“It’s at best an imputed VO2max,” Dr. Weiss said. “Not only do you not have an oxygen mask, you’re not actually exerting yourself to exhaustion.”
A simple reason that my wearable estimates were so far off from my real VO2max result is that the way my body works doesn’t match the heart-rate and oxygen-intake patterns of participants in the Apple and Garmin studies. Such is the danger of putting too much trust in algorithms.
That left me with no choice but to embrace the hard truth: My VO2max result in the lab test was very low. But that statistic was only one data point. The report also showed many positives, including a very high metabolic rate and fat-burning efficiency and healthy breathing patterns.
Taking all this information together, Ms. Hecker said she rated my fitness level “average,” higher than the Apple Watch’s cardio fitness rating of “below average.” She instructed me to focus on my cardio training. (Admittedly, in the gym classes I pushed myself harder in exercises I enjoyed, like weight lifting, and tended to take it easy on the cardio exercises I found torturous, like burpees.) Not doom and gloom.
Ignore the Numbers; Follow the Trends
In the end, all the health experts I interviewed agreed that even though the wearable data — much of it flawed — had given me anxiety, I had reached a net positive. The Apple Watch nudged me to pay closer attention to my health, and as a result I’m healthier now.
The broad trends shown by the wearables were accurate: Months ago, after the pandemic had taken a toll on my body and mind, I was in my worst shape in years, and the watch numbers were low. Now, even though the watch numbers are too high, I do look and feel better, and that’s all that really matters.
That may be the best way to approach wearables — view them as a directional arrow rather than a precise measuring tool, said Steven Adams, a sports medicine doctor and personal trainer in Danville, Calif.
Brian X. Chen
Source link
