opinion, has been useless numbers. I only use the fitbit "cardio" score as a loose benchmark. It's  like SWOLF score in swimming. There are many factors that contribute to it, and ultimately, it just isn't that interesting. We are awash in data, I love it, but it isn't actionable for users, so really it's just numbers. It would be really cool if some company could harness machine learning to actually serve as a virtual health coach. I'm sure that's coming, but in the meantime we have to have some benchmark numbers to keep us hooked on the upgrade cycle. 

[SunsetRunner]

I am in the superior range for a 37 year old female according to the chart/fitbit but I don't feel it is accurate in my case. I am not an athlete, nothing like. I like exercising and do it daily for health and enjoyment but it's a part of my life, it's not what writing is to me. I have a resting heart rate around 58 usually and I would say my recovery is good.  I could sprint to a bus say and then be totally fine 2 seconds later like it never happened but it depends totally on my mind set/emotional state. If I am feeling emotionally stressed or socially anxious I am a wreck but if I am enjoying myself it can be hard to get my heart rate into the cardio zone. I think the highest I have ever seen my heart rate when pushing myself to my breaking point was 173. I can't reach 186 which was the suggested max for my age and gender. On some occasions aka when I am socially anxious and then move to a fun exercise my heart rate goes down from exercise because it relieves stress. But ask me if I could run a 5k and I would probably say no, I have never tried but I have never had much interest in running (I like HIIT and cardio with a huge variety). I mean to do the run tests though and then I bet my scores will go down as running is totally alien to me (aside from the random sprinting having a child entails) and I am more a slow twitch muscle kind of person I assume because I tend toward a long workout at moderate effort. So when I read about people doing these amazing things on the fitbit community, it's another league. No way I could do 100 push ups in a row and I am not physically fast enough to run a mile in under 6 minutes.