Garmin Training Plan a joke? Pro Athlete?

Yes this is what i am talking about

I did almost the same workout yesterday (8x1min @ 3:20-3:30tempo) and got base. Tempo was spot on and Goal/Target was set at Tempo, but gave me Base.

Max HR settings: 181

Lactate HR: 165

Garmin should have used Tempo as reference, not HR...

From your screenshot I see that your average HR was low and it is why you have overall result as base, but you got some anaerobic score what is good.
Regarding usinf Tempo as reference I disagree because your HR is quite good indicator of your condition and fatigue during workout. Pace give nothing, for one person pace 6min/km will be easy for other it will be challenge.

Yes, but this I mean is wrong. Garmin estimated this as Anaerobic and 3.0/3.0 score. This should be right as well because a Tempo as of Anaerobic zone is right and this session is of course Hard and recovery time long (muscular). The HR is not a good estimation when sprinting or so short intervals. When done in cycling Garmin gets it right by using power so why not tempo when they have the threshold Tempo.

Also HR is so different from day to day and so much faulty factors…

rbmx said:

The HR is not a good estimation when sprinting or so short intervals. When done in cycling Garmin gets it right by using power so why not tempo when they have the threshold Tempo.

I agree, but fundamentally, you are training with pace, which, on flat terrain, is a good substitute for power.

Knowing that the suggested workouts are well designed at the program and workout level, provided you have the right targets (ie a well fed VO2 max model), you get the training right anyway, even if the watch fails to recognize the training effect matching to the workout type.

At the aerobic/anaerobic training effect level (ie the details below the main training effect label), things make a bit more sense, but not as well as for cycling.

Hopefully Garmin will start using a power curve for running as well.

Yes for sure, then we agree;),);)...

My HR Zones are set at: Z1: 62-72, Z2: 72-82, Z3: 82-87, Z4: 87-92, Z5: 92-100% and % MAXHR.

This are the zones all Pro Athletes in my Country uses (developed at FysioLab).

I will still continue to train with these Zones as they make sense to me and i Think Garmin`s std 50-60-70-80-90-100% is really ment for "Not Pro athlete`s" or just to simplify it for "everyone"..

I think therefore the Garmin Training status, Aerobic, Anaerobic etc will be more right if we have the "settings" at Garmin HR Zones, what do you think?

Ex if i would have done the same workout (8x1min) with Garmin HR Zones it would have given med more Anaerobic etc as i would have been more in High Z4 + Z5.

I will give this a try for a week;)))

rbmx said:

I think therefore the Garmin Training status, Aerobic, Anaerobic etc will be more right if we have the "settings" at Garmin HR Zones, what do you think?

Nope. These metrics are all based on effort level as % of your VO2 Max HR and pace. So you can set your HR zones the way you want, it will not influence these metrics directly. What I mean is that it is not because you are training in "zone 2:aerobic" that you get aerobic effect, it is because the number of intervals, their repetition and the level of effort as a % of VO2 Max resulted in being assessed as low or high aerobic.

I do believe you have a better chance of "matching" HR zones and training effect if you use LTHR (because the HR zones system and the VO2 Max model use the same physiological data, but they are separate).

Thx again for answer... I don't think i Understand what you mean directly with "Vo2max model"??? What i always have wondering why is why my Vo2 is so low on garmin compared to in Lab? (garmin 57 and in Lab 72).. (All my other settings testet in lab such as LTHR and LTspeed, LT Power and Max HR are 100% right).

I wil try to set Garmin at LTHR then, but keep the % as they are? (Never tried this before)

rbmx said:

I wil try to set Garmin at LTHR then, but keep the % as they are?

Don't do that. You cannot swap % of HR Max with % of LTRH, and the % of LTHR are pretty much standard and well accepted. Choosing % HR Max or % LTHR is not really a big deal so you can go either way. I prefer having a system that varies with performance (and age) rather that with age only. Your HR Max only changes with age, not with training.

rbmx said:

Vo2max model

The watch is keep track of you your heart data paired with pace data. Since there is known relationship between HR (as a proxy of ventilation) and pace (as a proxy of work), the watch tries to identify this relationship. It is a linear relationship up to a certain point (around lactate threshold), then it is non-linear.

The watch calculates this regression by forcing the data to fit a specific data point (max HR and max pace). Out of this regression, it can identify the point of maximum ventilation (VO2 max), between the threshold and HR max.

https://assets.firstbeat.com/firstbeat/uploads/2017/06/white_paper_VO2max_30.6.2017.pdf

All the key metrics like training effect, suggested workout targets, race predictions are based on this VO2 Max model.

rbmx said:

why is why my Vo2 is so low on garmin compared to in Lab? (garmin 57 and in Lab 72)

Congratulations on your VO2 max. 72 put you in the elite athletes category. It is strange that the garmin model yields a number that different. Typically less than 5% error is more common, but higher differences exist.

http://www.muscleoxygentraining.com/2019/05/firstbeat-vo2-estimation-valid-or-voodoo.html

If you HR max has been determined in a lab, and is in the watch, as well as age and weight, the main reason why the VO2 max model may be off would be lack of maximal efforts.

How old is your 72 VO2 max score? We tend to lose about 1% per year due to aging.