PR on training run - Garmin says unproductive

Notne the "unproductive" is looking overall at the pattern of recent history - not individual runs. Setting a PR on a training run is not necessarily productive - typically where you are setting a PR you are pushing your body up to it's limits which certainly is not sustainable or productive. Not sure how long you've been training with the Training status and VO2 etc but it takes a while to stabilise anyway. Whilest it may feel nice to get a PR on a training run you do need to ask yourself "did I meet the objective of the training session" - if the answer is NO then the session was probably unproductive or not as productive as it could have been. If for example your run was supposed to be a 5K moderate steady state run and because you felt good you pushed yourself and ended up runnning a PR then you have not fulfilled your training goal so that would be unproductive.

Hi JSRUNNER_ -

Thanks for the nice reply!

Yes, I've been doing the Garmin Training Status/VO2max for 6-9 months, so there's a baseline there. Recent runs/"overall pattern of recent history" have been "Productive" according to Garmin, but this run, the best yet, was labelled "Unproductive".

I guess Garmin has its own ideas of what a productive run is, and they don't match up with mine ATM. I went out to run with the goal of "at a decent effort", and if it came out fast or slow wasn't that important to me. So from my point of view, I laced up my shoes saying pretty much any time would have been OK as long as my effort was good. I knew fairly soon from the spring in my step that it might be a good time, so I made it a point to push a little bit harder when I felt fatiguedthan I might otherwise.


Somehow the metrics came in such a way that Garmin calculated the run as unproductive. That's OK, I guess, but I'd sure like to know which metrics triggered Garmin to come up with that conclusion, to help me know how much value to place on Garmin's conclusions (Productive, Unproductive, etc.). I don't like "black boxes"!

Thanks again for the reply!

Notne firstbeats/garmins definition of "unproductive" tells that your training load was good but your fitness level is going down. your body does not recover very well.
it is measured with the R-R intervals. so your cardio system was more stressed then normal for the same pace.

Thanks, Mistamb!

It was hotter weather than I've usually been running in, and a different course than the previous 2 or 3 (one was considerably hillier than the other), I wonder if that goes into the decreased RR variability it measured to come up with "Unproductive".

Or, maybe the extra effort it took to get the PR resulted in going faster to be sure, but "inefficiently" in terms of decreasing average RR intervals vs. incremental speed. So faster, but worse physiology.

Either way, I appreciate the reference to First Beat!

in the summer month i always loose 1 or points of VO2max because running in hot temperatures. :-) that is normal. it is also written in the first beats white papers of there algorithms. so that is normal. running faster with a higher heart rate is not a point for that. it's more the other way round. running a few short distances increases my VO2max. running long distances decreases my level. think it is because of the fatigue so the R-R Intervalls gets shorter. even if the heart rate is not going up.
when running uphill or downhill should not be relevant to the measuring. look at https://www.firstbeat.com/en/consumer-feature/vo2max-fitness-level/ smart filtering.
but i notice this too. last year i mostly ran in flats. this year i am only running up and down. i am fitter then last year, but my VO2max is not as high.
the other point is accuracy. lately i had an new lactate threshold. with a pace i did not nearly run as fast. :-) but such things are normal i think.
i think the training status / recovery features and the training effects are really great points i like them a lot and use them for always for planing my trainings or reviewing my trainings. but take it with a grain of salt. when your feelings tells you something different.
cheers Mario

Notne you‘re welcome :)

The thought occurred to me that this "Unproductive" phase (I'm still in it with today's run, another PR) may be related to the fact that I have added some extra distance to my "usual" run, and thus am not as strong at the end of the run as I was last week when the distance was shorter. I wonder if this (separately and distinct from the hotter ambient temps, as discussed above) would shorten up my RR interval variability, and thus push Garmin towards labeling the run "Unproductive" ...

My "performance" in the last 1/6 to 2/6 or so of the run certainly drops ... from (+)2 at the start, to (-)2 or (-)3 at the end, when I'm struggling more with the added distance (speed is up, cadence is up, but subjectively I'm definitely feeling the effect of that extra distance at the end of the run ...).

Is that possible, or is it inconsistent with FirstBeats calculations, or neither? :)

Thanks!

for all that, i have to say i am not an expert in all that. i am just interested in what i use. :-)
that sounds possible. it's only an algorithm that "knows" that you can run this pace, with that elevation gain, in that heart rate with that R-R intervals.
same as the race predictor. there you have times for 5k, 10k, 1/2 marathon and marathon. but i would never do a marathon in that time. :-D
you will not stay long at Unproductive. i think "unproductive" is maybe not the perfect status name. it just tells you: your training level is good, but your fitness status is going down. and your body could not recover as fast. (the longer the run, the more fatigue you are, and performance status is going down in the end. as you sad.).
i would say run as you would and soon it will be "maintaining" the productive again.
cheers Mario

Yes indeed Mario, I agree on both (all) counts. It's silly I know, but I will feel better when the algorithm decides it is happy with me and gives me a "Green" again, LOL!