Garmin

6 lurkers | 224 watchers

larkim Sep 2020 3:58pm, 21 Sep 2020 12,018 posts	larkim As for why it's 3.5 - that's the relationship between one MET (Metabolic Equivalent) and VO2Max (or something along those lines). https://www.phoenix.gov/fire/directory/health-center/health-and-fitness-newsletters/exercise-workouts/output#:~:text=The%20term%20MET%20(metabolic%20equivalent,of%20energy%20required%20to%20sleep.&text=VO2%20Max%20is%20the%20maximum,%2Fkg%2Fmin%20or%20METs. I'm sure that's not an authoratitive source but it'll do for the purposes of now.
larkim Sep 2020 3:59pm, 21 Sep 2020 12,019 posts	larkim scielo.br A different link as that one didn't seem to work. I wonder if some / one of the Garmin user settings implies a different MET conversion?
SPR Sep 2020 4:02pm, 21 Sep 2020 31,550 posts	SPR Re the link above, get rid of everything from the # onwards and it'll work (that's just a description of the link).
larkim Sep 2020 4:07pm, 21 Sep 2020 12,020 posts	larkim Aha, thanks, makes sense. For Stu and Flanker who supplied numbers for the VO2Max calc - would you mind finding out what the VO2Max (by file) values were for your preceding and antecedent runs? Just looking back at RA for my log, the entry where the calculation doesn't work seems to match precisely with the previous value recorded.
flanker Sep 2020 4:18pm, 21 Sep 2020 19,419 posts	flanker Are you wondering if there wasn't enough effort, for the want of another word, in the activity to generate a new value, so it returned the previous one? I can see the logic in that. FWIW I'd say there is a difference between reformatting a timestamp and mathematically altering a value from the fit file, as the latter is actually altering the data and could introduce variations. But I am being pedantic I'll check the previous value(s). ( btw SPR - it was the file value)
SPR Sep 2020 4:21pm, 21 Sep 2020 31,551 posts	SPR That whole site seems to be down now anyway Larkim. Flanker - Sorry, misread your post.
flanker Sep 2020 4:23pm, 21 Sep 2020 19,420 posts	flanker the (file) value hasn't changed for nearly a month(!), and none of the previous entries prior to the last change correspond to the calculated value.
larkim Sep 2020 4:23pm, 21 Sep 2020 12,021 posts	larkim Sort of. I know my watch is unusual in that as of today it definitely reports the value as it was at the start of the activity, rather than recalculated at the end. But even so, every time I ran the /1024*3.5 calc against the .fit file values it came out precisely as the figure showing on RA. However, for one from 2016 the calc didn't work, but I just casually noticed that the value that the calc would have been expected to outturn was precisely the same as the value that RA reported from the previous activity. I tried deleting and reimporting that .fit file from Garmin, and it still came out with the "wrong" number, so there's something in that file which tells it to tweak the value - I've just not discovered what it is!!
larkim Sep 2020 4:25pm, 21 Sep 2020 12,022 posts	larkim Interesting flanker. There's more to this then!!
SPR Sep 2020 4:27pm, 21 Sep 2020 31,552 posts	SPR That's interesting Larkim. Given it's calculating correctly straight away, it can't be related to the 70% threshold.