This discussion has been locked.

You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Intensity minutes

Hi,
Here is a very long debate about the way Garmin connect considers the calculation of intensity minutes. Tell me if I am wrong but here is what Garmin says:
"50% to 70% of your max HR is regular intensity minutes and 70% and above is double minutes for every one minute. Garmin appears to be using your age to calculate intensity minutes so changing your HR zones and max HR in your zones does not change the intensity minutes. It's not supposed to start counting them as intensity minutes until you are above the 50% mark for 10 minutes."
Good, let say I have my max HR at 160. Do you think it's relevant to say that above 70% one is supposed to train "hard" and below this 70% one is supposed not to train at all.
Seriously, what the good of using a Garmin 235 with a HR belt, doing a lot of running, cycling workouts, long, short, hills series just to have the same intensity minutes value.
And this along with VO2 max calculation that does not take into account a steep terrain.
I would like to ear about Garmin if he's ,one day, considering making a Sport Product data processing for serious athletes or recreative ones.
However, my 235 and 820 bike gps are working great.

Regards,

Gerard

0 ASmugDill over 7 years ago

Um, did I miss something? Where's the debate? I cannot see either the arguments for and against a motion, or arguments disputing what the opposing party claims to be objective truth, in your post, and I cannot see a link or reference to where the debate was.

Anyway, are you saying that you don't think Garmin devices are actually programmed to track intensity minutes in the described manner, because you have observed device behaviour that contradicts the given description? The description seems to match what the Centers of Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) in the US published here: https://www.cdc.gov/physicalactivity/basics/measuring/heartrate.htm; if you want to take issue with the methodology, why don't you take it up with the CDC or the World Health Organization, and get them to adopt some sort of health metric that is more aligned to your views?