|
Oct 2022
11:36am, 5 Oct 2022
19,189 posts
|
larkim
I meant in the sense that if you stop at the end of an interval at say 170bpm and wait the two minutes you'll get a different absolute number than if you stop at the end of a 3 mile warm down or recovery run. So it's flawed in the sense that you can't just say "40bpm recover is good / bad" if you don't take into account the type of activity that preceded it. Or whether you just sit down and recover or walk etc. I know when I look back at mine sometimes I'll be sitting outside cooling off when it records the recovery rate, sometimes I'll be walking the last few yards to home etc etc.
As an absolute measure it is an easy to record number though.
|
|
Oct 2022
11:40am, 5 Oct 2022
19,190 posts
|
larkim
Just looking back through my history on Runalyze I can see a wild variety of different numbers in the last month.
Last night after a 5 recovery - 101bpm
Last Thursday after a 7 milea easy - 110bpm
A week on Friday after a very easy run with my wife - 92bpm
A few weeks ago at the end of a grass track intervals session - 120bpm
At the end of a 800m track race - 132bpm
So in absolute terms, pretty varied (and always, in context, understandable). But I'd have to look into each one to see what they were coming down from, as the average won't tell the whole story.
|
|
Oct 2022
11:44am, 5 Oct 2022
38,428 posts
|
SPR
That's an issue with implementation though.
Recovery is x beats from y to z, gives you all the context you need. It's just that nowhere is actually showing that AFAIK.
|
|
Oct 2022
11:45am, 5 Oct 2022
38,429 posts
|
SPR
I do get the point that even one recovery from 140 for example isn't necessarily the same as another recovery from 140.
|
|
Oct 2022
11:52am, 5 Oct 2022
38,430 posts
|
SPR
My understanding was it was purely about recovery btw. So after a race, your recovery would be slower, but that's fine as you're meant to be pushing the limits there. For training you might not want to be doing that so you probably want to see things coming down well in training.
I generally see bigger drops the higher the HR but it's been years since I paid it real attention.
I do remember some talk of coming down to below 120 generally being thought of as good but can't remember why.
|
|
Oct 2022
11:54am, 5 Oct 2022
38,431 posts
|
SPR
Of course recovery and fitness are in many cases, two sides of the same coin.
|
|
Oct 2022
12:04pm, 5 Oct 2022
19,192 posts
|
larkim
I only really pay attention to it off easy runs and long runs as those are the ones I watch the HR more. For other runs the HR is an output as I tend to run those to pace rather than HR, I'll often not bother waiting the 2minutes needed after a parkrun or something like that, whereas for LR or easy runs I typically stop right at home and sit down for a couple of minutes before heading inside mainly to avoid being horribly sweaty in a warm home. So I tend to habitually leave the watch to beep at me when the 2 minutes are done.
|
|
Oct 2022
1:28pm, 5 Oct 2022
14,947 posts
|
chunkywizard
I believe you can see it on the watch (at least on my 955) if, after you stop the activity (and before you save), you scroll down through the menu and select Recovery HR. You then have to wait for 2 mins and you will get a result.
|
|
Oct 2022
1:34pm, 5 Oct 2022
38,432 posts
|
SPR
CW the question was about seeing it later as nowhere displays it fully later.
|
|
Oct 2022
3:36pm, 5 Oct 2022
15,626 posts
|
Badger
Runalyze shows the final rate and how much it came down in the individual activity view but not the summary list. I asked and they said that the summary view would have to load the whole raw data file to show that and it's too time consuming, but they would add it in the activity view (that is, it's in the activity view now because I asked for it!). It's right at the bottom in Miscellaneous rather than in the heart rate table, though.
|
Garmin 735xt problem
Jan 2021