Running comparisons- Inaccurate Fitness age and points
Stadig maar seker
Registered Users Posts: 1 
New Traveler
New Traveler
My wife and I both have Tom Tom sports watches. Yesterday we went for a 7.3 km walk.
My wife's fitness age is 20 and her actual age is 57.
My fitness age is 60 and my actual age is 61.
On our walk she earned 570 points and I earned 270 points, and yet we walked together and at the same pace.
Why is there such a vast discrepancy?
My wife's fitness age is 20 and her actual age is 57.
My fitness age is 60 and my actual age is 61.
On our walk she earned 570 points and I earned 270 points, and yet we walked together and at the same pace.
Why is there such a vast discrepancy?
0
Comments
-
Wow your wife has an active fitness age of 20 and your complaining
But seriously:
On your next walk why don't you swap watches and compare again! Definitely shouldn't be that vast range of difference between two identical watches!0 -
It is based on your VO2Max which is very much dependent of gender, weight and age. Plus it only calculates fitness points and fitness age during running or cycling activities and only when your HR is in Zone 3 or above so the walk likely had no impact on fitness age at all. She may have had a higher average HR plus her gender and weight will also play a role.Stadig maar seker wrote:My wife and I both have Tom Tom sports watches. Yesterday we went for a 7.3 km walk.
My wife's fitness age is 20 and her actual age is 57.
My fitness age is 60 and my actual age is 61.
On our walk she earned 570 points and I earned 270 points, and yet we walked together and at the same pace.
Why is there such a vast discrepancy?
Switching watches will not help, it will actually make it worse. It is a learning algorithm and you will just be throwing bad data into the mix.
I hope this helped answer your question. If so, please mark it as a solution so others can look for it if they have the same question.0
