Skip to main content
← All metrics

VO₂ max and the risk of dying

In Singh 2024, each 1 MET of cardio fitness (3.5 mL/kg/min of oxygen use) was linked to about a 14% lower risk of dying, from any cause.

Read your number

Is my VO2 max good for my age?

Use the age- and sex-specific table below for a lab-test comparison, and keep the measurement method in view. A lab exercise test measures VO2 max; a consumer watch estimates it. Singh 2024’s mortality analysis did not establish an all-cause estimate for consumer watches. The calculator scores the number you enter using its own constructed curve.

If you're 70 or older

For ages 70–79, select your age and sex in the existing lab-test table below. Its source stops at age 79, so for age 80 and older use the measurement and its limits in a discussion with your clinician. For activity, the guidance below starts with conversational-pace aerobic exercise and gradual progress; choose an appropriate starting point with clinical guidance if you have a diagnosed condition.

Evidence already on this page: Singh et al. 2024.

Where you stand

Singh 2024 combined 42 studies using lab exercise tests and exercise-based or non-exercise fitness estimates. Neither was a consumer-watch estimate. A directly measured VO₂ max requires a lab exercise test. Watches and walk tests are crude; useful for deltas, not a precise number. No all-cause figure for a consumer watch is available.

More fitness goes with lower risk, and most of the gain is in by the high 40s to low 50s.

Typical for
no data past here0.5×Typical1.5×2×203040506070VO₂ max, mL/kg/minRisk vs typical (log scale)Typical 45-year-oldYou
At 33 mL/kg/min1.15×a typical 45-year-old’s risk, a little higher than typical.
See the same numbers as a table
VO₂ max and risk of death from any cause, as a multiple of a typical 45-year-old’s risk
VO₂ max, mL/kg/minRisk vs typicalIn words
20 mL/kg/min1.60×much higher than typical; beyond the studies, so this is the model’s estimate
30 mL/kg/min1.26×higher than typical
40 mL/kg/min0.94×a little lower than typical
50 mL/kg/min0.64×much lower than typical
60 mL/kg/min0.51×much lower than typical; beyond the studies, so this is the model’s estimate
70 mL/kg/min0.49×much lower than typical; beyond the studies, so this is the model’s estimate

Risk of death from any cause, with every other marker held at typical. Drag the marker or use the arrow keys. Nothing you move here is saved.

Hatched areas are beyond the studies. The line there is the model’s estimate, or flat.

Above the shaded edge the model holds the curve nearly flat; no cited study reaches that fitness.

Source: Singh et al. 2024, Journal of Sport and Health Science (PMID 39271056)

The study, not the score

each 1 MET higher fitness
Singh et al. 2024
0.86 (0.83–0.88)
14% lower all-cause mortality

The bar shows the study’s 95% confidence interval, the range of values consistent with its data. The tick is the study’s best single figure. The centre line is no difference. The chart above is the score’s own curve, not this study.

What it is

The maximum rate the body can use oxygen during hard exercise, in mL/kg/min. A lab test measures it. A watch estimates it. This calculator scores the number you enter, not a percentile and not a MET bin.

How the score uses it

Technical notes

The curve is a constructed smooth curve (HR=1.0 at 38 mL/kg/min men / 31 women — an ACSM ~45yo midpoint, not a mortality paper). Nearest matching-construct all-cause mortality meta is per 1-MET (3.5 mL/kg/min): Singh 2024 (42 studies / 3.8 million, 81% male) RR 0.86 (0.83–0.88), and estimated CRF (exercise tests without gas, or non-exercise equations) was not statistically different from lab CPET. That is not a Garmin/Apple-watch HR — no consumer-watch all-cause mortality estimate is available. Lang 2024’s headline high-vs-low 0.47 is Han 2022 extracted, not a Lang pooling. Mandsager 2018’s 5.04 is a referred-clinic percentile contrast (low vs elite estimated METs), not this curve (low end 1.6). Kodama’s <7.9 MET bin is not a consumer mL/kg/min goal. No absolute-mL all-cause mortality meta-analysis is available, so the curve is not changed on this evidence. No numeric target is set.

How to improve it

  • Build an aerobic base with Zone 2 cardio (conversational pace)
  • Add one or two weekly high-intensity intervals
  • Progress gradually and stay consistent for months, not weeks
  • In 28 controlled trials of adults 18–45, endurance training raised VO₂ max about 4.9 mL/kg/min and interval training about 5.5 versus no-exercise controls (Milanović 2015). These are fitness gains, not mortality estimates.

VO₂ max by age and sex

These norms come from Kaminsky et al. (2015, Mayo Clinic Proceedings), the FRIEND registry’s first U.S. reference standards for directly measured cardiorespiratory fitness. Eight U.S. laboratories contributed 7,783 maximal treadmill cardiopulmonary exercise tests (4,611 men, 3,172 women), collected 2014–2015 from adults 20–79 without known cardiovascular disease. These were people referred for fitness testing before an exercise program or research study — not a random sample of the general population. The table reports seven percentiles (5th, 10th, 25th, 50th, 75th, 90th, 95th) for each 10-year age band; this tool always places a value against the band that contains the entered age, never an interpolated in-between value.

Sex
Where did this number come from?

Men, ages 40–49 (n=1,327)  — reported percentiles in mL/kg/min

5th24.2
25th31.9
50th37.8
75th45
95th55.6

Enter a VO₂ max value above to see where it falls against these percentiles.

Full percentile table (men)Open
Agen5th10th25th50th75th90th95th
20–295132932.140.14855.261.866.3
30–3996327.230.235.942.449.256.559.8
40–491,32724.226.831.937.84552.155.6
50–591,07820.922.827.132.639.745.650.7
60–6959317.419.823.728.234.540.343
70–7913716.317.120.424.430.436.639.7

mL O₂ · kg⁻¹ · min⁻¹. Source: Kaminsky et al. 2015, Table 3 (FRIEND rows only).

This isn’t a random sample of everyone. FRIEND’s participants were referred for exercise testing at 8 U.S. laboratories, not sampled from the general population -- and, like most reference cohorts, the oldest and youngest decades have far fewer people in them (as few as 98–137 in the 70s band) than the middle decades.

Treadmill and cycle tests aren’t interchangeable. This table is treadmill-only. A cycle-ergometer test uses a smaller set of leg muscles and tends to read lower than a treadmill test for the same person -- don’t compare a cycle-based number to this table directly.

A percentile is not a verdict. Training can raise VO₂ max; what is unproven is how much that changes your own risk. Studies on this page show higher measured fitness is associated with lower all-cause mortality in large populations -- that is an association, not proof that raising your own number by a given amount changes your own risk by a matching amount.

VO₂ max is one of the eight markers that build your MarkerScore.

Norms last reviewed 12 October 2026.

What the studies found

EndpointGradeFinding
—METHOD
smooth curve is constructed (38/31 = 1.0)
Technical notes
Male 38 / female 31 mL/kg/min = HR 1.0. That zero is an ACSM ~45yo midpoint (FRIEND treadmill 50th at 40–49 is 37.8/26.7; NHANES submax means 42.2/34.4), not a mortality paper.
All-cause mortality (per 1-MET cardiorespiratory fitness)B
Nearest meta is per MET, not mL (Singh 2024)
Technical notes
all-cause mortality RR 0.86 (0.83–0.88) per 1-MET (3.5 mL/kg/min). Estimated CRF (equations / exercise without gas) was similar to lab CPET. Not a consumer-watch HR. No absolute-mL all-cause mortality meta-analysis is available, so the curve is not changed on this evidence.
All-cause mortality (low vs elite fitness percentile)C
5.04 is not this score (Mandsager 2018)
Technical notes
Referred testers, age/sex percentile bins of estimated METs: low vs elite adjusted HR 5.04. This calculator’s low end is 1.6. “No ceiling” is why there is no ≥45 target, not a reason to print 5.04.
All-cause mortality (low vs high cardiorespiratory fitness)B
1.70x Low vs High Fitness (Kodama 2009)
Technical notes
Meta of 33 studies (102,980 people, 6,910 deaths): each 1-MET higher fitness carried all-cause mortality RR 0.87 (0.84–0.90), and low fitness (under 7.9 METs) vs high (≥10.9 METs) carried RR 1.70 (1.51–1.92). Sex-blind MET cutoffs, not this calculator’s 38/31 mL/kg/min zero point.
All-cause mortality (highest vs lowest cardiorespiratory fitness)B
0.47 High vs Low Fitness (Han 2022)
Technical notes
Dose-response meta of 34 cohorts using exercise-test CRF in healthy adults: each 1-MET higher fitness carried all-cause mortality RR 0.88 (0.83–0.93), and the highest-vs-lowest fitness contrast carried RR 0.47 (0.39–0.56).
All-cause mortality (top vs bottom fitness tertile)B
0.55 Top vs Bottom Tertile (Laukkanen 2022)
Technical notes
The largest exercise-test all-cause mortality meta to date: 37 cohorts, 2,258,029 people, 108,613 deaths. Top vs bottom fitness tertile carried all-cause mortality RR 0.55 (0.50–0.61); per 1-MET, RR 0.89 (0.86–0.92).
All-cause mortality (per 1-MET estimated cardiorespiratory fitness)B
Estimated Fitness, HR 0.83 per MET (Qiu 2021)
Technical notes
Meta of 8 cohorts (over 170,000 people) using algorithm-estimated cardiorespiratory fitness rather than an exercise test: per 1-MET, all-cause mortality HR was 0.83 (0.78–0.88), linear, and not the same as a consumer-watch estimate. Qiu 2021 (estimated fitness, HR 0.83 per MET) falls in the same range as meta-analyses of exercise-test fitness (RR 0.87–0.89), though the two use different measures; Singh 2024 found no significant difference between estimated and measured fitness.

What argues against this

No source in this set reverses the direction of the fitness-mortality association. Qiu 2021 (estimated fitness, HR 0.83 per MET) falls in the same range as meta-analyses of exercise-test fitness (RR 0.87–0.89), though the two use different measures; Singh 2024 found no significant difference between estimated and measured fitness.

Last reviewed 12 October 2026

Sources

10 cited
  1. Milanović Z, Sporiš G, Weston M. (2015) — Sports Medicine
    Effectiveness of High-Intensity Interval Training (HIT) and Continuous Endurance Training for VO2max Improvements: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Controlled Trials
    View source
  2. Singh et al. (2024) — Journal of Sport and Health Science
    Comparison of objectively measured and estimated cardiorespiratory fitness to predict all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality in adults: A systematic review and meta-analysis of 42 studies representing 35 cohorts and 3.8 million observations
    View source
  3. Lang et al. (2024) — British Journal of Sports Medicine
    Cardiorespiratory fitness is a strong and consistent predictor of morbidity and mortality among adults: an overview of meta-analyses representing over 20.9 million observations from 199 unique cohort studies
    View source
  4. Mandsager et al. (2018) — JAMA Network Open
    Association of Cardiorespiratory Fitness With Long-term Mortality Among Adults Undergoing Exercise Treadmill Testing
    View source
  5. Kodama et al. (2009) — JAMA
    Cardiorespiratory fitness as a quantitative predictor of all-cause mortality and cardiovascular events in healthy men and women: a meta-analysis
    View source
  6. Han et al. (2022) — British Journal of Sports Medicine
    Cardiorespiratory fitness and mortality from all causes, cardiovascular disease and cancer: dose-response meta-analysis of cohort studies
    View source
  7. Laukkanen et al. (2022) — Mayo Clinic Proceedings
    Objectively Assessed Cardiorespiratory Fitness and All-Cause Mortality Risk: An Updated Meta-analysis of 37 Cohort Studies Involving 2,258,029 Participants
    View source
  8. Qiu et al. (2021) — Atherosclerosis
    Is estimated cardiorespiratory fitness an effective predictor for cardiovascular and all-cause mortality? A meta-analysis
    View source
  9. Sloth et al. (2013) — Scandinavian Journal of Medicine & Science in Sports
    Effects of sprint interval training on VO2max and aerobic exercise performance: A systematic review and meta-analysis
    View source
  10. Wen et al. (2019) — Journal of Science and Medicine in Sport
    Effects of different protocols of high intensity interval training for VO2max improvements in adults: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials
    View source

See how vo₂ max fits your full score
See how it fits the 8-metric index in the calculator.
Open calculator

Educational content only — not medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment. Not a medical device; not FDA evaluated. Consult a qualified healthcare professional about your own health, and call emergency services for urgent symptoms. Full medical disclaimer →