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

VDOT, Recovery Time and Race Predictor - are they working for you?

kingdave82
over 9 years ago
I love the features that the 230.235 brings over my old 220 - I like seeing my VDOT score, and recovery advisor after a run but I am wondering how accurate they are.

The recovery advisor always says between 48 and 72 hours for example. Nothing more, nothing less, but if I am training according to the plan on the watch provided by Garmin themselves, how can I follow that if I have to take 3 days off between runs?!

The race predictor too is way off. It says my half marathon best should be a full 10 minutes faster than my current PB, the marathon one is about 45 minutes faster, the 10k about 10 minutes faster and the 5k about 2 minutes faster. I haven't really got faster since training with this watch, and those predicted times haven't moved since the very first time I went out with the 235 on at Christmas.

Do you use any of these features? Do they work for you? Are they reasonably accurate compared to your current PBs?
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 9 years ago
    This link gives you several different ways to determine your max HR.
    http://www.howtobefit.com/determine-maximum-heart-rate.htm


    Cheers. Bookmarked for further reading. Do you know much about this and if so can you let me know what you think of the following?
    I've measured mine (with a strap) at the end of a 5k at 184 to 186 back in 2014. I usually use 186 as my HR max number. 2 different optical devices (Mio and 235) have given me HR maxes higher than this i.e the 235 gave me 193 at the end of a 6k race recently (cadence was 210 so it wasn't crossover) and 191 at the end of a 3 mile cross country. With the Mio I got Max HR at the end of two 5ks last year of 193 and 198 (I thought I was going to pass out at 198). Given my age my max HR should be 180 so I tend to use the lower numbers - I just trust the strap more. I'm definitely going to do one of those tests using a strap to see if I can get a good estimate, but in the meantime should I be using the higher figures?
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 9 years ago
    Cheers. Bookmarked for further reading. Do you know much about this and if so can you let me know what you think of the following?
    I've measured mine (with a strap) at the end of a 5k at 184 to 186 back in 2014. I usually use 186 as my HR max number. 2 different optical devices (Mio and 235) have given me HR maxes higher than this i.e the 235 gave me 193 at the end of a 6k race recently (cadence was 210 so it wasn't crossover) and 191 at the end of a 3 mile cross country. With the Mio I got Max HR at the end of two 5ks last year of 193 and 198 (I thought I was going to pass out at 198). Given my age my max HR should be 180 so I tend to use the lower numbers - I just trust the strap more. I'm definitely going to do one of those tests using a strap to see if I can get a good estimate, but in the meantime should I be using the higher figures?


    To be perfectly honest with you, I am not the person to ask. For years I have been using the 220-age formula. I read on other post about the importance of knowing your max HR and I found that link using a Google search. Hopefully someone with experience comes across this thread and can give you the proper info.
  • Former Member
    0 Former Member over 9 years ago
    To be perfectly honest with you, I am not the person to ask. For years I have been using the 220-age formula. I read on other post about the importance of knowing your max HR and I found that link using a Google search. Hopefully someone with experience comes across this thread and can give you the proper info.


    Yeah, I found the info I gave earlier in another forum. Don't know much about it either. The formula gives me 179 and optical HRM gives me about 194. Strap gives me 186 - that's about half way between the 2 so I settle on that. Not very scientific I know, but it seems to work.
  • 0 over 9 years ago
    Yeah, I found the info I gave earlier in another forum. Don't know much about it either. The formula gives me 179 and optical HRM gives me about 194. Strap gives me 186 - that's about half way between the 2 so I settle on that. Not very scientific I know, but it seems to work.


    Formulas are absolutely useless for determining your MaxHR. As I've seen another poster here put it, it's like using your shoe size to determine what size of pants to buy. According to the 220-age formula my max should be 168, but that is only a little more than my average HR for a half marathon and I'll actually be over that the end.

    Using the highest result you get at the end of a well run 5k where you really push at the end will give a good idea, but some people will actually add 5bpm to that. Pretty much anything that's based on a really hard effort (hands on knees, sucking wind to recover) that you've actually done is going to be leaps and bounds better than any formula.
  • 0 over 9 years ago
    It's certainly best to use a max HR on the watch that you have actually obtained recently.

    The "problem" with the optical HR devices (or even straps now and again) it that sometimes you get very high HR rates and it is not always apparent if you can "believe" them.

    If Sparks74, for instance, can post the GC link for one or two of those one where you got a very high HR then we can try and check.

    As a rule of thumb if you look at the HR trace then there should be a gradual rise to the max HR value and not any unexplained sudden jumps up or down in HR.

    Also if this max HR is significantly higher than a previous max effort then again I would be suspicious.
  • 0 over 9 years ago
    So the idea behind this thread (and a previous one about Max HR) had me curious. I went back over several of my runs where I pushed hard at some segment, e.g. had a big hill or tried going all out for a short distance. I'm 46, and both the Optical HRM and the strap I used before that showed a max heart rate of 198 (one time hitting 199) Seems quite a bit higher than what any of the formulas say (around 175). So I plugged 198 into Connect for my Max and suddenly my recovery times started looking a lot more reasonable. Before that it was telling me 72 hrs, yikes! Now I'm getting 24-30 hours to recover.
  • 0 over 9 years ago
    That quoted http://www.howtobefit.com/determine-maximum-heart-rate.htm is interesting but some statements don't stack up!

    . Max HR is a fixed number, unless you become unfit.
    . Max HR cannot be increased by training.
    . Max HR does not decline with age.
    . Max HR only declines with age in sedentary individuals

    Well on a sample size of 1 (me) my highest HR was 193 in my late 20s. Now bit over 20 years on I struggle to get into the 160s. I have been training consistently in all this time. It definitely has declined with age!
  • 0 over 9 years ago
    So the idea behind this thread (and a previous one about Max HR) had me curious. I went back over several of my runs where I pushed hard at some segment, e.g. had a big hill or tried going all out for a short distance. I'm 46, and both the Optical HRM and the strap I used before that showed a max heart rate of 198 (one time hitting 199) Seems quite a bit higher than what any of the formulas say (around 175). So I plugged 198 into Connect for my Max and suddenly my recovery times started looking a lot more reasonable. Before that it was telling me 72 hrs, yikes! Now I'm getting 24-30 hours to recover.


    Makes sense! Previously the watch thought were going flat out on probably most runs. I imagine your Training Effect numbers will start to come down not and now be high 4s or even 5.0 most of the time.
  • 0 over 9 years ago
    Right.... I've adjusted the max heart rate on mine to 195 and my intention is to run a hard 5k in the morning. We'll see if that makes any difference to the figures!