Training load, Training effect, Training Status and Vo2max are borked

I will do a Lactate Threshold run today. I never used an HRM before. I will post update afterwards.

Just wondering, are you training load "Ideal"? Mine is on ideal (green zone) since first appearance.

Well, mine is just insane now. Started the day with the status saying that I was I recovery (weekend consists of a intensive stretch on Saturday and rest on Sunday). Ran 6 miles today. Vo2max dropped, lactic threshold dropped, the load is optimal, but the status is....

UNPRODUCTIVE

This is laughably bad (and completely wrong). I work out 5 days a week, weigh 160lb (and have been for the last 5 years) with about 8% body fat, have a resting hr of 40, and a max out of 190. I eat like a champ, but even though I know the watch is all kinds of wrong, seeing productivity numbers telling me that I am "not healthy" bums me out.

For God's sake Garmin will you just. Fix. This!!

I'm running 120 km's a week and my watch tells me I am: PEAKING

Well, mine is just insane now. Started the day with the status saying that I was I recovery (weekend consists of a intensive stretch on Saturday and rest on Sunday). Ran 6 miles today. Vo2max dropped, lactic threshold dropped, the load is optimal, but the status is....

UNPRODUCTIVE

This is laughably bad (and completely wrong). I work out 5 days a week, weigh 160lb (and have been for the last 5 years) with about 8% body fat, have a resting hr of 40, and a max out of 190. I eat like a champ, but even though I know the watch is all kinds of wrong, seeing productivity numbers telling me that I am "not healthy" bums me out.

For God's sake Garmin will you just. Fix. This!!

"unproductive" is not an insult to you about your fitness. Nor is it suggesting you are unfit.

http://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp/fenix5x/EN-US/GUID-6F81BF5B-B49A-4506-95E2-0F4A04D8B319.html

It is suggesting that you are probably over training and the exercise you are doing may not be increasing your fitness due to this.

It is also just an estimate and should always be taken with a pinch of salt.

cycle leader

It sounds as if the Recovery times are independant, and not cumulative. On the Suunto Spartan Ultra that I had before this, the recovery time would increase if I had two activities, and say the first said 12 hours recovery, did another one, and it was 10 hours, but took an hour to do, then my recovery time would be 21 hours, (12+10-1). Same for multiday recoveries. I like the Suunto website, as it give quite a bit more info than GC, like recovery times, EPOC, etc. but the Ultra was simply lacking the features of the F5, so I went back to it. Perhaps Garmin should look at the way the recovery time is calculated?

+1 Polar was cumulative, which makes more sense. As it stands, the recovery time on the Fenix 5 is not much use if you are doing back to back training sessions as it never seems to adjust after the first one. They need to revise this for this to be any use.

"unproductive" is not an insult to you about your fitness. Nor is it suggesting you are unfit.

http://www8.garmin.com/manuals/webhelp/fenix5x/EN-US/GUID-6F81BF5B-B49A-4506-95E2-0F4A04D8B319.html

It is suggesting that you are probably over training and the exercise you are doing may not be increasing your fitness due to this.

It is also just an estimate and should always be taken with a pinch of salt.

Yes, I am (and was) aware of what "unproductive" means on the watch. I also stressed that I take these current reports with a grain of salt (because they are borked); but this comment basically confirms my initial point I made when I started this thread:

Running is bad for my health.

The watch made for running with a plethora of running metrics...is telling me not to run. That every time I go out to run I am hurting my health. And that makes zero sense to. Let's take yesterday's 6 mile run for example. The watch reported for training effect 4.0 for Aerobic (sounds good) and 0.8 Anaerobic (what?). I got no anaerobic benefit? Running had NO EFFECT?!? And yes running is aerobic focused, but you mean to tell me the shorter, slower-paced run I did neigh a week ago that gave me a 3.4 Aerobic/2.4 Anaerobic report was wrong? Also, I was doing the same routine I am doing right now and the watch had my status at "Optimal."

You know what i've noticed, this training effect number is bunk. I went back and looked at workouts I did with my F3HR that I have done also with the F5, you know what I found...

The aerobic training effect number was approx the same number the new training effect numbers are putting out, just split.

It's true, if you had the F3HR, take a look at a workout you've done before and compare it to the same workout using the F5. I did a Tabata Style HIIT training strength workout with my F3HR; TE was 3.6. Did the exact same workout with the F5; Aerobic TE 2.5, Anaerobic TE 1.1 (and never mind the nonsense Anaerobic number, you know since the workout was really nothing but Anaerobic work; nah working as intended). Same number...just now broken in two!! TE 2.0 is a joke and that's the thing:

Everyone takes the Garmin features on their watches with a grain of salt.

How? Why? I'm sorry when I bought this watch (or ANY of the products from Garmin) I expected technology that did what it claimed it was doing, even if within the confines of tech that just can't ever give you precise data (Vo2max for example), it was still going to be within the ballpark of the exact number. If anything, all this watch is doing is just spitting out nonsense that I KNOW FOR A FACT IS INCORRECT. I have years of actual data tested the old-fashioned way or on professional machines...and then there's the years of using Garmin products stating empirically that what this current watch is telling me is just wrong. I don't want to take the information with a grain of salt, or give the multi-million(billion?) dollar company the benefit of the doubt. I want the $700 watch I bought to do what it is supposed to do.

This isn't perception over reality here, I know my physical health in and out. I haven't suffered from some injury or overexerted myself. I haven't changed my lifestyle to the point that there would be expected repercussions. This watch and the software that has come with it doesn't work. It isn't doing what it is claiming to do and frankly I don't need a piece of tech that is telling me to be more sedative and lazy (when doing so would actually be unproductive!!) Yet there is this feeling here (and outside these forums) to just shake it off, or dismiss the problems with the watch. How? You bought this so you can TRACK WORKOUTS AND HEALTH. If it isn't doing this, or is doing this wrong; then it's a sham? Room for error sure, but outright wrong? No, that's not dismissable.

And this went on longer than I planned. While I wanted to address the quoted comment (which I did) I went away from that so I don't it to sound as if this were an attack on the person that made that comment, i'm not and i'm sorry if it comes across that way. I'm just fed up with dealing with bunk numbers that I know to be false.

Regarding your aerobic/anaerobic TE:
You need to run at or above your threshold to gain AE-TE - maybe your 6 miler just wasn't fast enough?

South reyes

Yes, I am (and was) aware of what "unproductive" means on the watch. I also stressed that I take these current reports with a grain of salt (because they are borked); but this comment basically confirms my initial point I made when I started this thread:

Running is bad for my health.

The watch made for running with a plethora of running metrics...is telling me not to run. That every time I go out to run I am hurting my health. And that makes zero sense to. Let's take yesterday's 6 mile run for example. The watch reported for training effect 4.0 for Aerobic (sounds good) and 0.8 Anaerobic (what?). I got no anaerobic benefit? Running had NO EFFECT?!? And yes running is aerobic focused, but you mean to tell me the shorter, slower-paced run I did neigh a week ago that gave me a 3.4 Aerobic/2.4 Anaerobic report was wrong? Also, I was doing the same routine I am doing right now and the watch had my status at "Optimal."

You know what i've noticed, this training effect number is bunk. I went back and looked at workouts I did with my F3HR that I have done also with the F5, you know what I found...

The aerobic training effect number was approx the same number the new training effect numbers are putting out, just split.

It's true, if you had the F3HR, take a look at a workout you've done before and compare it to the same workout using the F5. I did a Tabata Style HIIT training strength workout with my F3HR; TE was 3.6. Did the exact same workout with the F5; Aerobic TE 2.5, Anaerobic TE 1.1 (and never mind the nonsense Anaerobic number, you know since the workout was really nothing but Anaerobic work; nah working as intended). Same number...just now broken in two!! TE 2.0 is a joke and that's the thing:

Everyone takes the Garmin features on their watches with a grain of salt.

How? Why? I'm sorry when I bought this watch (or ANY of the products from Garmin) I expected technology that did what it claimed it was doing, even if within the confines of tech that just can't ever give you precise data (Vo2max for example), it was still going to be within the ballpark of the exact number. If anything, all this watch is doing is just spitting out nonsense that I KNOW FOR A FACT IS INCORRECT. I have years of actual data tested the old-fashioned way or on professional machines...and then there's the years of using Garmin products stating empirically that what this current watch is telling me is just wrong. I don't want to take the information with a grain of salt, or give the multi-million(billion?) dollar company the benefit of the doubt. I want the $700 watch I bought to do what it is supposed to do.

This isn't perception over reality here, I know my physical health in and out. I haven't suffered from some injury or overexerted myself. I haven't changed my lifestyle to the point that there would be expected repercussions. This watch and the software that has come with it doesn't work. It isn't doing what it is claiming to do and frankly I don't need a piece of tech that is telling me to be more sedative and lazy (when doing so would actually be unproductive!!) Yet there is this feeling here (and outside these forums) to just shake it off, or dismiss the problems with the watch. How? You bought this so you can TRACK WORKOUTS AND HEALTH. If it isn't doing this, or is doing this wrong; then it's a sham? Room for error sure, but outright wrong? No, that's not dismissable.

And this went on longer than I planned. While I wanted to address the quoted comment (which I did) I went away from that so I don't it to sound as if this were an attack on the person that made that comment, i'm not and i'm sorry if it comes across that way. I'm just fed up with dealing with bunk numbers that I know to be false.

Definitely return it!

BTW, mine is working well for me after the initial adjustment period.

Moderate intensity 8k yesterday, 8k easy today, switched from Non productive to Maintaining.

Yes, I am (and was) aware of what "unproductive" means on the watch. I also stressed that I take these current reports with a grain of salt (because they are borked); but this comment basically confirms my initial point I made when I started this thread:

Running is bad for my health.

The watch made for running with a plethora of running metrics...is telling me not to run. That every time I go out to run I am hurting my health. And that makes zero sense to. Let's take yesterday's 6 mile run for example. The watch reported for training effect 4.0 for Aerobic (sounds good) and 0.8 Anaerobic (what?). I got no anaerobic benefit? Running had NO EFFECT?!? And yes running is aerobic focused, but you mean to tell me the shorter, slower-paced run I did neigh a week ago that gave me a 3.4 Aerobic/2.4 Anaerobic report was wrong? Also, I was doing the same routine I am doing right now and the watch had my status at "Optimal."

You know what i've noticed, this training effect number is bunk. I went back and looked at workouts I did with my F3HR that I have done also with the F5, you know what I found...

The aerobic training effect number was approx the same number the new training effect numbers are putting out, just split.

It's true, if you had the F3HR, take a look at a workout you've done before and compare it to the same workout using the F5. I did a Tabata Style HIIT training strength workout with my F3HR; TE was 3.6. Did the exact same workout with the F5; Aerobic TE 2.5, Anaerobic TE 1.1 (and never mind the nonsense Anaerobic number, you know since the workout was really nothing but Anaerobic work; nah working as intended). Same number...just now broken in two!! TE 2.0 is a joke and that's the thing:

Everyone takes the Garmin features on their watches with a grain of salt.

How? Why? I'm sorry when I bought this watch (or ANY of the products from Garmin) I expected technology that did what it claimed it was doing, even if within the confines of tech that just can't ever give you precise data (Vo2max for example), it was still going to be within the ballpark of the exact number. If anything, all this watch is doing is just spitting out nonsense that I KNOW FOR A FACT IS INCORRECT. I have years of actual data tested the old-fashioned way or on professional machines...and then there's the years of using Garmin products stating empirically that what this current watch is telling me is just wrong. I don't want to take the information with a grain of salt, or give the multi-million(billion?) dollar company the benefit of the doubt. I want the $700 watch I bought to do what it is supposed to do.

This isn't perception over reality here, I know my physical health in and out. I haven't suffered from some injury or overexerted myself. I haven't changed my lifestyle to the point that there would be expected repercussions. This watch and the software that has come with it doesn't work. It isn't doing what it is claiming to do and frankly I don't need a piece of tech that is telling me to be more sedative and lazy (when doing so would actually be unproductive!!) Yet there is this feeling here (and outside these forums) to just shake it off, or dismiss the problems with the watch. How? You bought this so you can TRACK WORKOUTS AND HEALTH. If it isn't doing this, or is doing this wrong; then it's a sham? Room for error sure, but outright wrong? No, that's not dismissable.

And this went on longer than I planned. While I wanted to address the quoted comment (which I did) I went away from that so I don't it to sound as if this were an attack on the person that made that comment, i'm not and i'm sorry if it comes across that way. I'm just fed up with dealing with bunk numbers that I know to be false.

Then return it and have a bash with another brand. No point continue to use something you have no faith in.

My previous comment was aimed directly at your own statement that the watch was telling you that you were "not healthy" (you said those words yourself); I was just pointing out that regardless of how accurate or in-accurate the watch is, it was not trying to insult you by calling you names. The assessment is aimed squarely at the training and if that training is helping or hindering you.

Now if you are sure that it's assessment is totally wrong after giving it a big enough sample of activities for it to have reasonably come to the correct conclusion then obviously something is wrong with it then you may as well get it returned rather than continuing to be frustrated by it.

EDIT:

I wasn't trying to antagonise you or anything or suggest you were wrong with your view that it was giving you bogus data btw; so sorry if thats how it came across.