80/20 Endurance Vs Garmin Connect Training Plans

CHayes If I were you I would stick with it

I didn't think HR xzones were different in 80/20 just training zones - but either way I would use Training Peaks to monitor performance and progress and use the Garmin purely as a measuring device to record your speed/heart rate etc etc

Hi everyone,

This is my first post in the forums and I really hope I'm putting this in the right place!

I'm using a Fenix 5s with Run Pod and chest HRM and am wanting to train for my 3rd Half Marathon.

??????I have read the 80/20 Running book by Matt Fitzgerald and bought a plan of his but it uses TrainingPeaks and different HR Zones from Garmin. I've heard a lot of people say that when you use 8020 plans you then have to ignore the training status, training effect, etc from Garmin because the algorithm is different. Is this right?I'm currently showing as 'detraining' which is a bit rubbish.

If this is the case, would I be better off using a Garmin Connect Training Plan?

I really want to improve my fitness and build my base without overtraining (I'm a classic 'stuck in the moderate intensity rut' runner!) Any advice would be appreciated!

The zones in the Garmin watch can be programmed to whatever cutoffs you like, so you can match the 80/20 zones if you like.

Yeah, I don't know about that "training status" in Garmin Connect. It is definitely biased against slow runs, like 80/20 runs, I figured that out a while back. And today it gave me reason to consider ignoring it altogether - I did my best run ever since I've started wearing the watch (about 4 or 5 months), in terms of pace over a set course, and it called it "non-productive" (or detraining, whatever phrase it uses)! And this despite the fact that the little line has shown a steady updrift this week. The only thing I can figure is that for some reason it calculated that my VO2 max dropped by 1 unit, and it used that to override "common sense" (as in fastest run ever shouldn't be considered non-productive, duh!).

The more I get into the metrix of all these devices and programs, the more I'm realizing that a huge percentage of them are not that helpful in terms of becoming a better runner … maybe a better way to state that is that I'm learning to ignore a whole bunch of metrics when they don't "make sense".

fastest run ever shouldn't be considered non-productive,

it might be the fastest run you've ever run, but that doesn't mean that in the scheme of things it is productive for your long term training goals. This would be particularly true if you had done that run at the end of a training programme aimed to get you to that point. What that means is that you will need some recovery period. While it might not be directly contributing to your overall goal, there is some indication that the training you undertook to get to that point has worked and the run is the desired outcome.

It's not necessarily a question of ignoring 'stuff', as gaining a better understanding of what the 'stuff' means.

The only thing I can figure is that for some reason it calculated that my VO2 max dropped by 1 unit, and it used that to override "common sense" (as in fastest run ever shouldn't be considered non-productive, duh!).

I can't follow your logic here.

During your previous runs at submaximal effort, the watch has calculated a prediction of what your VO2Max would be at maximal effort.

Today, you did a run at higher effort.This would give the watch a better basis for the prediction, as you moved closer to your maximal effort.

Logically, this can go two ways: Either the watch discovers that it had overestimated your VO2Max in its earlier predictions. Or it discovers that it had underestimated it.

In the first case, you VO2Max would drop, even though your effort was higher. Nothing wrong with that.

Hi AllenOlesen67!

Sorry, I wasn't trying to say it made sense or not, or was correct or not, just wondering if the lower calculated VO2 max might have been one of the factors resulting in Garmin's classification of the run as "Non-productive".

Thanks for the other replies guys also, as always very thought-provoking.

Note also that VO2max is measured in ml/kg/min so 1 ml/kg/min is minimal and could even be rounding error.

just wondering if the lower calculated VO2 max might have been one of the factors resulting in Garmin's classification of the run as "Non-productive".

I am pretty sure it is. It can be difficult to see from the VO2Max number shown on the watch and in Garmin Connect, because it is rounded, so you are usually not seeing the changes which affect your status. But if you make an account at Runalyze and link it to your Garmin account and then enable viewing of "File VO2Max", you can see the Garmin VO2Max with two digits after the decimal point. When I compare these numbers to Garmin's classification, the status seems to quite closely follow the small ups and downs in VO2Max.

I can't answer that. I am a rather new runner myself.

VO2 max is something that peaks early on in a new runner's training

The biggest gains in VO2max occur early on in someone who is relatively new to exercise. After that, gains are minimal. Even then, VO2max will eventually plateau. It cannot continue to grow. It's a physiological limitation. Once you've reached the level where your VO2max is pretty much stable, the gains them come from efficiency; how much of that VO2max can you use for exercise without going anaerobic? When two athletes have identical VO2max, the faster one will be the one who can utilise the highest %age of V02max

Then considerations like velocity at VO2max come into play. Are you now able to go faster for the same VO2max?