Training Effect

nickk said:

The Garmin watch/app doesn't take weather data from any of the apps on your phone, but rather from a weather data service somewhere on the internets

But it has to come via the phone. The watch does not have the ability to connect directly to the internet.

i believe that GCM on the phone is responsible for the data 

I report the same that I already wrote in the FR945 forum:

yesterday the developer of 1Weather sent me an email and asked me to give him the support log so he can investigate which weather station is used for my location. In a FAQ of that app I read that they use WDT inc (Weather Decision Technologies Inc)for their weather data. So maybe Garmin Connect uses the data of WDT too, because the error is exactly the same both in 1Weather and in GarminConnect/Garminweatherwidget in the watch.

It seems that all my region is affected by this problem. The town 30 km away with the correct temperature are in two other different regions.

The developer of the app in a further mail said that  he checked the location in the feed and the observation station being used for my location is 40 minutes away. He said he will need to check with his  data provider to see if this is in error, or if that is the closest station that they can use for that location- or if at the very least they can use one of the more regional locations that are correct.

I hope that Garminconnect uses WDT too and that WDT will correct the issue.

It's a bit of a shame that a developer of a weather app answered to my support request in the same day, while Garmin till now ignored all my support requests or wasn't able to fix this simple bug.

While I still don't think this will fix your training effect issues let's hope something good comes out of it!

There is something to be said for app developers, most of them are really really nice and approachable people who genuinely care about their products! 

Putting these here for some reference.

Tonight's session on the indoor trainer (cycling) Aerobic 2.8, Anaerobic 2.0. Avge HR 118 Max 150

Tuesday's session. Looks the same? But not, less intensity 2.3 aerobic, 0.8 anaerobic. Avge HR 114 Max 147

In your case it seems that aerobic training effect and anerobic training effect work good.

There's a lot of good thoughts and comments in this thread.

Here's a quick excerpt from the original introduction of Anaerobic Training Effect in our professional team sports platform. I thought of it because it quickly fingers 3 key aspects to keep in mind when you are trying to produce a larger Anaerobic TE score. 

"For analyzing the anaerobic training effect, the algorithms for example detect high-intensity intervals from any exercise session, and take into account properties of the intervals such as the intensity and duration as well as recovery level before intervals. The amount of anaerobic work performed is further compared to reference values of known amount of anaerobic work of different types of exercises to form a scale for training adaptions." (source)

The fact that the intensity and duration of your high-intensity effort is being considered is a no brainer. The fact that the recovery level before the interval is considered is less obvious. "Recovery level" here specifically means the lower-intensity level that you stabilized at prior to the start of the next interval. Going from, say, a 60% intensity effort to a 105% intensity effort will have a bigger Anaerobic contribution than going from, say, an 80% intensity effort to a 105% effort. It's about the degree to which your anaerobic pathways needed to step up until your aerobic pathways can catch up to satisfy as much of the energy demand as possible. 

Interesting. So this explains why a normal interval workout with recovery standing still between intervals produces a higher anaerobic training effect than a continuous slow run with some surges every km. Probably in the second case the surges every km contribute to elevate the aerobic training effect, but produce a lower anaerobic training effect. This thing is not obvious and  is a bit counter-intuitive.

This is likely due to a common misconception about these terms (and it’s not like they are unambiguously defined to start with).

Hard effort is not by default anaerobic!

recovery and duration is a critical part of which energy pathway is most used for a given effort... it all depends how ATP is consumed and rebuilt. What is generally considered as anaerobic pathways is the alactic (PCR) pathway (quick and strong, fizzles out after about 10-12 seconds; think 100m sprints) and the glycolitic (less fast and strong but slightly mire endurance, about 2 minutes; think 600m runs). 
The longer the effort duration (including effort during recovery, like running slower between sprints), the less the anaerobic pathways can continue to provide the required ATP, hence the more the aerobic system has to work. You can feel these differences when you get slower during high effort, you’re essentially moving to the next available pathway (if we disregard muscle fibres and everything else for the sake of discussion).

I agree this is not directly obvious from the metrics (especially since the terms are mostly used wrongly but most people), but actually is fully supported by science

meaning short high effort bursts followed by adequate recovery will be almost completely anaerobic, the longer these efforts become or the more incomplete recovery becomes (either through too little recovery time or too mich effort during recovery periods), the more aerobic it becomes

Of course that is a very big simplification of how it actually works, a google search for “energy pathways” will provide endless hours of entertainment