• State Suggested Answer
  • +1 person also asked this people also asked this
  • Locked Locked
  • Replies 55 replies
  • Answers 1 answer
  • Subscribers 7 subscribers
  • Views 15393 views
  • Users 0 members are here
Options
Related
This discussion has been locked.
You can no longer post new replies to this discussion. If you have a question you can start a new discussion

Training Effect

meste7
over 5 years ago

I did today 5x10min threshold intervals - run with HRM Run belt. My HR zones are correctly set up. In the end I get:

Base
Primary Benefit
3.1 Impacting
Aerobic
0.0 No Benefit
Anaerobic
Here are the HR zones achieved during this run:

Heart Rate Zones

Z5
0:05
0%
Z4
36:12
40%
Z3
12:44
14%
Z2
26:33
29%
Z1
12:43
14%
How come no anaerobic benefit?

For an older run I got

Training Effect

Tempo
Primary Benefit
3.7 Impacting
Aerobic
0.2 No Benefit
Anaerobic

with

Heart Rate Zones

Z5
0:00
0%
Z4
12:09
19%
Z3
6:47
10%
Z2
31:01
49%
Z1
11:39
18%

By comparisson I was expecting today's run to get more impact on, if not tempo, but at least high aerobic, but definetly not base!

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to Mirko_Italy

    It’s the nature of the workout that makes the difference. Tuesday was lower intensity 95% to 105% FTP with slightly shorter intervals and slightly longer recovery. Thursday was 95% to 110% FTP with slightly longer intervals and slightly shorter recovery. As a consequence the heart rate has less chance to recover from the higher level on Thursday compared to Tuesday. You can see this in the Thursday session as the recovery heart rate does not get as low between intervals and the work heart rate is higher..

    Sessions need to be designed appropriately to get expected results. Just going ‘hard’ is not enough.

  • 0 over 5 years ago

    Today I did a interval workout 17x400 about at my VO2max with 1,5 min walking in between, with two watches, the FR945 and the FR610.

    I did this changes:

    1- I changed zones for both watches  with the new max hr of 180 instead of 192 (this was really an old value of 2 years ago, in my run I'm having about this value as maximum). All the zone changed with lower value based on %HRR with resting heart rate of 40.

    2- I wear a chest strap synced with the FR945 and a Scosche Rhythm+ optical heart rate monitor synced to another watch FR610.

    3- In this days the watch corrected my VO2max and now it's 2 points lower.

    4- Recovery periods between intervals was a bit shorter than the other times.

    This time the Fr610 gave an aerobic TE of 3,2.

    The FR945 gave "Primary benefit" Anaerobic color purple.

    Aerobic 4,3 highly impacting aerobic fitness

    Anaerobic 4,3 highly impacting aerobic fitness

    I was looking at the watch during the rest period of the intervals, because I had a field with aerobic and anaerobic training effect, and this time anaerobic training effect was growing quite fast. At the end my perceived effort matched the number anaerobic 4,3

    a question for you:

    A lot of things changed from the previous workouts, so it's difficult to know what impacted more the difference in the anaerobic TE from the other training session where it was very difficult for me to get high anaerobic effect.

    But it's possible that the main reason is that this time I had a chest strap?

    I'm not 100% sure, but I believe that even when I had the FR610 synced with a chest strap I get usually higher training effect than when I use the optical heart rate of the watch or of the Scosche Rhythm+.

    Maybe in the algorithm of the training effect is used also HRV heart rate variability that can't be obtained with optical heart rate monitor? Chest strap and optical heart rate have the same values (in the graph blue is chest strap, orange is Scosche optical heart rate monitor).

    This would be a pity for me, because I always use the optical heart rate monitor of the FR945. I use the chest strap only when I want to do a guided threshold test with the watch FR945 or today because I wanted to see if the chest strap the training effect was different.

    Another big difference was the training load: today was 410, about the double of a workout of 14 august that was similar 5x1000+4x400 where the exercise load was 202.

     

    By the way, during the test the watch found a new max heart rate of 181 and after the run updated the heart rate zones. Two day ago I tried to do another guided threshold test with the FR945 to verify if the value 175 is still valid, but unfortunately at the end the watch said "Workout ended: threshold not detected". The last step the watch told me to run between 170 and 180, the max hr I arrived was 173 because I was saving energy expecting that the watch asked me to do a further step between 180 and 185.

  • +1 over 5 years ago in reply to Mirko_Italy

    Hi ,

    Nice workout. I'm a bit tired just looking at it.  Sheesh.  ;-)

    I'm fairly certain that the difference in Training Effects between your two devices is the result of differences in the scaling/personalization/interpretation of the resulting EPOC of your workout.

    During your workout, your device (or devices in this case) are analytically using performance data (primarily changes in intensity and time) to predict EPOC. What's EPOC? https://youtu.be/PUTxaJXg4IU

    As I explain in the video, EPOC provides the basis for a great many things that Firstbeat does including Training Effect. 

    When we talk about Training Effect being 'personalized' what we really mean is that the EPOC that accumulated during your workout is placed into the context of your current fitness level. An example might help, and for the sake of simplicity let's say that EPOC = Training Load, so we are all talking the same language. Also, for simplicity, let's go back to the good old days of the FR610 when there was only one Training Effect (aerobic). 

    ------Example----- 

    An experienced endurance athlete goes out for a run that gives him a Training Load of 100 and his Training Effect is probably somewhere in the 2.0-2.3 range. In other words, this run was light for him and had a maintenance effect on his fitness level, but wasn't really enough to stimulate future improvement.

    Now, someone with a very low fitness level goes out for a run and produces a Training Load of 100. His Training Effect for that run will likely be in 4.5-5.0 range. In other words, same Training Load, but the effect of the workout was highly improving for his fitness... and possibly overdoing it. 

    Same Training Loads... different Training Effect on the individual. 

    ------

    These days, that scaling or personalization of Training Load into Training Effect is done automatically using a combination of your VO2max (cardiorespiratory fitness) and activity history. I can't really get into how that works, but it is set up to rely exclusively on activity history if, for example, you are never doing activities that update your VO2max. 

    I am not 100% sure from memory how this was managed back in the glory days of the FR610, but certainly not as well as it is these days. You might have even needed to set an Activity Class manually. Some devices worked like that.

    tl;dr version. I suspect your FR610 things you are in much better shape than your FR945 does.

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to HermanB

    Yes, in the FR610 I had to set manually an activity class, and this was my greatest concern about training effect.

    This time the FR945 was correct because at the end I was tired, I kept doing intervals only because I wanted to arrive to anaerobic TE > 4 Slight smile

    I'm happy that the difference between training effect of the FR610 and the FR945 depends on the watch and not on the optical heart rate monitor against chest strap heart rate monitor (I hate chest straps and I don't use it any more).

  • 0 over 5 years ago in reply to HermanB

    Thank you,

    I think this recovery level actually explains what I've been seeing in my data that made me first question if anaerobic TE was getting harder (or I weaker), and then whether it worked at all.

    I was kind of surprised my kettlebell sessions consistently produced higher anaerobic TE than 400m intervals. In the former case, I would be hitting 150-160, then letting myself recover to below 130-135. In the latter, I'd be hitting much higher HRs, 165-175 but the recovery would be in the 150s. The former case was always constrained by observed recovery. The latter by time/distance intervals. The former is strength training the latter is running. Different exercise types too.

    Good to know.