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

Training Effect seems wrong

Hi everyone, 

on May 25th I did a 20mile coastal gentle walk - Lots of stopping for the views, terrain a little lumpy but not hard. I do a lot of running I don't feel walking is very difficult for me.

It took me 7hrs and 5mins

Average HR 108 Max HR 170 - Watch was fitting well I think that seems reasonably accurate. We stopped quite often hence why I don't think I was even in zone1 some of the time:

44% of the walk in zone1 HR

3% in zone 2

0% in zone 3

0% in zone 4

0% in zone 5

- It's given me Anaerobic for training effect! 

Aerobic 2.0 / Anaerobic 2.5 / Load 80. 

My Mrs was walking with me with her Forerunner 265, and hers as expected classed as "Base". 

Any thoughts?

Running 19.18 Firmware (possibly was on the firmware 1 before that on May 25th not sure).

  • Based on first glance, the TE is wrong... 

    Curious, but I am basing on your zones as you dn't list your max HR or how you came up with that.  There is a lot of high/low HR stuff towards the end of walk... somewhat sustained then lower... then up again.  "Looks like intervals"...   yet your zone time has almost no time in zn3/4/5?  
    Are your zones standard/default or custom?  Max HR from actual values like short race finish or hard AF intervals?

  • Thanks for your reply Nick.

    My zones are based on %LTHR - with my LTHR defined as 166bpm, I test about once every 6 months. 

    My max hr is around 191bpm.

    Reason I've chosen to base on my LTHR I "feel" it represents me well when I run, roughly below 166 I can sustain, roughly above I'll start to tail off. If that makes sense. If I'm doing anything wrong please do chip in, I love the tech - doesn't mean I fully understand it lol

    38year old male. 

    PS so why has the watch given me Anaerobic? Weird!

    Cheers 

  • Oh and I use a Garmin chest strap when I run.

  • Reason I've chosen to base on my LTHR I "feel" it represents me well when I run, roughly below 166 I can sustain, roughly above I'll start to tail off. If that makes sense. If I'm doing anything wrong please do chip in, I love the tech

    Nothing wrong with using LTHR for zone definitions, or any other approach.

    Keep in mind that the watch is not using your zones to estimated the training load. Essentially the watch is using the dynamics of HR, HRV, on/off intervals and pace/power for runs/rides, in the context of your rest HR and Max HR to estimate the physiological cost of your training (see EPOC) along the aerobic and anerobic pathways. Using various thresholds and rules, the watch then categorize your workout with different labels.

    PS so why has the watch given me Anaerobic? Weird!

    From the pictures as pointed out, you can see wild variations of HR. This can happen when you don't wear a chest strap. For example, you might get the same issues when you do strength training with the wrist HR.

    The watch interpreted these variations as a succession of very high internsity short intervals. It over estimated your anaerobic training effect.

  • Thanks for your informed and interesting reply! 

    My only point to add is yes it looks like the heart rate is all over the place but really it isn’t, it’s over 20miles of walking and 7hours of activity so you’re not seeing it clearly there, that’s little undulations in the terrain of the coast path etc, but your point makes sense then if the watch isn’t looking at the fact I was in zone 1 / zone 2 almost all day lol. 

    Cheers! 

  • I really think their calcs must have changed... I noticed yesterdays 50min Strength session gave way different results then normally also.   In the past Lifting for 50min to 2hr... would give results or messages like this. (with 245 and 965).  Was already frustrating because you know doing hard AF sets of 8 with 1min recovery, with inputed weights in a programmed workout... Garmin should be able to put together some sort of 'load' at the very least based on the total volume and time etc!  Also should know that HR going from 80 and spiking at 140 (140 not being super high) then going back down to 70-80... should know its a Lifting, likely some good work (with a vo2 of 60+)!!  

    Training Effect  (Firmware ~17&18.##)

    Base --Primary Benefit
    0.8 No Benefit -  Aerobic
    0.5 No Benefit -  Anaerobic
    18  - Exercise Load 
    However, last night.... very similar workout and HR profile.  I know it's just one workout, so not going to say its a pattern/change... but maybe.

    Training Effect (Firmware 19.18)

    Anaerobic Capacity -- Primary Benefit
    1.4 Some Benefit   - Aerobic
    1.5 Some Benefit   - Anaerobic
    40  - Exercise Load 
  • That is interesting.

    Also you have a vo2 score of 60+?!?!?! My days.... That is incredible. I'm at 49 and consider myself fit and healthy (though not fast, 1hr 45 half marathon time).

  • LOL , started running 5k/10ks in 2013 at 30yrs old... after getting hooked into Halfs in '2014/15 (1:47 time)... 2015 first marathon (403)... then things escalated and also took up long distance cycling... Boston Marathon... now it has been many years of training 8-15hrs per week pretty consistently.  Zwift hard bike in the winter.   

    Never been that fast... but with consistent work and hours.  Pays off aerobically!  Nailed 2:57 Marathon last weekend!!! Super happy! (2min PR)!!!  Nuts to think my Marathon pace now is FASTER then my 5k pace back in 2015!!!

  • What a fantastic achievement. You must have your diet totally nailed too, I guess it's my crux, I just kinda eat anything - Probs why I am staying around the same although I'm pretty damn consistent with my training. What a great success story you are lol