WHOOP’s VO₂max is an algorithmic estimate and they claim a mean absolute percent error of <8% versus lab testing, but this is a manufacturer saying that.
I did not find any external validation of their claim. If you use it regularly and outdoors with GPS, it should be useful at least for trending VO2 max.
Excellent, pragmatic guide! And I really appreciate that you quantify uncertainty instead of letting the “precision” of a single VO₂ max number mislead people.
Two things to point out (from a physician-scientist lens):
1. You treat VO₂ max like a clinical biomarker with measurement error, not a badge. The way you contrast CPET (gold standard) vs. submax tests vs. questionnaires vs. wearables makes it clear that the most useful question is often trend over time, not the exact absolute value on any given day.
2. You center safety and appropriateness by age/risk, which is where this conversation often goes off the rails. For many adults >50 (or anyone with CV risk factors/joint limitations), a well-run walk/cycle test or validated non-exercise model can be “good enough” and far safer than maximal field tests done solo.
The other pearl is your wearable nuance: if someone’s on rate-controlling meds, has AFib/ectopy, or does mostly short low-intensity sessions, the algorithm can drift, so use the watch as a directional compass, and anchor it periodically with a more controlled test if decisions depend on it.
This post turns VO₂ max from “internet flex” into what it should be — a trackable, improvable healthspan marker with a method that matches the person!
What about having vo2max on whoop band and its accuracy?
WHOOP’s VO₂max is an algorithmic estimate and they claim a mean absolute percent error of <8% versus lab testing, but this is a manufacturer saying that.
I did not find any external validation of their claim. If you use it regularly and outdoors with GPS, it should be useful at least for trending VO2 max.
Excellent, pragmatic guide! And I really appreciate that you quantify uncertainty instead of letting the “precision” of a single VO₂ max number mislead people.
Two things to point out (from a physician-scientist lens):
1. You treat VO₂ max like a clinical biomarker with measurement error, not a badge. The way you contrast CPET (gold standard) vs. submax tests vs. questionnaires vs. wearables makes it clear that the most useful question is often trend over time, not the exact absolute value on any given day.
2. You center safety and appropriateness by age/risk, which is where this conversation often goes off the rails. For many adults >50 (or anyone with CV risk factors/joint limitations), a well-run walk/cycle test or validated non-exercise model can be “good enough” and far safer than maximal field tests done solo.
The other pearl is your wearable nuance: if someone’s on rate-controlling meds, has AFib/ectopy, or does mostly short low-intensity sessions, the algorithm can drift, so use the watch as a directional compass, and anchor it periodically with a more controlled test if decisions depend on it.
This post turns VO₂ max from “internet flex” into what it should be — a trackable, improvable healthspan marker with a method that matches the person!