for an ad-free Fetcheveryone experience!

Garmin

1 lurker | 220 watchers

larkim Mar 2023 12:34pm, 10 Mar 2023 20,504 posts	0 larkim Yes, I can see the benefit for new runners. And I can conceive of a benefit for the experienced runner to get early warning on fatigue via HRV etc that otherwise they might not be aware of. But equally they are applying metrics based on their algorithms which are inherently broad brush in that if they see data point A and B and C then they formulaically output recommendation D. But I'd guess that not everyone with data points A and B and C will be in the same state for a variety of reasons. So as a guide I'm sure they are not, not useful. But the more you run, for example, the more you are in tune with things and can interpret the data yourself (e.g. absolute heart rate, beats per mile etc etc) and draw probably the same conclusions as the watch is drawing.
SPR Mar 2023 1:05pm, 10 Mar 2023 39,772 posts	0 SPR I don't think the recovery stuff is broad brush though. I think it takes into account your baseline and changes if you recover faster to baseline. I could be wrong though, not looked into details. I'm also not saying it's accurate for everyone. For me personally, I think sprints can be over/ underestimated. I also know for strength workouts it doesn't work very well (at all really). Seems it's all about the heart and can't really pick up other stuff unless it affects the heart.
tipsku Mar 2023 4:36pm, 10 Mar 2023 2,652 posts	0 tipsku Thank you for your comments on modern touchscreens. Seems like they have improved the sensitivity of it and made turning it on/off easier. I agree with SPR; up to now, Garmin is all about HR and stress on the cardiovascular system. When I did all out 15 sec sprints with full 3 min walking recoveries between, my HR for the session was really low, 124 average. The short duration didn't get my HR up into Z5. So the watch thought that I didn't need much recovery from the session but I could tell that I wasn't ready for the next hard session until 3 days later. My muscles took quite a heavy load there. If the watches of the *65 series have power metrics, could they add the muscular component to the recovery estimates?
SPR Mar 2023 4:56pm, 10 Mar 2023 39,773 posts	0 SPR I think the issue is what physical metrics can the watch can use to pick it up. If you do the same session again it won't have the same effect on you in terms of recovery needed even if you're working at the same percentage of max but how do you pick that up?
jda Mar 2023 4:56pm, 10 Mar 2023 14,444 posts	0 jda The power estimates are complete bollocks, at least they don't relate to what I usually think of as power (eg the output as measured by a cycle trainer). I apparently averaged 500W for my last HM!
SPR Mar 2023 5:03pm, 10 Mar 2023 39,774 posts	0 SPR I don't think I've seen an average starting with 5xx. I don't think there's a proper standard for running power.
tipsku Mar 2023 6:08pm, 10 Mar 2023 2,653 posts	0 tipsku I don't think that the HRM strap can measure power that reliably. The Stryd footpod probably does a better job but there's no guarantee that it's 100% accurate either. At least, it gives me consistent values for different effort levels so I can see trends there. The sprint session I mentioned earlier gave me 200+% of my critical power and about 300% of my easy run power, so I knew I was working really hard and needed extra recovery. I add that metric to my own estimate of how training ready I am. I'm looking at the HR numbers, sleep and recovery from Garmin plus the power and then I make my decisions about a hard session or not on the day.
flanker Mar 2023 8:53pm, 10 Mar 2023 20,847 posts	0 flanker The only reason I think that is that you say the values logged are different from what was on the display, but in line with what you'd expect to see, suggesting the right values were being received and logged but not displayed. Doh! That's a good point. It would struggle to record the correct values in the FIT if the problem was the BT, so yes, either a display or, possibly, on-watch processing for display, issue.
larkim Mar 2023 8:22am, 15 Mar 2023 20,557 posts	0 larkim larkim, if you use runalyze, you may see the HRV graph of your runs on that platform. I'm running with a 745 and a strap and I get HRV there whereas Garmin doesn't include that in its stats. Caution, runalyze is a deep rabbit hole if you haven't come across that yet. 😊 After a "well dodgy" session with the wrist HRM that had pretty negative mental side effects for me, I strapped on my Polar OH1+ and used that last night as the HRM, rather than doing what I often do and trust the wrist HRM but wear the Polar "just in case" and display them side by side. This is the first time I've used the Polar with my 645, but was really surprised to see that according to Runalyze it has logged HRV for the run. I didn't think the OH1+ (or optical devices more generally) outputted data that could be interpreted as HRV, and equally surprised that my 645 captured it. I'm aware that HRV is pretty much an individual measurement and changes are the important stuff, but what, if anything, can be interpreted from the HRV graph at the bottom of this? runalyze.com
larkim Mar 2023 8:24am, 15 Mar 2023 20,558 posts	0 larkim Plus, I connected via Ant+ not bluetooth, so had even lower expectations of complex data!