Anaerobic workouts shown as tempo in exercise load

bigdwazda said:

I think the cool downs throw the algorithm off.  Likely because it’s anticipating a lower heart rate for those.  Instead it’s getting more of a high aerobic hr for a lot of it.  

The thing is the algorithm is not fed the interval changes. Instead the watch monitors continuously HR, HRV, Pace and movement. The addition of pace and movement to the EPOC calculation helps determine when the work interval is done and the user is at rest or recovering. Then the EPOC calculation switches to decay as a function of time. If the rest interval is sending murky data to the watch (for example, progressive slow down, slower but higher than easy/recovery pave) the watch will continue evaluating EPOC as if it was a work time period. Because pace will be low but ventilation will be high (high HR and/or low HRV), that period will be aerobic and may add to the peak EPOC aerobic contribution.

If you walk briefly than jog, you accelerate the HR slowdown to low Zone 2 and mark the rest interval strongly. You can then job if you keep the HR low. Also, walking is a much better, complete recovery than running slowly and most of the benefits are achieved within 30s or so anyway.

I guess this is why for this type of activity there are numerous factors that can affect the outcome.  

I’m pretty sure I kept my recovery at a higher hr than ideal. If I remember rightly I got fixated on doing 0.25 miles for each of them.  

I will go rogue on Thursday and see what happens. 

Etupes25

Good news,  after a brief illness earlier in the week, I finally got out to try and anaerobic my workout.  

It worked a treat, I slowed down my rest between sets and ran my intervals the fastest I could.  It’s a little odd that Garmin suggests 6.25m pace.  Today I was closer to 5.20 pace (perhaps I will repeat the workout aim for 6.25 pace and a see what happens).  Recovery was 2.30 mins and I did a mixture of slow jogging and walking.  The latter 4 intervals I walked after the effort.  It nearly killed me this morning.  All out

Anyway, it all looks good and is categorised correctly.

Nice one! The stamina graph looks great!

It is a tasty graph that one.  

Thanks for all your wisdom, as you stated its the anaerobic TE field that’s most important.  It was fun though to try and get the correct label.  
I also ran intervals way faster than I have ever done before.   So the experiment worked from a motivation perspective as well.  

keeps well and thanks again. 

That’s the longest recovery time for a while as well. It was 94 hours 

I got also same problem yesterday. I now use pace targets on FR965 where as before i was using HR targets on F6. With HR targets i had to walk to keep HR in correct level where with pace i can jog... So basically in general it is better to use HR targets and not pace what do you think ? 

Piotr said:

So basically in general it is better to use HR targets and not pace what do you think ? 

In general, interval based workouts are supposed to be at steady effort. Typically that means steady pace on flat grounds for running, or steady power for running or cycling for moderately hilly courses.

When you use a steady effort, the HR will get to the desired zone within a few mn, more slowly during the first intervals, and faster during the last ones.

For longer or late intervals, the HR might drift or overshoot the corresponding heart rate zone. This is OK, still better to keep the effort steady.

Similarly, it is important to respect the rest periods as we often ten to overshoot the target pace or HR during these periods. It is better to walk or jog super slowly to let HR drop fast in the low Zone 2 or Zone 1.

However, sometimes the watch suggested paces or predictions are off. This is a sign that the models are not fed the best data. In these situations, the best solution is to track manually your best maximal steady paces for “template”intervals and use around 85% of the maximal value instead of the suggested pace.

Thanks a lot for your precisions . That helps a lots.