I feel Garmin is giving me mixed signals in the quantitative feedback on my training.
I have had six weeks of very little exercise after a quite serious injury that is not fully recovered yet - to be precise, just 4 hours of cycling (turbo trainer) and 3 hours of running in the 6 weeks - but I have seen some surprising effects on the various nunbers throughout this period,
Firstly my cycling VO2max has leapt up this week from 50 to 54 (getting near the 55 for cycling which I don't believe either at the moment). Since I have only done two feeble half hour runs at low pace and high heart rate this week, can I infer that the software takes more account of the cycling VO2 max than the running? In case there is any doubt about the poor level of my running conditioning, both runs displayed a record low -5 performance rating (lowest possible?) and my watch describes my training as "unproductive", which is a bit discouraging - I am trying to get back into a routine while not slowing my recovery.
As well as the flattering VO2 max numbers, the running race predictor reacted to an unfit treadmill run before the recent two unfit short runs by making every predicted pace from 5k to marathon 20 -30 seconds faster per kilometer, reaching predictions that were the best I have ever had. The predictions have drifted down since then, but are still 12 month highs on a monthly basis.
So what is it with the mixed signals, Garmin? Are you trying to encourage me / lead me on, or being blunt about just how much harm a long layoff does to fitness? Or both, simultaneously and inconsistently?