Find out your 'fitness age' and get fit

November 5, 2013 6:05 PM

Using the results of a study of 4,260 adults, the Cardiac Exercise Research Group (CERG) at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) has developed an online fitness calculator which outputs your 'fitness age'. If the results alarm you, they've also provided a 7-week fitness program.
posted by paleyellowwithorange (43 comments total)

If the idea of a fitness program alarms you, here's some Nyan Cat.
posted by paleyellowwithorange at 6:05 PM on November 5, 2013 [6 favorites]

Is this tool not a garden-variety VO2 max calculator?
posted by fonetik at 6:10 PM on November 5, 2013

The Nintendo Wii Fit programs had this. Also they scaled the weight of your avatar against BMI levels. "You are 20 but are in the shape of a 50 year old! Also you are in the shape of a sphere. Nyan~~~~"
posted by curious nu at 6:11 PM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

/looks at fitness age
/success kid fist pump for having a wife half my age
posted by obiwanwasabi at 6:12 PM on November 5, 2013 [12 favorites]

Well, I certainly did not expect to have a fitness age of under 20, and I suspect that's not right. But yay for all those dog walks?
posted by lunasol at 6:18 PM on November 5, 2013 [2 favorites]

I'm talking to you from beyond the grave. Booooooo! Booooooo! Scary!
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:18 PM on November 5, 2013 [12 favorites]

Apparently I am under 20 again. Unfortunately, my injury recuperation age seems to be sticking with the actual calendar.
posted by Nothing at 6:20 PM on November 5, 2013 [4 favorites]

Seriously, does this sheet make my coccyx look fat?
posted by It's Raining Florence Henderson at 6:21 PM on November 5, 2013

I'm just going to guess about 172.
posted by Foosnark at 6:22 PM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Is this tool not a garden-variety VO2 max calculator?

Looks like plain vanilla Uth–Sørensen–Overgaard–Pedersen to me...

15 * ( ( 220 - Age ) / HRrest )
posted by mikelieman at 6:31 PM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

They do appear to modify the 'fitness age' based on the activity modifiers. Meh. It's not like people are asking themselves, "Am I unfit?" all that often, is it?
posted by mikelieman at 6:32 PM on November 5, 2013

I just realized my waist size is the same as my age.
posted by mittens at 6:32 PM on November 5, 2013 [3 favorites]

Apparently I am under 20 again.

Woo hoo I am under 20 too. Oh crap, the waistline is in cm, not inches.

I still think the old Cooper Aerobics fitness test is adequate. If you can finish a mile in under 12 minutes (running, walking, any way you can) then you are fit. If you can do 30 Aerobic Points a week, consistently, you are in great shape, or getting there.
posted by charlie don't surf at 6:42 PM on November 5, 2013

Oh crap, the waistline is in cm, not inches.

Damn, suddenly I'm 62.
posted by mittens at 6:46 PM on November 5, 2013

and your estimated "fitness age" is foetus
posted by klanawa at 6:47 PM on November 5, 2013 [2 favorites]

48, eh? Despite the heavy activity I indicated?

*adjusts waist measurement down 25 cm*

30, which is almost my actual age.

That seems like a big leap, "fitness age"-wise.
posted by ocherdraco at 6:49 PM on November 5, 2013 [2 favorites]

My fitness age is 20 years younger than my actual age. Good thing it didn't ask if you smoke.
posted by alltomorrowsparties at 6:50 PM on November 5, 2013 [5 favorites]

I came out a year younger than I actually am... despite never really moving. This is way dumb.
posted by French Fry at 6:51 PM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

These calculators look a little more plausible.
posted by maudlin at 6:55 PM on November 5, 2013 [2 favorites]

Well, it god damn doesn't feel like 25!
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 6:56 PM on November 5, 2013 [4 favorites]

Man, I just dropped a full two inch waist size and I was pretty proud about getting some fitness, and losing some fat weight replacing it with muscle weight, then they say I'm 62?
posted by Sphinx at 7:04 PM on November 5, 2013

Getting the sense that these VO2max estimators are not super accurate. Maudlin's gave me 37 and the FPP's gave me 57. That's basically "a breath from the grave" vs. "professional athlete," both of which are plainly false.
posted by en forme de poire at 7:23 PM on November 5, 2013 [2 favorites]

From my link, the first one based on age and resting pulse seems way wrong as it rates me as "excellent" even though I've been slacking for a long time.

The ones based on walking or running/walking a prescribed distance look much more promising and I'll try these out soon.

The one based on using a step 16.25 inches high can fuck off and die.
posted by maudlin at 7:30 PM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

My fitness age is a year less than my calendar age. Am I traveling backwards in time?
posted by wenestvedt at 7:39 PM on November 5, 2013

It seems odd to ask for waistline but not height. Surely as a tall person I get some extra wriggle room, right? Right?

(I can't find my tape measure so I haven't actually done this. Maybe I'm fine.)
posted by The corpse in the library at 7:39 PM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

(Is my made-up resting pulse of sixty very plausible? I'm too impatient to count.)
posted by wenestvedt at 7:41 PM on November 5, 2013

My fitness age is a year less than my calendar age. Am I traveling backwards in time?

Me too! Next time I go running I'm going to pretend I'm Superman and running so fast the world is spinning backwards. Fwoosh!
posted by C'est la D.C. at 7:42 PM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

Sixty is entirely plausible. When I used to run much more than I do now, my resting rate was naturally quite a bit lower than sixty, and every time I had a new doctor they would initially freak out during my first checkup.
posted by C'est la D.C. at 7:47 PM on November 5, 2013

Um you should probably try to be accurate with the resting heart rate since I think that is the most important variable for their whole equation -- it is the best way to estimate VO2max, which is what everything else is based on. There are good heart rate check apps for smartphones if you're lazy. Mine is 64 and I'm not in good shape, so 60 is definitely plausible, but I've been a lot higher and lower at different points in my life.
posted by miyabo at 7:59 PM on November 5, 2013

Well, I certainly did not expect to have a fitness age of under 20, and I suspect that's not right. But yay for all those dog walks?

Sometimes I wish I could go for a casual dog walk, but I went down a few pants sizes, and shaved about a decade off my real age according to the calculator, thanks to running twice a day with my dog who wants to chase/ attach any dog, cat, or car she sees or hears.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:10 PM on November 5, 2013 [1 favorite]

According to this calculator, my fitness age is my calendar age plus 15 years, despite a 90 minute round trip on foot to work and back home each day. But I walk rather slowly, and have a rather sedentary work- and non-work lifestyle. I guess it's just as well I walk to work.
posted by paleyellowwithorange at 8:10 PM on November 5, 2013

miyabo: you should probably try to be accurate with the resting heart rate since I think that is the most important variable for their whole equation

Here's a straight-forward stopwatch, and if you don't know your waist size in cm but know your US-pants size, here's a men's sizing chart and a women's sizing chart.
posted by filthy light thief at 8:11 PM on November 5, 2013

And I'm not overweight, either. I wonder whether I should be concerned.
posted by paleyellowwithorange at 8:12 PM on November 5, 2013

[resting heart rate] is the best way to estimate VO2max

I don't think this is correct. The Houston non-exercise test doesn't use heart rate at all (just BMI, reported activity, age, and gender) but has a high accuracy, and any fitness test where you actually move around is going to be way more accurate than RHR. As an example, I just took my RHR and it was 72, which would give me a VO2max of 37, but a recent actual fitness test estimated my VO2max at ~50. My heart rate has gone down over time, but it's always been fast.

(Anyway, your RHR is really supposed to be measured right after you wake up, while still lying down or sitting, pre-coffee and no alarm.)
posted by en forme de poire at 8:27 PM on November 5, 2013

pretty much, yeah...

and your estimated "fitness age" is
Older than 75
posted by symbioid at 8:48 PM on November 5, 2013

99% diet, 1% physical activity.
posted by Brocktoon at 11:28 PM on November 5, 2013

Hmm: actual age 49, estimated "fitness age" is under 20.

Cool, I think :-/ Given the paucity of data, I'm not exactly shocked.
posted by pjm at 12:15 AM on November 6, 2013

Was under 20, now 52. Man that metric/imperial waistline thing was a bummer.
posted by colie at 3:02 AM on November 6, 2013 [1 favorite]

Imperial Waistline is my favorite Who cover band.
posted by mittens at 4:10 AM on November 6, 2013

You know, I often think to myself, what we really need is something more to tell fat people they are fat because obviously if we just tell them that, they will get thin.
posted by Muddler at 5:59 AM on November 6, 2013

Actual age: 37
Fitness age: 39

That's sort of disappointing. But I guess that's what happens when you're a fat guy with a low resting heartrate.
posted by Ham Snadwich at 7:09 AM on November 6, 2013

My resting heart rate is similar to a hibernating toad's (in my case because of a recently eaten huge piece of pie) which may have skewed my results.
posted by Lesser Shrew at 11:37 AM on November 6, 2013

I accidentally told it I had a 34cm waist and I was very happy. Then I converted it into real cm and I was sad.
posted by tehloki at 12:13 AM on November 7, 2013