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

935 stats overwhelming?

Former Member over 7 years ago

Anyone find their 935 almost too overwhelming and off putting with all the plethora of stats it provides?

I'm just a regular dude trying to run 15-20 miles a week, I'm not racing and mix this in with gym and bike time, that's the extent of it, and I'm finding that I'm really losing the fun aspect of running because of this watch.

Few minutes into the run it always gives me close to 0 performance improvement, , at the end of the runs my performance stat is always negative, a few times I ran with a chest strap to do my LYH test and it started measuring my verticandafa which is absolutely horrible unless I literally walk.

I'm sure there are people that train for iron men with coaches that find all that useful, but to me it's a list of stuff that I don't want to see but it's very disappointing when all your stats are in red vs. purple.

I returned off the load widget because that was another demotivating thing to see, it doesn't seem to account for any other cardio workouts besides running, same thing with trail running, I switched to dedicated trail run function but prior to that using just regular run function killed my vo2 max performance to poor, which I know it's not.

Anyways, I find myself using another watch that records all this data but doesn't attempt to classify it with color graphs for every summary like Garmin chooses to and I'm honestly enjoying the pressure free experience. The 935 is a beast of a watch wife all the features it packs but honestly the Garmin experience of data summary is extremely disheartening.

Anyone else feel the same way?

0 ASmugDill over 7 years ago

Disclaimer: I haven't ‘upgraded’ to a FR935 yet, because at this point I have neither the need nor deep enough pockets. :o

I'm finding that I'm really losing the fun aspect of running because of this watch.

Nobody else can decide for you how much fun to have, or what is fun to you. Nobody else can decide how you should run or when to run. Nobody else can decide which metrics to look at, which ones to ignore, or how else you wish to respond emotionally and behaviourally.

It's entirely up to you.

… to me it's a list of stuff that I don't want to see but it's very disappointing when all your stats are in red vs. purple.

Personally, I just don't relate to those who want (or sometimes even demand) to be shielded from unwelcome objective data and/or facts; but then, I take more pride in being able to regulate my internal state in response to external events (or news or observations thereof), than for example getting my VO[sub]2[/sub]max estimate (by a mechanism of which the accuracy has been questioned by many, no less) up by another point. Even less meaningful would be interpretively where my VO[sub]2[/sub]max stands in relation to millions of other men I don't know.

I switched to dedicated trail run function but prior to that using just regular run function killed my vo2 max performance to poor, which I know it's not.

So do you trust what you know and use that as the basis of how you feel about yourself, or do you prefer to let a purportedly ‘alternative fact’ given by a machine dictate to you?

I find myself using another watch that records all this data but doesn't attempt to classify it with color graphs for every summary like Garmin chooses to and I'm honestly enjoying the pressure free experience.

From whom or where is the pressure coming from? Are you competing with someone, and if so, who is insisting that you compete? If you're under pressure to demonstrate improvement, who are you trying to appease?

Anyone else feel the same way?

Not me.

Yes there are a lot of data available on these devices. And I would suspect that there are very few people who understand most of what hit is saying, never mind how to use it to improve performance.

Then there's the question of whether I want to work on improving a particular aspect at this time. My FR630 and HRM4-Run consistently tell me my Ground Contact Time Balance is a bit off (dotting the chart with orange and red, too), and there is no doubt that perfectly balanced would be objectively better. However, that doesn't mean I'm compelled to improve it at this point, even if it's just a question of whether I want to run carefree instead of focus on working. OK, if I choose to work on improving balance (without guidance or help from a coach or buddy) and my endeavour doesn't yield positive results, it may over time be demotivating – in specific regard to that endeavour, but not running in general. On the other hand (or leg?), it could motivate me to look for a different, more effective way to correct my balance.

Do you have to use it? No. It's there. It's available for when, or if, you decide to work out how to use to your best advantage.

Absolutely. I'd rather have access to a thousand inconvenient truths that may or may not be an emotional burden to know, than given no choice and ‘forced’ to be blissfully ignorant. As for others' opinions – and I count whether a number is classified by some software application as red, orange, green or purple as nothing more than an opinion, from someone I neither know nor trust – they inform me at least as much, and often far more, about the entities expressing the opinions, as or than they are about me.

But even if if the average runner understood all the meaning of all the data (either at a theoretical or practical level), would it really help them?

Data is just data. Would visibility of the internal temperature of a steak on the grill help someone make and/or enjoy a better dinner? On the flip side, would knowing the temperature be a hindrance to the chef who chooses or prefers to cook as personal experience and skill dictate?

But I was never quite sure how knowing that piece of data would ever help me improve. I could always see the correlations between the data and how I felt or performed (after the fact), but I never knew what action to take as a result.

This is where I think consumer fitness wearable devices are misunderstood – they're not designed to provide knowledge or offer coaching to the user, any more than a thermometer and a sphygmomanometer provide health management advice or offer treatment. Responding meaningfully and wisely to data/information is something that requires study and nous which cannot be bought off the shelf, and Joe Consumer ought to know that is something they're not buying. (They can, of course, engage the services of others commercially to provide interpretation and analysis of the data, and coaching and response plans, etc.)

0 Olu.F. over 7 years ago

Wow, lots of assumptions about users and their level of activity, level of knowledge, economic status...etc. Forum users do not represent all Garmin users. I know world class athletes that use simple devices and those that use more the complicated devices. If I were to generalize, in my experience, younger athletes tend to use these devices less. This could be from financial reasons or because they are more resilient and recover better.

For the OP, I'd get a simpler device (like Vivoactive) and grow into the data (if you like).

Personally I train by data, because I love the numbers, and have improved dramatically since I started endurance sports 7 years ago. Obviously coaching and training plans were the cause of my improvements, but the devices are what allowed me to follow the plans properly.

My advice: If you're going to use the data, it's important to be consistent. If you're going to follow RHR or stress tests, you need to do things the same way every day. If you don't like the data, ignore it or turn it off. I'm pretty sure you can turn off the performance statistics and if you don't use the optical HR or chest strap you won't get VO2 or LTHR or LT Pace.

As for the new training metrics, I find them accurate so far. I've been using a more intense training plan this block, and just finished my peak week. The 935 is showing me that load is increasing (which is expected) and most recently that fitness has plateaued and moved into the non-productive zone. I don't feel worse, but with 3 easy weeks coming up, it would've been tempting to push a little harder (and probably over train). I've also noticed that my resting HR has increased by 5-6bpm over the last few days (both signs that over training is on the horizon)

0 WillNorthYork over 7 years ago

This is where I think consumer fitness wearable devices are misunderstood – they're not designed to provide knowledge or offer coaching to the user, any more than a thermometer and a sphygmomanometer provide health management advice or offer treatment. Responding meaningfully and wisely to data/information is something that requires study and nous which cannot be bought off the shelf, and Joe Consumer ought to know that is something they're not buying. (They can, of course, engage the services of others commercially to provide interpretation and analysis of the data, and coaching and response plans, etc.)

This is a little glib, because Garmin's high-end devices are certainly marketed as a "coach on your wrist". We can choose to believe that or not, just like we can choose whether to believe interpreted (not raw) data such as:
Recovery Advisor, VO2 Max Estimator, Race Predictor, Training Effect, Training Load, Lactate Threshold Test

The recovery advisor actually tells you to take it easy for a certain amount of time. That's more than raw data. It's Garmin's interpretation of data. It's advice given to runners on a course of action to take. It's almost like...coaching.

I think we all know that the VO2Max Estimator and Lactate Threshold Tests are nothing like the lab tests, but how useful are they? Data is just data. But what's the context? How accurate or precise is it? Can I rely on it to make decisions? If an expert looks at the VO2Max or Training Load from my Garmin, can they do anything more with it than I can?

Last year I improved very rapidly over a short period (2-6 months), after seeing no improvement for the previous 1 1/2 years. Without writing a novel, I'll just say it was all due to coaching, strength and nutrition. I only needed my watch for my HR and my pace.

Maybe if I could avoid injury and max out my strength and nutrition, the data would be useful to squeeze out that last 1% of performance. I'm nowhere near there yet. Other people may find the data useful to train by. I like looking at it, but I've never made any useful decisions based on it. (But that could just be me.)

0 Dr Phil over 7 years ago

From the 620 website.

A coach is a philosopher, a grizzled veteran, a guru, a tinkerer, an analyst, an authoritarian, and an advocate. Most importantly a coach knows how well you can perform. Now you can hold yourself to those same standards with the effective features on the Forerunner 620. The watch might just know your abilities better than you do.

It starts with a feature called the VO2 max estimator. After running for 10 minutes or more with the Forerunner 620, it calculates the maximum volume of oxygen your body can use.This metric is an important factor in your overall aerobic endurance, and should increase as you train.

And here's just one example of misinformation. VO2max cannot possibly keep increasing as you train. If you're looking for continually increasing VO2max as you train, then you are doomed to disappointment. A plateau will eventually be reached beyond which you will not see any improvements. Performance benefits then come from utilising mechanisms aimed at using a higher percentage of the VO2max for aerobic output. That requires a different metric and different techniques.

The numbers are just that, numbers. You need to be able to interpret them. Understand them. Utilise them. Despite what Garmin says, a watch can never be a coach on your wrist. It's simply a device spitting out data that needs someone who understands what they mean and how to use them. That can be a coach. It can be a you. But never a watch.

0 WillNorthYork over 7 years ago

The numbers are just that, numbers. You need to be able to interpret them. Understand them. Utilise them. Despite what Garmin says, a watch can never be a coach on your wrist. It's simply a device spitting out data that needs someone who understands what they mean and how to use them. That can be a coach. It can be a you. But never a watch.

Agreed. But what if the numbers themselves are wrong? Or off by an unknowable factor? (e.g. Precise but not accurate measurements.)

That's my frustration with some of the numbers that Garmin provides. Some of the data seems useless (GCT) and other data seems misleading (VO2Max/race predictor).

OTOH, Training Load seems to correlate with other sources of TRIMP calculations -- when I look at the historical data, my TRIMP was in the "optimal" zone when I was improving, and in the "overtrainng" zone when I was having problems.

For me personally, there are so many other things I have to fix with my running before I can even begin to benefit from the analytics, tho. Just IMO.

Edit: I always realized that a Garmin is not a coach, just like a Fitbit is not a personal trainer. But it's hard to criticize Joe Consumer for "misunderstanding" what fitness watches are all about when that misunderstanding is precisely the driving force behind a good chunk of sales (I'm guessing). If absolutely nobody believed (or wanted us to believe) that these running metrics have any kind of value for training/coaching, I'm guessing they wouldn't be in the watch in the first place. I just wish I had the ability to do something useful with the data, instead of always looking at correlations in hindsight.

0 ASmugDill over 7 years ago

It's simply a device spitting out data that needs someone who understands what they mean and how to use them. That can be a coach. It can be a you. But never a watch.

Exactly. Even machines that take care of certain decisions on behalf of the user, e.g. high-end digital SLR cameras, will not either make the user an expert – by sole virtue of choosing and then buying the product – or automatically deliver expert results for their users. My camera just about covers its electronic viewfinder with numbers and diagrams of this and that (when I let it), but that does not make me a better photographer or give me professional-grade photos of whatever I select as my subjects. My cappuccino machine can supposedly tell me if the temperature is just right or too hot, or if the steam pressure is in suitable range, on its gauges but it doesn't inherently make a better barista out of me.

There is no substitute for study and/or training, whether that is for becoming a better athlete, or for becoming a better user/interpreter of data.

Agreed. But what if the numbers themselves are wrong? Or off by an unknowable factor? (e.g. Precise but not accurate measurements.)

Firstly, why is (deviation factor from) the authoritative value of a metric not knowable? For most metrics, people can test the accuracy of particular appliances or instruments against ‘gold standard’ (e.g. medical grade) counterparts; whether they choose to, at quite possibly significant cost to themselves, is a different thing. Aspiring athletes and amateur joggers alike can get evaluations done for VO[sub]2[/sub]max, lactate threshold, etc. by professional labs if they so choose.

Of course there are metrics that are not knowable for a given (or random) activity, say energy expenditure for a 10km outdoor run. In that case, it's wise not to take the report from any device as gospel anyway, if the objective truth is understood to be unknowable. Even if you have six consumer activity trackers on you all operating at the same time, and three of them roughly agree on energy expenditure being [FONT=Book Antiqua]x[/FONT], two agree on it being [FONT=Book Antiqua]y[/FONT], and the last one says it's [FONT=Book Antiqua]z[/FONT], what do you make of it? For all you know, they could all be inaccurate; and even if all six agree, the number they give may still be incorrect. For some things, wanting or demanding to know does not make the objective truth knowable for love or money.

But it's hard to criticize Joe Consumer for "misunderstanding" what fitness watches are all about when that misunderstanding is precisely the driving force behind a good chunk of sales (I'm guessing). If absolutely nobody believed (or wanted us to believe) that these running metrics have any kind of value for training/coaching, I'm guessing they wouldn't be in the watch in the first place.

But the metrics are of some value for training and coaching, without actually being (or taking the place of) training or coaching.

My criticism is that many consumers just love to believe they're buying (and having “paid for”) more than what is actually there on offer, as opposed to being diligent about understanding clearly what they want, finding out as much as is possible about what is on offer, and then be ever vigilant and aware of the gap – i.e. what they aren't buying, aren't entitled to get for the amount of money they elected to spend, and possibly cannot have in the status quo even were they to study harder and choose more wisely.

People ought to focus more on where they themselves fall short, and where the offerings on the market fall short, of their ideals and learn to deal with those gaps intelligently.

It's funny that just 4 years ago I thought GPS watches were insane and now I own a 935 >_>.

Fifteen months ago, I thought compression athletic garments were insane and/or for tossers only. Now I have about twenty of them and love wearing them – not that I fancy they actually make me fitter, stronger or more capable – and I'm sure some people will think I look like a tosser for wearing them. So, what's wrong with my holding firm to my view that they wouldn't make better athletes out of the vast majority of consumers that buy them, and that Joe Consumer would be silly to convince himself such purchases are for anything other than look and feel of the garments, or perhaps projection of a (possibly untrue and fanciful) image to others?

0 kangsterizer over 7 years ago

I love the amount of data on the 935 and I wouldn't mind if there was more.
Here's the thing though: only some of the data is truly useful for training, but I just like having the rest, just out of curiosity sometimes, or just to have a record of how certain rides, runs, etc. went without any extra gear whatsoever. It makes me do more sport, even.

If all you want is the minimum needed to train "smarter", then yes, the 935 might be a little overkill given you can get all of this with cheaper models like the 235, and arguably, even much cheaper models + heart strap, or/and foot pod that will be more accurate and useful anyway.

0 FlipStone over 7 years ago

Use what you want, ignore what you don't want...

I love numbers, but objectively the 935 is pretty much complete overkill for me. I only run, non-competetively. I don't use half the features, or more. But that's a choice at least, not a lack of possibilities :)

Also, I think it's important to use the numbers as they are... as guidelines, an indication. They are not 100% true, then again... are coaches always 100% right? Opinions differ amongst them as well.

As long as the numbers are consistent they can indicate trends (such as RHR, they might not be 100% accurate but overall the trends are correct).

But it sounds more that the demotivation is not the features themselves, but the fact they don't correspond to what you think they should be.

0 Former Member over 7 years ago

I assume I join what most of us is saying, why do you buy the most advanced watch if you're a regular dude.
Buy a Ferrari to go to the next house?
That's no sense.
You want my advice, never enough stats and you should rather look at them to improve.. Or buy less advanced watch.

0 ASmugDill over 7 years ago

But it sounds more that the demotivation is not the features themselves, but the fact they don't correspond to what you think they should be.

That is a most astute observation. Would ir77 still feel demotivated if his VO[sub]2[/sub]max estimate was shown in green instead of red, even if the number (and its actual relationship with purportedly the distribution curve in the population) did not change? Would he feel demotivated if it was shown in purple (since he specifically mentioned the colour), but he ‘knew’ (or believed) his fitness is not actually anywhere near being superior to most of his peers in the stratum statistically?