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

Survey for using instant vs step pace on the workout screen

JanH
over 4 years ago

As discussed here: https://forums.garmin.com/sports-fitness/running-multisport/f/forerunner-945/167532/bug-in-the-interval-workout-screen-with-pace-as-target-the-watch-doesn-t-use-instant-pace the garmin devices show the average pace during a pace-based workout step.

This can lead to issues as I describe here: https://forums.garmin.com/outdoor-recreation/outdoor-recreation/f/fenix-5-plus-series/172039/pace-target-data-screen-showing-not-actual-pace .

For a meaningful support during the workout (i.e. to keep the target pace), showing the step pace does not make sense (I-our-HO), as it does not give indications if you are currently too slow or two fast. Additionally, on the workout screen on the watch, it is not indicated that what the watch shows is an average/step pace and not the instant pace.

Garmin apparently thinks that step pace would make more sense, probably as instant pace frim GPS is tricky, as not very stable. I agree, the "instant pace" would need to be averaged over the last 10s maybe, but not more. To use the step pace might work for a 30s workout, but if the step is several minutes, obviously, the step pace is not a good indicator if you should go faster of slow down.

We (, myself and hopefully others) think that Garmin should let the user chose on what is displayed on the workout screen (gauge).

This is to find out, what the other Garmin users think. Thank you for participating!

  • 0 over 3 years ago

    Has been this 'problem' fixed in some way? Is it possible to plan workouts using instant pace instead of the average pace?

  • 0 over 3 years ago

    I'm for both at one screen.

  • 0 over 3 years ago

    Totally agree. The “step pace” is useless. Slight smile

  • 0 over 3 years ago

    Instance Pace would so much better

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to Pavel

    I can open an experience case on this issue for you guys to get it reviewed. I'll start sending DM's to gather information from everybody. 

    I am curious though why step pace is useless. This a function I use for my easy runs, my recovery runs, interval workouts, tempo workouts, and steady state workouts, and I feel it does a good job for all of them. 

    My reasoning. Unlike avg pace, or lap pace, step pace is configurable. While lap pace is whatever you have your auto lap set to, step pace performs like lap pace for the given interval in question. For instance if you program 400 m repeats, step pace will give you the lap pace for that 400 meter interval (through 200 meters in 32, watch will tell you 4:16 pace). Then during the recovery portion if you have that set to pace as well it kicks out the faster data and say you have a 400 meter recovery, it's going to avg that individual 400 for you. (through the 200 in 60 seconds 8:00 pace). 

    Conversely if I'm doing a 14 mile steady state and I want to break it up into zones, ie: the first 4 miles at 5:55 avg (set range 6:00-5:50) set my next 6 miles to 5:45 avg and my next 4 @ 5:35 per mile the watch will still auto lap so that I can get my individual mile splits, but it also keeps me in the range my coach is asking for without me having to do the math in my head while I'm trying to run - ie; (Mile one was 5:57 mile 2 was 5:51 Mile 3 was 5:55 what do I need to hit for Mile 4 again). The step pace functioning as an average for that specific four mile step allows me to not have to do that math because as soon as I move on to the next step of the workout it restarts that average. 

    For easy/long run days it allows you to target multiple zones. Using the calculator I use based off my times my Long run pace is 7:09-6:03 per mile. So typically for long runs, I'll start my first 15-20 minutes at my recovery pace of 6:54-7:38 for a warm up, then depending how long I'm going I'll have 5 steps set up getting progressively faster until I finish at that 6:03 pace. Since I have 5 steps of the workout when I go from 6:54-6:45, 6:45-6:35, 6:35-6:25, 6:25-6:15, 6:15-6:05, the step pace continues to avg only that steps data so once I am done with a step, it's compartmentalized and I don't have to think about it any more as I'm on to the next step of the workout. 

    For recovery days there really isn't anything special, I'm just very type a and I like to have it on my calendar so I know what I'm doing for that day. Workouts as sources below just because I feel that step pace is a very versatile tool and I want to highlight what can be done with it. 

    UPDATE: Thus far I have reached out to everyone who has commented on the thread in the last week as I feel that is a good baseline for people who are checking in on the topic. If anyone else would like me to reach out directly to them, just @Me so that I get a notification, and I will happily reach out. The more people I hear from the stronger the case I can make to potentially get a change made. 

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to Garmin-Brooks

    I think step base is good, but I think they would like to see what pace they are going atm, reasoning probably being so that is the step base going to get better or worse.

    JanH said:
    showing the step pace does not make sense (I-our-HO), as it does not give indications if you are currently too slow or two fast

    So maybe some kind of indicator how much the current pace is different from step base. Is the indicator the current pace totally somewhere in small, or difference in seconds, or some small graph element in that space and how big is it and the color would indicate faster/slower and "how much".

    I can see that as improvement, but changing the pace totally, not really. If that could be done and would satisfy the people wanting step pace.

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to Garmin-Brooks

    First of all, thank you very much for hearing and supporting us on this topic.

    I agree with you. The step pace isn't actually useless if used as you suggested. Moreover, one can technically mimic the instant pace using the step pace. In fact, if you plan to run 1 mile at a constant pace, you could just split that mile in, for example, 10 steps using the step pace workouts (at that pace), so you are sure that you are effectively running at the desired pace. The problem with this is that you get too many notifications on your watch because of the splitting while running (and I would like to get notified only in case I'm running too slow or too fast).

    Moreover, if for some reason one slows down unintentionally during a step, the watch suggests you run at higher pace after in order to end the step at the desired pace you set up (because is an average after all), but I usually want to keep on with the programmed pace (even if this means ending up with a slower pace for that step).

    Clearly, these 'problems' aren't really dramatic for my runs. One can easily get used to them if really wanted.

    If it isn't much of a problem to update the customization of the workouts using ALSO the 'instant' pace, that would make me happier than I'm already with your service!

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to JosD

    Thanks, , appreciate your listening! Great stuff.

    Agreed with JosD, that's really the key point. There are numerous points in a structured run when it's helpful to know pace at that time, and then even better when you don't end up with all the extra notifications. I also wonder how many of these comments are based on people using Stryd vs. GPS. Once you get used to Stryd instant pace and not having to deal with GPS, I find it's really hard to go back. Since that feature isn't available on Garmin structured workouts for the reasons articulated in this thread, I've just been doing it through my Apple Watch/Stryd. Would love to see the feature change discussed in this thread and go back to my Garmin 945 for runs, but for now my workaround has been to shift to Apple.

  • 0 over 3 years ago

    I think it should be configurable. If you have a footpod (a Stryd, for example), then instant or 3s averaged pace will be very accurate and much more useful than GPS instant pace

  • 0 over 3 years ago in reply to ben.hartley

    I don't think the reason is instant pace accurate or not is the key here.

    You have to do the step at pace X. If you just have instant pace, you don't have picture how your step is going on. You could take it easy and then continue on the target pace and the watch would tell you that you are doing it spot on, which is or course not the case.

    I would think that the step pace is more important than the instant pace, but I understand that it would nice to know the instant pace, or at least on the level are you pushing faster or slower than the required pace.