Errors in training effect evaluation

Hy there i can see your post and i must say

1. Firmware and Software Updates: Ensure that both the Fenix 5X Plus and Forerunner 945 have the latest firmware updates installed. Sometimes, software updates can address bugs and inconsistencies.

2. Device Calibration: Calibrate both devices to ensure accurate readings. Proper calibration can impact the accuracy of metrics like training effect. Make sure you're following the calibration procedures for each device.MyAARPMedicare benefits

3. Sensor Differences: The Fenix 5X Plus and Forerunner 945 might have different internal sensors or algorithms for evaluating training effects. This could lead to variations in the reported values. Check the user manuals of both devices to understand the specific sensor technologies used.

4. Environmental Factors: Environmental conditions such as weather, altitude, and terrain can impact training effect calculations. Make sure both devices are using accurate location and environmental data.

Thanks and regards

KennethSailer

Hi Kenneth, thank you for your reply.

I agree with you on the evaluation difference but in this report a much more serious problem emerges and you can certainly help me understand if it is a translation problem or a metrics bug.

The first graph with a score of 4.7 concerns the aerobic load but on the 5x plus it is confused with the anaerobic load which is the other (0.5). At the end of training he writes "impact on the anaerobic threshold" and then contradicts himself by saying "no anaerobic benefit" because both graphs calculate them on the anaerobic threshold (zone 5).

On the fr945, however, the first graph is correctly identified with aerobic (5.0) and no anaerobic impact/improvement (zone 5)

It may be helpful to see the workouts of other users with the same device to understand this bug that requires an urgent review.

NicK said:

At the end of training he writes "impact on the anaerobic threshold" and then contradicts himself by saying "no anaerobic benefit" because both graphs calculate them on the anaerobic threshold (zone 5).

You are probably looking at a web application bug.

Stepping back a bit, both watches evaluated your run as a tempo run. There is a slight difference in TE that could be attributed to less or a different training history on one device vs the other. Remember that the TE is the combination of the peak and dynamics of EPOC (Excess Post-Excersise Oxygen Consumption) and the training history. An athlete with more intense training history/pattern will see a lower TE for the same EPOC.

Now EPOC could be influenced by sensor and/or data capture differences, or by changes in the FirstBeat algorithm.

Any way, I understand you are not worry by the slight disparity between the 2 evaluations, just by the incoherent text displayed on the web...

Etupes25 said:

Any way, I understand you are not worry by the slight disparity between the 2 evaluations, just by the incoherent text displayed on the web...

Exact!
Unfortunately after the run (before uploading to G.connect), I find the same error in the training effect section, look:

on the top line he writes: Much improved ANAEROBIC threshold
on the bottom line he writes: No ANAEROBIC benefit