Fitness age calculations on Sports App — TomTom Community

Fitness age calculations on Sports App

AltheapuAltheapu Posts: 6 [Master Explorer]
I recently downloaded new software ver 1.6.26 on my runner 2 & have run 3 times since. I earned 1600+ for these runs. However when I look at my fitness age on Sports App it shows 72 yrs! I'm 65 yrs old, female and run 3-5 times a week at ave HR of 160+ for 30-60 a time and run from 5-10kms. The Trends page shows that my Fitness age has increased from 50 yrs average to 72 since using the new software. Whilst I know this calc is wrong I'm alarmed. It should at least be a bit lower than my chronological age.
Am I the only one with this problem?

Comments

  • cheekychimpcheekychimp Posts: 209
    Superusers
    Please check the following:

    1. Have you checked that your personal details like date of birth, gender, weight are correct on your watch, the app and the website?
    2. Have you checked that the account showing in the app is the same as the account you use to login on the website and that it's linked to your watch?
    3. Have you specified your own Max heart rate on the website? Unless you know the exact value you should use the general non gender Age Based Max HR of 220 less your age 65 which will be 155. If you want to use the female specific Age based Max HR then it will work out to be 166 according to some other websites that provide this calc (see https://www.aqua-calc.com/calculate/maximum-heart-rate).

    All the above if inaccurate can make your Fitness Age calculation go wonky. :?

    Here is a link to the Tom Tom Fitness Age Manual http://download.tomtom.com/open/manuals/TomTom-Fitness-Age-UM/manual.html.
  • AltheapuAltheapu Posts: 6 [Master Explorer]
    I have all my details correct, and my login is correct. All my apps reflect my history accurately with my Runner 2 over the life of the watch (since July 2016). My heart rate zones are set as default for my age. If you look at the screenshot I attached with original query it shows that my Fitness age was reflecting an average of 50years until new software upgrade last week. It rose sharply to 72 after that.
    I think the calcs are just wonky! I'll carry on and see if the calc re-adjusts over time! Thanks for trying
    PS I read that manual after installing the new software
  • cheekychimpcheekychimp Posts: 209
    Superusers
    Great to know that you read the Fitness Age user manual before making your post! Typically forum users here do not seem to use the Search facility in the forum and enjoy doing the "hit and run on these Tom Tom forums"...

    As your avg heart rate of 160+ bpm is very high for your run's versus your age based MHR at 155 bpm - I would suggest you alter your heart rate zones accordingly and also enter a new max heart rate greater than 160 (your female specific age based MHR is 166 bpm). See if that works - remember that the algorithms will only use "valid segments within certain hr zones". If you maxing out beyond your age based MHR of 155 - the algorithms will probably exclude large sections of your HR data as it perhaps sees it as incorrect/invalid hr data. Fitness Age depends on good sampling of hr data.

    I hope the Fitness Age calc's adjusts itself over time - if so please report back here.
  • AltheapuAltheapu Posts: 6 [Master Explorer]
    Many thanks, cheeky chimp - I'll try changing HR settings and get back to you!
  • dayssedaysse Posts: 31 [Master Explorer]
    I think your max heartrate will be well over 170bpm if you average over 160 for your regular runs. Your ticker might be good for 180bpm.. The firstbeats whitepaper https://www.firstbeat.com/app/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_VO2max_11-11-20142.pdf says that the vo2 max estimation will be less accurate if the max HR isn't known.

    It is hard figuring out max HR though - I'm 52 and the difference in HR between a comfortable pace (150-160bpm) and the max HR I can manage at the end of a 10k going as fast I can (175bpm) is only 15bpm. Tomtom gives me a fitness age of 20 which I like but it's not what I see in the mirror.
  • AltheapuAltheapu Posts: 6 [Master Explorer]
    Thanks for this. I read the firstbeat pdf and realised that (as cheekychimp stated too) my HR max was probably excluded as unreliable data because I used the age-related defaults to set mine. I have since set my max at 190 (I max out completely at about 195+ when pushing hard). I guess my comfortable pace is 160-170 so, yes , the margin is small. I wish for a fitness age of half my chronological age so congrats there. However, I will keep on keeping on and see how it goes
  • largudirlargudir Posts: 5 [Master Explorer]
    What day does the fitness age end? My device has not yet been upgraded to my Tomtom Runner 3 purchased in September 2017.
  • AltheapuAltheapu Posts: 6 [Master Explorer]
    Thanks cheekychimp & daysse. By setting my max heart rate according to my personal max, rather than the default for my age, I am now getting realistic Fitness age calcs. ?
  • cheekychimpcheekychimp Posts: 209
    Superusers
    Great to hear your problem appears to be solved. Your topic will assist others who question any severe discrepancies in their own perceived Fitness Age.
  • jojodancerjojodancer Posts: 1 [Apprentice Traveler]
    I am having the same problem. Everything is entered correctly. My fitness age went from 20 to 49 overnight. I cycle, run, swim, mountain bike daily. I am 47, hit the overdrive level pretty much daily and my resting heart rate is 51....i thought I was doing a little better than 49. Is this telling me I am aging myself by working out too much. lol
  • tfarabaughtfarabaugh Posts: 16,339
    Superusers
    I honestly don't feel you can make any judgments from what it is telling you. It does refine its readings over time but it seems to be a random, capricious measure that ties to very little. It is based on whatever algorithm TT came up with, which is different than what Garmin uses or Strava uses, or anyone else. Ultimately I don't expect a watch to be able to tell me how fit I am.
  • AltheapuAltheapu Posts: 6 [Master Explorer]
    My Fitness Age calcs have now corrected. They went from a steady 48yrs for 18 month history to a soul-destroying 72 yrs!! It is now back down to 48, my actual age being 65. These calcs definitely need history and realistic max heart rates (not age related defaults) to learn. Thanks
  • seabeaseabea Posts: 2 [Apprentice Traveler]
    Yeah, agree with tfarabaugh. I'm calling BS on "fitness age." Something very arbitrary is afoot. Reading these posts, I don't think the calculation is even wrong in a consistent way. There must be biases for type of workout, even aside from ones that don't record HR. Honestly, I think there might be biases for just specific types of running (distance, tempo, interval, etc.). I can see now how it's at least partially dependent on the HR "zones," because all of my zones are shifted down with respect to my HR, with large sections of my workouts omitted by HRs that exceed my highest zone. But why doesn't the app set these zones based on your actual HR data that it records anyway? Having the user set their own max HR seems like a Rube Goldberg-esque tweak to what is clearly a bad algorithm, or at least a misleading term. "Fitness age"? More like "random number generator"... or "pseudo average guesstimated VO2 based on arbitrary zones of workout bias for age." Let's see, I just set my max HR to roughly the highest sustained HR my watch recorded in my last couple of weekly tempo runs (which is over 200). I guess I'll give it a shot, but I'm still thinking there are other fundamental problems. Btw, I'm 39, and it says my "fitness age" is 49, which I know is total rubbish. I have a pretty good idea for how fit I am relative to other men my age, and "less fit" does not come close to an accurate description. I run, bike and/or swim everyday (sorry, but that alone... let's start there?). Like jojodancer, I thought I might have prematurely aged myself by overtraining (which is ridiculous). The running part of my workout regimen alone is comparable to the end of a marathon training program. Now, 49 might be my "fitness age" relative to the Boston Marathon, or even an Ironman. Other than that, the figure looks completely meaningless to me.
  • seabeaseabea Posts: 2 [Apprentice Traveler]
    This is the research university that created the term "fitness age": https://www.ntnu.edu/cerg/vo2max. TomTom is waaaay off. My fitness age is under 20 (the lowest age category), even if I jack up my weight and use the default heart rate.
  • SV12SV12 Posts: 1 [Apprentice Traveler]
    I have just updated my Max HR. Am I able to have my previous runs/work outs updated according to the new Max HR, or will it only work for new runs/work outs? My fitness age is way off, think the new Max HR will help to fix this, but would ideally want to see my actual progess over the last few months instead of a 'dramatic' improvment on future runs/workouts. Thanks in advance for any help.
  • tfarabaughtfarabaugh Posts: 16,339
    Superusers
    SV12 wrote:
    I have just updated my Max HR. Am I able to have my previous runs/work outs updated according to the new Max HR, or will it only work for new runs/work outs? My fitness age is way off, think the new Max HR will help to fix this, but would ideally want to see my actual progess over the last few months instead of a 'dramatic' improvment on future runs/workouts. Thanks in advance for any help.
    It will not update past activities, only future ones and even then it is not likely to change much. This was a half-baked idea that was implemented poorly on TT's part.
  • magstemagste Posts: 5 [Master Traveler]
    I don't understand the fitness age either. I am 51 years old, run 2-3 times per week for 5-7km, at a moderate pace (about 5 minutes to 5 minutes 30 second kilometers). I don't track any other activities with my watch.

    I consider myself reasonably fit but definitely not in any elite sportsman level. My average heart rate on my runs the past year is 153 (feels like my heart is in my mouth half the time...).

    According to TomTom Sports my VO max is 50 and my fitness age is 20 (has been so for the last 4-5 months). While flattering, I am not convinced this is a true reflection of my actual fitness level... :-)

    I may be good at tormenting myself by running with a pretty high heart rate, but is that really the same as being fit?
  • tfarabaughtfarabaugh Posts: 16,339
    Superusers
    magste wrote:
    I don't understand the fitness age either. I am 51 years old, run 2-3 times per week for 5-7km, at a moderate pace (about 5 minutes to 5 minutes 30 second kilometers). I don't track any other activities with my watch.

    I consider myself reasonably fit but definitely not in any elite sportsman level. My average heart rate on my runs the past year is 153 (feels like my heart is in my mouth half the time...).

    According to TomTom Sports my VO max is 50 and my fitness age is 20 (has been so for the last 4-5 months). While flattering, I am not convinced this is a true reflection of my actual fitness level... :-)

    I may be good at tormenting myself by running with a pretty high heart rate, but is that really the same as being fit?
    If you are running regularly at the red line, then you are in high heart rate zone, which means a high VO2Max which means a low Fitness age. If this is all you track with the watch then it has no way of knowing this is not normal for you. You should check the HR zones and max HR to see if they are correct as well.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Who's Online in this Category0