for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

Garmin

2 lurkers | 218 watchers

Big_G Feb 2022 12:27pm, 15 Feb 2022 1,508 posts	0 Big_G larkim, I am not getting the most out of Stryd really as I haven't yet fully got behind it to use it solely for a training plan, but I am tempted. I train to HR, and my Z2 HR and Z2 Stryd align I find, but I think I am possibly a little bit too cautious on uphills when trying to keep my HR below a certain figure, whereas Stryd would have me running a bit harder (and so my HR would go above what I am trying to keep it at). Then on the downhills, it is similar, as I find that I let my HR recover almost too much, whereas Stryd would have me pushing a bit harder on the downhills. And taking account of air power when actually running would be useful I think (the graphs above are when I checked after the run, but during the run I didn't have any power figures displayed). I am very intrigued that for a race you can give it a route file, and from your power profile it will tell you the power to run at, taking into account gradients. I haven't tried this though. I haven't used it to its full potential really although I do have a running buddy who swears by it. He used to train to HR and has now jumped ship and runs to power, but I am not quite there with it yet. Obviously, on the Garmin you can install data fields that show power, and you can have power workouts if you want.
larkim Feb 2022 12:37pm, 15 Feb 2022 17,031 posts	0 larkim I suppose if it was bang on in line with HR then there'd be little point in it. I don't quite the physics / physiology of it (i.e. why does your heart rate go up when climbing at the same power compared to running at that power on the flat) but something which gave useful parameters for climbing and descending I can see as being helpful in a race, especially early on when you might need / want to avoid unwittingly going too hard or too easy. The route file thing sounds like the pacing pro that Garmin offers on watches (though not on mine!).
Big_G Feb 2022 1:00pm, 15 Feb 2022 1,509 posts	0 Big_G larkim, I don't know either. I wonder if my HR that I train to may not be exact, even though I have tried my best to get a Max HR and work out zones? I am guessing though. Also, I think mentally I do ease off on the downhills on an easy-paced training run, but I am still in what I think of as my HR range. I suppose mentally I think of the HR as a guide, whereas for whatever reason if I see a power figure, I think of it as a target. I.E, when training to HR I really don't care if my HR is, say, 10 beats lower than what I am aiming for on a training run; I almost feel that signifies that I am running well if I am ticking along quite nicely and the HR is low. Whereas, running to power seems more of a target to me. Not sure if that makes sense, and I can't explain it really!
larkim Feb 2022 1:52pm, 15 Feb 2022 17,033 posts	0 larkim I've read of really dogmatic approaches where if your target HR is (say) 135bpm, that you absolutely stick to that even if it means walking up an incline and hammering it down a hill. In general I'll do the same as you I suspect. I tend to aim for the average for a run to be towards the top of a particular zone but if climbing I'll happily let it drift upwards to the top of the next zone, and when descending I'll just let it drop off naturally whilst usually maintaining the same pace as on the flat. Whether that's right or wrong I don't know, I can't imagine that the complex physiological stuff that causes training impact is that sensitive to a few bpm for a few minutes! But I am interested in why climbing takes more bpm even for the same power; presumably it's something of an efficiency thing?
Big_G Feb 2022 3:31pm, 15 Feb 2022 1,510 posts	0 Big_G I think although I mentioned my Z2 HR and Z2 power are aligned, they are not exactly aligned, and different methods are used to work the zones out. I think it is just that with power, Stryd would have me running up the hills harder than if I stuck rigidly to HR on the hills. If I didn't know about HR training, possibly I wouldn't think anything of it. It may be that although I like comparing the two methods and figures, it is not all that helpful? I think if I went all in with power I would have to try and forget about HR, which probably I would find difficult.
jelly (limegreenjelly) Feb 2022 3:40pm, 15 Feb 2022 2,319 posts	0 jelly (limegreenjelly) And don’t even get me started on the recovery adviser! I do not need recovery advice!
larkim Feb 2022 3:42pm, 15 Feb 2022 17,041 posts	0 larkim With cycling, from what I can see, they more or less say power has a direct relationship with heart rate, subject only to a bit of lag (you can put out power in advance of HR going up) and fatigue (the more tired you are, the higher the HR for a given power). Almost makes you wonder why they need power meters at £500+ each!
Bowman 🇸🇪 Feb 2022 5:48pm, 15 Feb 2022 1,005 posts	0 Bowman 🇸🇪 Bowman - The 10 mins is indeed what's in Garmin's literature. It definitely used to do that but I investigated after I started seeing VO2 Max numbers in more runs and found it doesn't need 10 mins anymore. 1500m and 3000m races were dead giveaways given they last less than 10 mins. Runalyze shows the small changes the watch doesn't tell you about so I was able to see a clear trail to analyse. Intresting SPR. I had an interesting run today btw. I followed my ”performance” number during the run, just because I had this in my mind, also because I always look at the data of course:). It felt good today, and I could keep a nice pace at low effort, but the performance number kept falling, and was then steady at -0. And by the end I had a whopping -1. O well I thought, “this shit doesn’t really work, you know that..” But when I looked at the verdict, I had gained a point in vo2max. Strange. But it’s obviously a lot going on behind the curtain.
Steve NordRunner Feb 2022 9:03am, 16 Feb 2022 1,310 posts	0 Steve NordRunner It's worth noting that trail runs can contribute to the VO2 max calculation. On/off is in a setting for trail runs. I'm fairly confident that this used not to be the case. If you have technical runs that slow you down for reasons the watch doesn't know about, your estimate will be held down. If you then run in easier conditions the estimate will rise, all with the same underlying fitness.
SPR Feb 2022 9:06am, 16 Feb 2022 36,284 posts	0 SPR Trail run does indeed now contribute but can be turned off as you say. The algorithm is supposed to account for it being harder. I was supposed to use it for my last XC race but forgot and used run instead.