Ran faster, higher HR yet lower Exercise Load?

I would expect the same as you.

One way to rationalize this is to consider that training load is not based on TRIMP/rTSS but on EPOC. Estimation of EPOC uses both HR and HRV to approximate ventilation. If you were in a better fitness/readiness situation, you could perform better and more efficiently.

How did the performance condition and the stamina decrease compare?

NB: 15 sec/mile, how much is it in % of speed increase?

Thank you.  My performance condition today was really bad, starting at 0 and going down to -6.  Stamina started at 100 and ended at 22. I knew today was going to be a difficult run because even on my warmup mile, my HR was about 15 bpm higher than normal.  Thankfully once I reached my tempo pace my HR was only higher than my previous run by 5bpm.  On my previous run, my performance condition was +7 down to -1, and stamina started at 98 and ended at 9.  I am not sure if this is related but in a separate thread I noticed that my Garmin power for this run was about actually lower than my previous run even though I went faster.  I didnt think Garmin took power into account for any calculations (yet).  

So. keeping in mind that we are trying to rationalize a surprising outcome , you depleted your stamina less this time, although your performance condition was worse.

So comparatively, you run was less costly for your body than the previous one.

At least this is consistent with a lower EPOC, but doesn't explain it since stamina, and PC use the same data in the end.

Etupes25 said:

So. keeping in mind that we are trying to rationalize a surprising outcome

I wish an expert from Garmin would chime in on these kinds of questions so that we can better understand the data and thus be better equipped to use it to help with our training.  The guys at Stryd are very helpful in this regard.  

Just more data to confuse me more about exercise load.  I did the same run on Dec 10.  The course and avg pace as exactly the same and the avg HR was actually lower by 5 bpm but the exercise load was 665 vs 424 today.  

I have a similar situation - I ran 6km with a pulse of 140 and got 101 load points, then I ran 12km on a pulse of 140 and got 94 load points. I thought about it and didn't understand anything). It is possible that power indicators are involved in the calculations. She was taller in the first race.

Again not to many data to analyze.
1. 140 was your max HR or average?
2. How your heart rate in zones split was for these two runs?
3. What was training efect reesult for both?

1. Of cource the average)

2. 6km: 16% 3 HR zone, 74% 2 HR zone, 5% 1HR zone.

 12km: 10% 3HR Zone, 84% 2 HR zone, 3% 1 HR zone.

3. Training effect base for both. 3.1 Aerob TE.

But the workouts have different average power and different working hours in the power zones.

6km: 238 Wt average, 5% 4 zone native power, 12% - 3 zone , 30% - 2 and 46% - 1.

12km: 207 Wt average, 2% - 3 zone, 15% - 2 and 47% - 1. 4 zone - 0% of time.

I think garmin takes into account the work in the power ranges to calculate the training load.

As you see, in second workout percentage in zone 2 is higher.
Regarding calculation I’m not sure how they are calculating affort now but in the past (before introduction natove power) they use average HR, HR split in zones, time of excersise and pace.
SOmethong what wonders me in your data is your MAX HR and how it was estimated, how your HR zones were estimated, what are you use to measure your HR during workout?

As you see, in second workout percentage in zone 2 is higher.
Regarding calculation I’m not sure how they are calculating affort now but in the past (before introduction natove power) they use average HR, HR split in zones, time of excersise and pace.
SOmethong what wonders me in your data is your MAX HR and how it was estimated, how your HR zones were estimated, what are you use to measure your HR during workout?