Garmin Heart Rate levels on Garminconnect.com
4 watchers
Jan 2012
4:56pm, 8 Jan 2012
101 posts
|
buzby123
Ok so this may sound really thick but would like to clear it up. My levels of training always seem to come up as .3 on the Garmin connect site - does this mean level 3 (improving fitness) as opposed to 0.3 (your workout did rock all for your fitness today)!!! I am a little confused because a Parkrun with all out effort comes up with a .3 level just as a gently jog/walk around the park with my 7 year old boy did today. The latter of which I could easily classify as a not improving your fitness type of run.
|
Jan 2012
7:09pm, 8 Jan 2012
5,155 posts
|
The_Saint
Are you talking about Training Effect ? I think .3 would mean 0.3, I'm still at a very early stage of things with my 610 but things have become a lot clearer since I downloaded the trial version of Firstbeat Athlete firstbeat.fi Firstbeat are the inventors of Training Effect and you do get a drastically different value with their software than with Connect, for example this run today connect.garmin.com is scored a mere 2.2 by Connect but the Firsbeat software scores it as a 5.0 or overtraining. I would have to agree with that given I raced twice yesterday and my average HR of 216 agrees. |
|
Jan 2012
7:51pm, 8 Jan 2012
103 posts
|
buzby123
Wow, well I am shocked then. How can an average heart rate of 83% and maximum of 91% not be classed as improving fitness? and merely standing still in fitness terms. Will take a look at the site you mention though. I wonder what you have to do to be in category 5!! With a resting heart rate of 50 I shan't get too worried but I was starting to find the heart rate monitoring a useful tool - thats clearly been blown out of the water now.
|
|
Jan 2012
7:53pm, 8 Jan 2012
104 posts
|
buzby123
Thanks for your Garmin link, I have just had a quick look, so clearly a run of average HR of 114% is required to merely maintain your fitness level - I beg to differ on that one. I think their stats are flawed.
|
|
Jan 2012
8:11pm, 8 Jan 2012
5,156 posts
|
The_Saint
My HR is regularly in the 240s, I don't put the real value into things as it tends to make them blow up. Once upon a time some people took some highly unrepresentative HR data, drew some lines through it basically to pass the time on a plane flight then worked out a forumla from this that they never expected to be taken as more than an interesting idea. Sadly this work was taken as absolute gospel and no amount of saying all this will convince anyone otherwise.
|
Jan 2012
8:13pm, 8 Jan 2012
44 posts
|
twelveone
I used to use a Suunto watch with Training Effect that consistently told me I was overtraining with most runs over 4.5TE. I've not been injured for around 3 years, and am pretty certain I don't overtrain, if anything I'd argue I don't push myself enough. Having used hr training for a couple of years now, I never really got the benefit from it. Maybe I was doing something wrong, but it just never clicked with me. I've resorted to just tracking my time and distance only, and training based on how I feel, rather than what my watch or computer is telling me.
|
|
Jan 2012
9:38pm, 8 Jan 2012
5,157 posts
|
The_Saint
I actually do think that I generally train too hard (when in good form), I need to because if I follow the popular idea of running slowly, I get slower and slower. I'm someone who tends to be very distrustful of subjective impressions but equally you need to query the assumptions behind objective measurements. Looking at this information on Training Effect firstbeat.fi and this one en.wikipedia.org I think its a lot more complicated than heart rate or perception of effort. |
|
Jan 2012
8:26am, 9 Jan 2012
49 posts
|
rosab123
Ah, someone else with the same question  I get the same 0.3 whether it's a gentle walk with the dog , which barely raises my HR or working as hard as I can up a hill and hitting the theoretical max for my age (I can't work out how to imput a higher max) I've also noticed that the cals it gives me seem high for walking and low for a run compared to my old HRM or calculated values. So, The Saint - are you saying that you think the Garmin calculation is wrong based on the Firstbeat data? |
|
Jan 2012
6:06pm, 9 Jan 2012
5,158 posts
|
The_Saint
My impression based on what people are saying on the subject on the Garmin forums (information seems to be hard-earned on this subject) is that the Garmin doesn't have the processing power of the PC in terms of working out the value of TE from the data. I'm curious as to which Garmins people in this thread have and at what firmware version and what Ant Agent version. I have a Garmin Forerunner 610 with the premium soft HR strap, the device firmware is 2.7 and the Ant Agent is 2.3.2 For my run lunchtime, Connect and Firstbeat agreed that the T.E. was 3.0 which I would go along with. |
|
Jan 2012
9:05pm, 9 Jan 2012
105 posts
|
buzby123
Well I have a Garmin Forerunner 210. Just done a new starters group at our club with my sister and niece, gentle 3 miles, took 38 mins, average heart rate 134 and it came up as 0.3, same as an all out 26 minute parkrun on Saturday. Strange stats. Just when I was starting to think the hrm was worth having. Not sure about firmware etc - where do I get that info?
|
Related Threads
-
Garmin heart rate zones
Jan 2018
-
Garmin with optical heart rate - issues with non-running activities
May 2017
-
Garmin heart rate zones
Aug 2013
-
Garmin Heart Rate Monitor (with 310XT) please help....
Aug 2012
-
Garmin, heart rate strap and battery life
Apr 2012
-
Garmin305 Heart ratemonitor- batteries changed still no life ?
Jan 2012
-
Garmin vivoactive HR GPS
May 2018
-
Garmin soft strap monitor
Jan 2012
-
Heart Rate Monitors & GPS Smart Phones
Jan 2012
-
Polarized training
Jan 2024
