Trail runs & training status

They do physiologically, and that's why I do not differentiate between trail and 'ordinary' runs. However, Garmin/First Beat have decided to exclude trail runs from being used. Trail runs tend to be slower paced than road runs, which will potentially have the effect of lowering the calculated VO2max. If like me, you do most of your running on trails it seems better to use allruns for the calculation. The ability to differentiate was not available on the 920XT. Now, with the 935 and even with 'scoring' all runs for VO2max, I see little difference. My VO2max still hovers around the mid-to-high 40s - I am 61 after all.

However, some people elect only to use the faster paced road runs for VO2max calculations, which has the effect of providing an 'enhanced' VO2max number, and hence better bragging rights.

I understood this to be the case for VO2 calculations, but through the training status/load used all activities of all types. This obviously isnt the case as I'm not getting any training effect in the graphs for a 3.5hr 22.6 mile long run! Seems ridiculous. Good job I dont pay much attention, and mainly use Sporttracks training load/health stats.

All recorded activities that include heart rate monitoring data should be included in Training Load.

They are not. The metric training load in garmin watches has zero correlation to training peaks, Golden Cheetah, Strava, etc CTL/TSB because it relies on VO2 max which is only calculated on outdoor runs w/ gps or outdoor bike rides with power. It tends to ignore everything else (ie trailrunning which doesnt give vo2). The training load status is essentially worthless, especially in the winter when people are biking on their traininer/running on treadmill.

Just as an example, my status says 'No Status' because I haven't ran outside in a few weeks. The last time I ran outside it said maintaining and then gradually went to 'No status' even though my workouts have increased. TP/Strava/CG all agree with one another that my training has increased. This garmin feature just doesn't work...or it works as it was designed but its just is useless.

Just to show how worthless the feature is, here are pictures of Garmin's training load vs GC/Strava. Notice how CG and Strave both agree with one another and how Garmin's doesn't even work:

Golden Cheetah. You can see fitness increase:



Strava: Fitness increase

Garmin - Fitness decrease and it says 'No Status'

I couldn't agree more to what you wrote about Training Status. The general idea is great but the way of implementation is useless. What a pity.

Absolutely this needs to be fixed. Being able to track real training load and keep motivated played a big part in my purchase of this watch. Sadly none of this winter training is having an impact because its inside. Not good. And then to not have trailing running - that is insane. Sorry but that's my 2c

Garmin - please fix this!

HermanB It's already been noted and discussed ad nauseam. Garmin elected not to include trail runs because, as I understand it, a number of vociferous posters wanted it excluded because the velocity relative to heart rate was very different, generally much lower, to that achieved on the road. Therefore, having a negative impact on VO2max score and hence bragging rights..

And then to not have trailing running - that is insane

Save as an ordinary run to have it count. As noted above, I do not differentiate and I spend a large amount of my time running off road.

Recording trail as normal run is only a half baked work around. All treadmill or indoor track workouts are still ignored. And with barometric information available they could easily account for effects on VO2max. When I run Boston the outcome for my VO2max would also be different from lets say Berlin marathon - but this is not differentiated.
Maybe once power is more established at Garmin side we see another approach? Hope dies last...

Whew, this is confusing stuff.

1. raypastore - It's worth noting that when Garmin/Firstbeat say "fitness" they are (or should always be) talking about cardiorespiratory fitness (CRF) - also sometimes called aerobic fitness - which is properly measured in terms of VO2max - or alternatively METs (1 MET = 3.5 units of VO2max). It looks to me (after a quick look) like Strava is using the word "Fitness" as a proxy for chronic workload and "Fatigue" as a proxy for acute workload. Certainly, the word 'fitness' isn't being used to mean the same thing between the different platforms. This is confusing.

Also, on your GC page - it looks to me like the Coggan Acute Training Load is essentially the same thing as Training Load in Garmin/Firstbeat language. In sports science acute training load often refers to a 7-day period - and Training Load in Garmin / Firstbeat language is a 7-day window. The units of measurement are different as is the scaling, it appears.

2. ALL recorded activities (even trail runs, treadmill runs, gym workouts, etc) should contribute to your Training Load. Training Load and Training Status are different features. Training Load tells you the combined physiological impact of all your activities over the past 7-day period. Training Status simply describes the relationship between your activities and your fitness level (see above: fitness = VO2max)

3. To generate a Training Status, you'll need to have enough recent activities that result in a VO2max detection. This is because Training Status is all about putting changes in your fitness level (VO2max) into context.

TP supports TSS for running power and seems to work reasonably well. With the workout builder it's even possible to project and plan ahead your training load. After using it I see little point using the Garmin implementation for anything other than amusement. The price is a bit steep, but yearly subscription is not that bad. I even tried Xert for one month period, but it doesn't support running power and seems a bit "messy and guessy" so I guess I'll still leave it mature a bit. I liked the idea of adaptive training advisor, but it just doesn't seem to work that well in practice just yet, at least for my use.

Regarding trail running it might be still a bit problematic since running power meters currently cannot detect different surfaces. On soft surfaces the metabolic cost is higher vs calculated power output because it absorbs and takes away possible energy return you would get on other surfaces. Track running is probably easiest because of "bouncier" surface.

To account for this you would probably at least need to have different FTP for different training scenarios...