hi there! no, unfortunately it seems this is yet another poor algorithm for Garmin, I would definitely not rely on it. Last year I compared them and Garmin underestimates the higher rates and overestimates the lower ones, basically the model tends to predict what's in between, as it cannot really measure changes in breathing rate. Pity as it would be a valuable signal, when measured accurately.
inspired by your post I tried to look at my HR/Speed chart for some comparable assessment runs to see if and how my curve progressed over time, but my data definitely doesn't look as tidy as yours.
Were the charts provided by the lab or you created them yourself (they look like made with R)? In this case, may I ask you about your methodology?
ciao Alessandro, are you referring to the VO2max blog? A lot depends on how large are the changes in fitness over a certain period of time, and also where you run (if you run similar routes, preferably roads, this works better than when you change environment, run on trails or hills, etc.). In the period highlighted in that post (if I understand correctly what you are referring too, e.g. the data shown here at the end: https://marcoaltini.substack.com/p/everything-you-need-to-know-about) I was running in the same city, with the same climate (California), and typically the same routes. You can see plenty of variability, but when adding a smooth line, the trend is quite clear. Let me know if I have missed the question, we have also a tool to analyze these changes in Pro, where you can filter different parameters (elevation, altitude, heart rates, etc.): https://medium.com/@altini_marco/tracking-changes-in-aerobic-endurance-4d016da68087
I wanted to ask if the chart was something you recreated yourself (or provided by the lab as part of their evaluation). In this case, how did you choose the points, as when I do it on some assessment runs I get more speed points for the same HR.
ah sorry! I got confused as in the other one I talk specifically about the HR to speed ratio :)
this was an incremental test in the lab, hence I picked the speeds I ran as part of the test, and then selected my heart rate at the end of the 3 minutes step. For example, if my heart rate at the end of the first 3 minutes was X, then I use that number for the plot, and so on for all the 3 minutes steps. I did the same tests both years, hence I can compare them this way. If you do a training run increasing speed, and maintaining each speed for e.g. 2-4 minutes, then I would take the heart rate at the end of the step (so that it is a bit more stable) and then plot it in the same way.
Hi Marco !
Is breathing tracking in the lab test the same as your Garmin watch ?
Thank's
hi there! no, unfortunately it seems this is yet another poor algorithm for Garmin, I would definitely not rely on it. Last year I compared them and Garmin underestimates the higher rates and overestimates the lower ones, basically the model tends to predict what's in between, as it cannot really measure changes in breathing rate. Pity as it would be a valuable signal, when measured accurately.
Hi Marco,
inspired by your post I tried to look at my HR/Speed chart for some comparable assessment runs to see if and how my curve progressed over time, but my data definitely doesn't look as tidy as yours.
Were the charts provided by the lab or you created them yourself (they look like made with R)? In this case, may I ask you about your methodology?
ciao Alessandro, are you referring to the VO2max blog? A lot depends on how large are the changes in fitness over a certain period of time, and also where you run (if you run similar routes, preferably roads, this works better than when you change environment, run on trails or hills, etc.). In the period highlighted in that post (if I understand correctly what you are referring too, e.g. the data shown here at the end: https://marcoaltini.substack.com/p/everything-you-need-to-know-about) I was running in the same city, with the same climate (California), and typically the same routes. You can see plenty of variability, but when adding a smooth line, the trend is quite clear. Let me know if I have missed the question, we have also a tool to analyze these changes in Pro, where you can filter different parameters (elevation, altitude, heart rates, etc.): https://medium.com/@altini_marco/tracking-changes-in-aerobic-endurance-4d016da68087
ciao Marco, the VO2max blog post is still in my to-read backlog :)
I was referring to the Lab Testing post, specifically to the heart rate section https://marcoaltini.substack.com/i/111665529/heart-rate
I wanted to ask if the chart was something you recreated yourself (or provided by the lab as part of their evaluation). In this case, how did you choose the points, as when I do it on some assessment runs I get more speed points for the same HR.
ah sorry! I got confused as in the other one I talk specifically about the HR to speed ratio :)
this was an incremental test in the lab, hence I picked the speeds I ran as part of the test, and then selected my heart rate at the end of the 3 minutes step. For example, if my heart rate at the end of the first 3 minutes was X, then I use that number for the plot, and so on for all the 3 minutes steps. I did the same tests both years, hence I can compare them this way. If you do a training run increasing speed, and maintaining each speed for e.g. 2-4 minutes, then I would take the heart rate at the end of the step (so that it is a bit more stable) and then plot it in the same way.
great, thanks for the very clear explanation!