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

FR 955 Series: Training effect calculation is wrong AFTER 12.23 software (may include 12.27 and 13.15 sw)

rklyukin
over 2 years ago

At the request of duplicate the topic here - from the beta 12.2 forum!
Instead of fixing the problem, Garmin is engaging in bureaucracy!

__________________________________________________________

Because some of you have reported seeing this on the latest(non-beta) production software, let's please have you start a thread in the main forum for this device:

https://forums.garmin.com/sports-fitness/running-multisport/f/forerunner-955-series

____________________________________________________

Training effect calculation is wrong! After the update, this indicator began to be considered incorrect relative to the past similar workouts. 

Today, August 22, there was a training session. The workout was in zone 1 with an average heart rate of 135 bpm. Training Effect wrote that he trained his lactate threshold well. O_O IS IT? IT'S A JOKE? The run was strictly in zone 1. My lactate threshold in the app is 176! Until update 12.2 and complete data reset from the watch, Incl. there was no such training!

today's training - 24.08.22. what the ***?!?! WTF?! What is another intense workout? what the *** is a vo2max increase?!? It's a Base workout! This was before the update to 12.2. Garmin please take note and fix this ASAP!


  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to DPSK

    Configured correct means individual to the user.

    It makes no sense that training effect woild use the same zones for everyone as people have different lactate thresholds, different max heart rate etc..

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to felixfinch

    Take vo2max for example, Garmin nerds to know your pace, running HR and max HR only.

    Similar with training effect.

    Garmin doesn't care your configured running zones. Some may be even configure it uniquely or wrongly.

    Everyone has a different LTHR. This is correct. But LTHR is typically 80-90% of MHR. So MHR data is crucial.

  • 0 over 2 years ago

    I think I sorted out, after the update they have changed percentages of the zones and we don't see percentages and numbers like 935 and have to calculate it. I have managed do calculate based before the update and need to check in activity. But yesterday I checked with lactate threshold option and everything was ok in TE. So finger crossed with manual entered zones everything to be ok. Don't now why they changed the percentages of Max hr. Don't why when the percentages have been changed why the numbers was as usual and I think this was the missreading. The gc used the new percentages but we see our previous numbers.

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to felixfinch

    https://assets.firstbeat.com/firstbeat/uploads/2015/10/white_paper_training_effect.pdf

    Just to add on and related to the discussion in this thread.

    Look at the whitepaper or see table 3. Nowhere there is a mention about heart rate zones.

    From what I can infer, TE is affected by Max HR, respiration rate and activity class. The last 2 are deduced by Garmin.

    So basically the problem associated to the "high" training effect in the new FW could be due to Garmin not reading the user MHR correctly or Garmin deducing the wrong respiration rate or activity class.

  • 0 over 2 years ago

    This doesn't seem to be limited to the FR series. I have a Fenix 6 Pro and noticed the same thing starting some time this week.

    Last week (04/09/22), easy 17km run, average HR 144 (Zone 2.6), max HR 151 (very briefly), training effect 3.7 base. Sounds correct.

    Today (11/09/22), very similar run, easy 19km, average HR 143, max HR 157 (briefly, total ~4 mins in zone 3 out of 1:50:xx), training effect 4.2 VO2 Max.

    Both runs using firmware 23.00. I am beta-enrolled so last week may have been before the release of 23.00 final, but now my Fenix 6 shows 23.00 without the 'beta' symbol.

    And another data point: yesterday, super easy 6km, average HR 141, training effect 2.9 tempo (tempo with effect size < 3 shouldn't even be possible afaik, this is certainly the first time I've seen it).

    Checked in Garmin Connect that my HR zones haven't reset (% LT based, LT 169), and I copied my running HR zones to the default activity profile in case it was using those instead.

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to SteRamwell

    Read my post just above you. It explains the possible causes of wrong TE.

    This has nothing to do with the running zones.

  • 0 over 2 years ago

    I sorted it out for myself it wasn't correcting the zones the problem but was zones based on max hr. I switched to lactate threshold and everything is back to normal. I hope garmin will resolve the issue soon.

  • 0 over 2 years ago

    Hi guys, the bug is there, I was thinking I sorted out but it's there...

  • 0 over 2 years ago

    1. Yes

    2. Yes

    3. USA

    This is getting really annoying. Most of my easy runs are labeled as High Aerobic. One my runs last week was an easy 4 mile run at 8:30 pace and this was labeled as a Tempo run. For reference I am in about 79 minute half marathon shape at the moment.

    Yesterday I went on a very easy 3.4 mile recovery run averaging 9:10 pace and this was correctly labeled as low aerobic. However, this run should have been labeled as recovery, not base. 

    I have tried setting my heart rate zones based on Max, LTHR, and BPM. There is nothing that works. The load focus is skewed because most of my runs are labeled as high aerobic. We pay a lot of money to have these nice watches and a lot of training stats. If it wasn't for my Strava addiction I would consider just using a Timex instead.

    is there an estimate on when this is going to be fixed? 

    Thanks!

  • 0 over 2 years ago in reply to VelinDilov

    Some users reported no bug.

    Just curious. Is your max HR higher than the 220-age ?

    The others seeing bugs with TE can share whether your MHR is higher or lower than 220-age.