Garmin

4 lurkers | 224 watchers

larkim Sep 2020 11:34am, 30 Sep 2020 12,141 posts	larkim I suppose I was just expecting to see more consistent distances. So the measured reps are 608, 608, 611, 0 (blip!), then 152, 147, 156, 166. Is that really much more accurate than it would have been just stopping and starting the watch? What I think I would have liked to see was the watch be instructed what length of rep was being run, and then "snap" the distance / GPS trace to that with a degree of precision (perhaps to nearest 25m or 50m to allow for someone actually running longer or shorter than the planned session). Though that of course might be quite convoluted to set up on the watch.
SPR Sep 2020 11:41am, 30 Sep 2020 31,778 posts	SPR That is me stopping and starting the watch. Only the first 400 had autolap on by accident, then I turned it off. You could use workout or autolap if you wanted (as you can with other modes), but I decided I'd rather have control of when I started/ stopped. Obviously autolap or session would have failed on the fourth rep and may have come up 'short' on all but the last rep. I wouldn't like the actual mode to do what you're saying as it would mean having to constantly program and workouts can already do what you want if people want that.
SPR Sep 2020 11:41am, 30 Sep 2020 31,779 posts	SPR *and may have come up 'short' on all but one rep.
larkim Sep 2020 11:50am, 30 Sep 2020 12,142 posts	larkim I definitely get the "faff" point. I'm presuming that the first 2 x 608m recordings were actually 600m (i.e. you started / stopped the watch as near as dammit at the right points on the track), so they're nearly 1.5% wrong in terms of the data? Is that really an improvement on just starting and stopping the watch normally and retrospectively looking at the rep to see a 1m38 600m (even if Garmin shows it as 0.38 miles for example)? Doesn't the data only have a purpose if it better matches the actual track distance run? Even if it didn't snap on a pre-programmed way, recording distances of 611, 608, 147m when it ought to "know" that the distances should be rounded to the nearest 10, 20, 25, 50m etc feels like they're missing the point a bit? Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree in terms of how others would use it. Thinking about it from a race perspective, if I was in a 1500m race I'd be quite disappointed if the end result was reported as anything other than 1500m (even accepting that running wide on the bends etc will cause a runner to run further).
SPR Sep 2020 12:08pm, 30 Sep 2020 31,780 posts	SPR The 600s are pretty much bang on yes. The 150s harder to get right but still pretty close and wasn't 16m out at any point. I definitely think there's something to recognising that 608 should really be 600 and same with races (even if you truly ran a few metres more). In DC's review he says Coros do this and Garmin agree it makes sense so they move that way eventually It needs to be fairly accurate to get that right though (which may be the reason for initially not doing it). At 200 and below, running 10m increments might be fairly normal. Above that is fairly safe I think but errors need to be 10 or less per lap I think.
SPR Sep 2020 7:50pm, 30 Sep 2020 31,789 posts	SPR More Garmin VO2 Max shenanigans. 5.5 miles only 2:44 over 70% and still got a re-calc. Whether it's something to do with a check when recovery needs are high, not sure (69 hours after yesterday's session, 44 currently). Another interesting thing though is it actually went up slightly from yesterday (0.11, yesterday knocked 0.57 off the day before) but measured my performance condition as -4 which seems to suggest it tries to account for fatigue.
SPR Oct 2020 9:55am, 5 Oct 2020 31,846 posts	SPR I ended up late to the track today so didn't get to calibrate track mode before the race. Maps look wonky for first 800 but the distance came out at 1498 without calibration! Presuming the fact the watch was told I was in lane 1 helps here. Looking at the map, only one bit on the bend into the home straight looks to have got a little out of lane after the first 800 which is impressive.
SPR Oct 2020 10:03am, 5 Oct 2020 31,847 posts	SPR You can hopefully see it's pretty much all lane one one when it's calibrated mid race apart from the small bit on the bend. I had to move out at that point on the first lap. Don't remember moving out on the second lap so that's probably GPS playing up.
SPR Oct 2020 9:40am, 8 Oct 2020 31,898 posts	SPR First negative message in regards to recovery from the 245 beta. Just been told that poor sleep has affected my recovery. Wasn't poor from a time perspective but definitely looks to be poor from a body battery perspective. Ran later than normal yesterday so possible that had an effect, or it could be that I just had the watch loose at night.
larkim Oct 2020 9:51am, 8 Oct 2020 12,247 posts	larkim Do you trust the various recovery metrics etc? I don't have them on my watch but if I did I'd have been minded to treat them like the calorie reports and just ignore them. They seem to correlate well with your experience though?