Widely varying paces when run is graphed in GTC

Added another jpg

This one not smoothed. Still, does nothing for me...

Is the result you get at the end acceptable? I notice pace fluctuations after the event. But, like last night for instance, running at around 5:15/km the display was not changing much, a second either way. Yet the data recorded was fluctuating.
While interested in the fluctuations recorded, it's the results that are of particular value. I have a good grasp of the pace I run and intensity I train at. So as long as the results returned accord with my perceptions, then I am happy.

I coach triathletes, runners and cyclists. One thing I stress is the importance of knowing how hard a particular pace is and heart rate feels. Devices fail, numbers disappear, then how do you race? In training, it's important to train to specific intensities, but you need to 'feel' the intensity and relate it to the numbers.

Thanks for the reply, and I do understand exactly what you're saying. We can't reject our own feeling and self-knowledge in favor of technology.

The underlying issue is that I'm not completely confident that I know yet when I am running, say, at 75%. Also, I'm a spreadsheet geek, and I am the kind of person who has to think back through the entire day, evaluate, and only then give my answer when someone asks, "Did you have a nice day?"

The bottom line is that I could save $200 and check the time on my microwave clock, go out and run what I think is 75%, come back, and look at the clock again to find my overall time. But Garmin offers a device that they advertise can give me one-second splits (for gods sake,really?!). And they also offer to deposit those splits into ten different buckets called "ranges". So I'd like to be able to run a near-perfect three miles at 75% tempo, and then see a chart that is almost flat. I'd like to look at the ranges and see "21:00" in the range bucket I have set up for 75%. Instead, it looks like a bell curve.

Is this what you see, using GTC or GC, after a tempo run with little speed variation? If you don't mind -- compare your results to the two jpgs I have posted. Thanks in advance.

I really do appreciate your reply. Thanks for letting me vent a bit.

DW152 said:

>>Since pace is important to you, then you might want to invest in a footpod. It gives better instantaneous pace values than using GPS. GPS works well enough for overall distances (and pace), but the point-to-point variability can be a little high, which leads to the noisy pace values that you are seeing.<<

So I said:

Thanks, I appreciate the reply. As I understand, then (and this does make sense), positioning by Satellite triangulation is not accurate enough to pinpoint me within inches. Doh! Of course there will be lots of noise.

One option is for me to export the data, then, and either process it with a Perl script to normalize or remove the highs and lows, or massage it in Excel. I think.

Thanks!