Yup, I have a Garmin Fenix 8 AMOLED. It's an excellent watch. I run for 6-8 hours a week and I only need to charge it once a week. It is very hard wearing and has so many capabilities I don't know where to start. It even has a flashlight with red LED for during the night. With Garmin connect down I can just grab the FIT file from the watch and upload to Strava manually or perform my own analysis locally.
Sure. It's a binary file and there is a spec for it on the garmin website. There's lots of libraries available for most popular languages for decoding and encoding. You can download an app for your computer. I believe it's called Garmin Express, which allows you to sync fit files to your machine.
I'm building a running analytics app, which is really just for myself but if it turns out to be any good then I'll might turn it into a SaaS. Target market would be for fairly decent amateur runners (e.g. 2:20-2:30 marathon) but not good enough to be pro. The pros have awesome tools but sadly most are not available for us mere mortals but I can build some of them! Example features:
1. The strava GAP model doesn't fit very well for me. So I've made my own. I update the model each month too.
2. I've also built a wind resistance model which works quite well. I'm trying to do the same for surface types, heat and humidity as well.
3.Using adjused pace data I built a pace/duration model to estimate critical speed and this model forms the basis of tracking progress over time. Clearly most training wont be all out efforts, so I also estimate race performances based upon current fitness as well. E.g. if you ran X speed for Y time at a sub maximal effort then you can estimate what a maximal effort would be based upon the remaining aerobic and anaerobic power. From reading sports science literure, this is the most advanced way to track performance at the moment. The actual model I use is called an omniduration model [1].
4. I also have build some other models, e.g. Daniels running formula, which can be used but I don't find them to be as useful as the omniduration model.
5. I'm also trying to model how a workout will effect your fitness. Where it's base/aerobic, threshold, VO2max or an anaerobic effect. Then, the idea would be to look at future training performance to assess whether the model was correct. This was you might be able to determine which types of sessions result in the best outcomes for you.
To add to what others have posted... Activity (i.e. running, walking, cycling, etc.) FIT files are found in the GARMIN/Activity directory on the watch after connecting it to a computer over USB. File names are date time stamps.
That makes sense. If you do longer runs (and long fast runs) then your half/marathon time will be more accurate. In general, the issue with using VO2max to priduct race performance is that it doesn't take into account account running economy which is a massive factor in determining performance for longer distances. Same with lactate threshold, which has a big impact on all distances. E.g. at what point do you go from a metabolic steady state to an unsustainable state. It's the most important factor in distance running in my opinion. The threshold can be at quite a slow pace even for someone with a high VO2max if they are not doing the right training. E.g. think of someone who is excellent at HIIT and has a VO2max of 60+ but can't run a fast 10km.
Pretty sure garmin do take other factors into account for their race predictions as they’ll update when your lactate threshold does, even if your vo2max remains the same.
I think you are right regarding lactate threshold but im not sure how they factor in running economy as it's difficult to calculate. You need an accurate VO2 measurement. I guess they use HR as a proxy but in practise I find HR isn't such a good measure of metabolic output for various reasons; hills, unrelated stressors, heat, aerobic decoupling, etc.
Well.. a crude estimate of relative running economy is pace/heart rate and tracking it over time. Seeing the number go upwards means your economy is increasing and vice versa.
A fair amount of people track this because it's a feature of pretty much every training/coaching app.
In my experience the only way to get an accurate VO2max is to do a lab test. I'm 40. My Garmin Fenix 8 suggests my VO2max is 69 at the moment but it's actually 64 as I recently did a lab test. Other things to consider: 1) VO2max changes day to day depending how recovered you are. 2) Environmental conditions will also change the value e.g. too hot/cold. 3) You need to be running on completely flat ground to get a decent result as although some of the estimation algorithms take elevation and surface into account, I'm sceptical as to their efficacy.
Ultimately, VO2max, whilst a good health indicator, it's not the be all and end all for running performance. VO2max doesn't take into account lactate threshold and running economy. Two athletes can have the same VO2max but quite different race results for common distances. One might have a very large aerobic capacity but very poor running economy, so metabolically, they require more effort to run at the same pace as someone with a lower VO2max. Also, as you get aerobically fitter, for running long distances, it has been observed that VO2max falls. Need to dig out the reference for this. Like anything, there's lots of nuance.
Some people mentioned race time predictions from VO2max. If you are into running you are better off using recent interval performances to predict race times and measure your fitness. You can use the hyperbolic critical speed model (Similar to FTP). It's only accurate for durations from a minute or so to 20 minutes. Other models can be used to fill in the gaps. This paper explains it [1]
I'm a big advocate of not getting too caught up in physiology when it comes to running. What really matters is "how fast can you run for race distances" and you can improve that by doing more running at or near race speed. E.g. for 5k, do intervals at 105% 5k race pace and longer runs at 95% 5k race pace. This is the essence of Renato Canova's percentage based training [2] which has been very effective for Kenyan Elite's and also myself!
I'm currently building out a training platform which uses the omni domain speed model (see below) as the basis for prescribing training paces and workouts. I'm currently using the system for myself to great effect. Managed to get my 5km race time from around 20 minutes to 15 minutes in under 2 years (and im 40).
[1] "Development and field validation of an omni-
domain power-duration model, Michael J. Puchowicz, Jonathan Baker & David C. Clarke"
Apologies, my wife is not keen on me sharing Strava profile on the web as people can basically see where we live (UK countryside and we are the only house in the area!).
Low 15:00s. I doubt I'll be able to break 15 though as I'm just getting too old now. I used to train seriously when I was a teenager so maybe those adaptations stick with you as you get older.
It's a good question. I find that the most important thing is running at or close to race pace. I follow Canova's training philosophy quite closely. Definitely recommend reading the runningwritings link I posted above.
I do between 80km to 100km a week.
Most of my running is done at a moderate pace. I just do this to get mileage in. Most of it is quite hilly. Looking at about 300-400m elevation for each 10km and runs range from 10km to 20km. Pace is around 4:00/km to 4:20/km.
If I do a workout, I follow it with a recovery run. Pace around 4:40/km. If a super hard workout then I do two days of recovery runs.
I never run doubles because I have young kids and don't have the time.
The most important ingredients are the workouts. I never repeat the same workout. A typical one for 5km training would be: a few km warm up, then 3km @ 97% 5km pace, 2 min moderate, 2km @ 5km pace, 2min moderate, 1km @ 103% 5km pace, then a recovery pace warm down. About 15km in total. That's a hard workout and would be followed with easy running the next day. I would do that workout to improve lactate buffering and improve anearobic capacity.
For lactate threshold I'd do something like 20x400m at LT pace with walking rest for 3 minmutes inbetween. This is where I might use the hyperbolic model to figure out when all the metabolic byproducts are flushed out so you can basically do the next 400m mostly recovered.
Other workouts might be aerobic thresohld runs. So marathon pace running for 15km to 30km. These are the long fast runs that canova talks about. They are hard and you need a lot of recovery after. I really find they improve performance quite alot. They are not presecribed in most training plans and I feel they are a key missing ingredient.
I do a fair bit of hill reps and sprints as well. They are probably best for improving VO2max. Lots of rest inbetween reps, you need to be fully recoved for the next one to get the benefit.
Lastly, you need to keeo touching on all the various metabolic systems. If you don't use it, you lose it. Keep your training varied. Sprints, short interbvals, long intervals, long fast runs, hill reps, ladders, alternates, with varying levels of recovery and at different speeds. Make sure your training is additive. Don't remove any class of session, just add more different types.
Do strength/core workouts. Plyometrics. You need to be strong to bash out miles at MP and not get injured.
I use theragun after any hard workout. Helps recovery loads.
Eat. Alot. On hard workout/long run days I do about 5000kcal.
Most importantly, I think, don't listen to any of the 80/20 polarised nonsense, MAF method, or anything like that. One size fits all training regimes don't work very well because everyone is different. They work for beginners because _any_ running will have them improve.
For more experienced athletes, to run fast you need to practise running fast at the paces you will race at. So doing a training plan which prescribes 80% of easy running as a rule is no good. You only run easy if you need to recover. Every other workout/session needs to target some metabolic system to promote adaptinos which help you run faster. It's the workouts which really make a difference to your race performance.
Simply because I find it gets me much better results. I know that to run a 15 minute 5km I need to be able to run that pace in training. I don't really care what my lactate threshold or VO2max is other than it's just interesting to know. I use a critical speed (pace/duration) model to know what paces are metabolically steady state and which are not. So based upon how I perform in training, I know pretty much what paces should be within the realms of possibility for a maximal effort and I use that to guide my training.
edit: I'll just add that I do use physiology to guide the training paces. But when you've been training for a while you know that 1) Marathon pace is aerobic threshold pace. 2) Half maraton is lactate threshold pace. 3) 5km is critical speed. 4) 10km is between critical speed and lactate threshold. So whilst I do use physiology to guide trianing paces I don't use a zone system or anything like that. I just design workouts which I know touch on the various systems I need to improve.
Good question. Haven't done a cooper test but from my pace duration curve I'd be looking at a touch over 4km for 12 minutes. The calculator I used online said my VO2max would be 78, which can't be right. I'm one of those athletes with good running economy and a high lactate threshold but comparitvely lower VO2max. I've always been worse than sprinting and at shorter distances than my peers but I find longer distances easier.
I'm sorry I can't find the paper which discusses VO2max and how it could potentially fall with lots of low aerobic training e.g. aerobic threshold running. The idea of the paper was to show that training to improve physiological markers like VO2max didn't necessarily translate to better race performance and infact sometimes training to improve the marker actually decreased it... One of the things they noticed was that certain marathon runners actually had a fall in VO2max but ended up with faster race times, illustrating that race performance is determined by factors other than VO2max.
Annoying, if I find it, I'll reply to your comment with the link. It's just one paper though, probably something in it but it's definitely not the consensus view of exercise physiologists.
Depends what you want to do. Run a fast 5k? Improve aerobic system? Something else? Short fast bursts of running will improve your anearobic capacity. Slightly longer intervals run a bit slower may target your lactate threshold and lactate clearance rates. Slower running for longer distances will target your aerobic system.
As people, and the featured article, notes, short intense intervals may burn the most calories but I would argue for more well rounded fitness you need to do a bit of everything.
Due to HIIT, there's loads of people around the world now who have great anearobic metabolism but non-existant aerobic metabolism. The effects are increased autonomic stress from all the anearobic work and an inability to exercise for long durations without quite a lot of stress on your body.
That... doesn't sound like HIIT. HIIT shouldn't average out to anaerobic heart rate ranges, otherwise you really lose the benefit of keeping your heart engaged in aerobic ranges during the rests. And to be honest, HIIT used for recreation shouldn't even peak in the elevated ranges above 167 bpm, if you're talking about doing it safely over years for health. Higher than that might be effective in training to increase aerobic capacity or lower your overall heart rate, but may damage your heart over time.
The effect of taking those controls on HIIT should result in reducing the autonomic stress response of /all/ exercise on heart rate, not increasing it. The demonstrated effect of HIIT is being able to efficiently scale aerobic capacity without increasing the time required and prolonged physical stress on the body. That's why Olympic athletes have been using interval training for a century, and from the 90s to this day, have used HIIT techniques like Tabata to increase their overall ability to exercise for a long duration, without having to actually commit to exercising for repeated long durations.
I'm not sure where you got that piece of information about loads of people with great anaerobic "metabolism" vs aerobic "metabolism". It would truly be very difficult, but not impossible to consistently raise your anaerobic capacity, (which I'm guessing is the implied relation to processing lactic acid efficiently as a fuel source for exercise?) but not raise your aerobic capacity also. Most of the ways I have seen that involve some kind of ketosis, or something that would otherwise deprive the body of the baseline glucose to drive aerobic capacity up in tandem with anaerobic capacity (because there's just not available excess glucose to store as glycogen in muscles beyond basal mechanical muscle operation and may lead to atrophy from burning muscle as a fuel source a.k.a. awful orange piss). And generally you would have a hard time building up extra muscle in that state as well, so it would be generally not advisable/possibly extremely dangerous to do so without proper diet and nutrition.
disclaimer - I am not an exercise physiologist or certified in any way. I'm an idiot on the internet, so please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong or don't have it quite right
My point is that if the capability of your aerobic system is very poor - and it is for the vast majority of people, including many HIIT advocates - then whatever exercise you do, you'll very quickly be approaching anearobic territory and find it very difficult to stay at a metabolic steady state for long durations of exercise. When I mean anaerobic, I don't mean "zone 5". I just mean that there will be a much higher percentage of anaerobic glycolysis happening than perhaps should be for a particular level of exertion.
For these people, their aerobic system is so bad that they need to walk to stay in "zone 2". It stands to reason that if they are doing a HIIT session then they are very quickly in the territory of zones 3 and 4, so we are looking at lactate threshold or critical power levels of exertion. So you are looking at more than 60-70% of power coming from anaerobic metabolism. That puts a lot of stress on the body.
For these people to develop their aerobic systems, they need to do a lot of slow jogging or fast walking. Eventually if they do that enough then they'll be much healthier, find HIIT sessions easier and recover much faster. People that spend too much time doing intense exercise will eventually end up with some degree of autonominc dysfunction. I've seen it plenty of times with HIIT people that want to start doing running. They train multiple times a week. Look stressed and knackered. Think they are aerobically fit but can't run a 5km in less than 20 minutes and can't run a 10km at all.
I do HIIT all the time, e.g. 20x400m on the track with 3min walking recovery. But as you noted, one doesn't do these sessions to increase ability to exercise for a long duration, you do long runs e.g. 25km at aerobic threshold for that. I don't do these sessions to primarily target adaptions to my aerobic system either. Instead, I do HIIT sessions like 20x400m with varying levels of recovery to target different apations. E.g. with long recovery I can target anearobic capacity. With shorter recoveries and a lower amount of reps, I can improve lactate buffering and usage.
Finally, it's reasonably well known in athletics circles that if you improve your lcatate threshold, i.e. increase the intensity that you are able to stay sustainably aerobic, then you end up decreasing your anaerobic capcity. The reason why is that the lactate threshold training reduces your ability to produce lactate.
Source: I've been running a long time and have coached runners of various levels.
Think they are aerobically fit but can't run a 5km in less than 20 minutes and can't run a 10km at all.
Is this a typo / did you mean 30 minutes? 5k in 20 minutes is already maybe top 2% of people who compete in races. And running a 10k is far, far easier than running a 5k sub 20.
So the data nerd in me is struggling with your framing a bit. HIIT for people with "aerobically poor systems" may resemble slow jogging or fast walking based on HR alone. Also outside of analyzing blood serum or glucose monitors, there isn't much of a reliable way to secondarily analyze the lactate threshold (actually). There are metabolite analysis that can be done, or things like creatine supplementation to facilitate the "smooth" transfer between aerobic and anaerobic processes, but on a fundamental level, my understanding as a lay person, is aerobic exercise produces lactic acid as a byproduct, and anaerobic exercise uses lactic acid as a fuel source. That is the reason anaerobic capacity decreases, as your lactate threshold increases. The real reason you are subject to a much greater degree of boom-bust is "lactate threshold training" is about increasing the physiological load the body is capable of sustained aerobic capacity for exercise (which is what you're saying), primarily by training your body to increase the amount of available glycogen. That's really only useful in the context of running and a few other endurance sports, and is hardly a metric of overall health.
Also IIRC the story of Marathon was relevant because the runner died to deliver the message. That sort of implies, despite the feat, that not everyone should be able to do that, nor should they.
HIIT conceptually depends on what your body does in a given state, not a unit of exercise. I would wager large sums of money the people that are overeager to engage with higher and higher intensities are not actually looking or reading the metrics of their own bodies, and adapting the behavior accordingly. It's not really about want or "determination" lol, it's about what you do to get your heart rate in a given place, and the fluctuations that produce an effect, given the systems in your body.
You kinda strawman these "HIIT people", as if they're actually doing HIIT, or as if they represent everyone. Autonomic dysfunction, based on overtraining syndrome or overexertion is not the same thing as observing a HIIT protocol based on your own biometrics. It's honestly hilarious, because HIIT and interval training at large is specifically designed to avoid OTS, especially where it relates to the serious damage that can occur to the vascular system, musculature, and ligaments, once scaling up the duration with a similar level of intensity occurs. Running a 5km in less than 20 minutes is a perfect example of a not very good metric actually. There are plenty of people that could put themselves at risk of damaging themselves to do such a jaunt. It is a very light entry point, but arguably is a good metric for elaborating on why training is important to be able to accomplish physical feats safely, but there's kind of a packaged Ableism in your argument that I kind of find distasteful. If your doctor looks at blood serum, analyze heart rates under stress loads, and examines blood oxygen under stress and during sleep, you can pretty much guarantee they will arrive at some degree of analysis that could prove (outside exception of health conditions or illness) a degree of general health and fitness.
I understand running is important to you, personally and culturally. Don't attack tools in the toolbox of fitness, just because you see other people using them wrong (edit: you did say you do use it). Everything in the world is a nail if you're holding a hammer, etc etc.
Conceptually, most of what you said is sound, but yeah. I think you're a nerd for process, which is cool, making kind of misguided arguments that are not really about what we're talking about here, which is why the article observes a principle experimentally we've known works for over a century. Also I personally like HIIT, interval training, and HIRT especially for all of the reasons I've described. :)
I'm not an exercise physiologist but I have an interest in it. The article states that more energy is used when the body is gearing up for an activity and I'm guessing this is because if you exercise for only up to a few minutes at a time with sufficient rest in between intervals then you'll end up mostly using the phosphocreatine and anaerobic glycolosis systems which are less efficient than aerobic glycolosis or aerobic lipoylsis. It's why when you start running without a sufficient warm up, you're always a bit out of breath even when running at sub maximal efforts and later on in the same run, even when running faster, your breathing can be super relaxed. The aerobic system takes a while to "spin up". In other words, you start with poor running economy... using more calories to run the same speed but as your aerobic system spins up, your running economy increases and you use less calories to run the same speed.
It's my understanding that by doing the type of exercise mentioned in the article - short bursts - you'll get positive physiological adaptations to your anearobic capacity but it won't have much impact on your aerobic capcity, which I would argue is the more important system to train for everyday operations of the human body!
This must be related to why HIIT is so effective at quickly dropping fat, even in short (<15 minute sessions). 10 Tabata sets of 40 sec sprints and 20 sec jogs has always been my go-to to lose some weight quickly, while continuing to run longer distances and lift weights.
I've been tracking HRV for about 8 years and can conclude that (for me) any HRV measurement overnight using a wearable or related wearable readiness metrics are largely useless. Now, what I do - as recommended by Marco Altini, an HRV researcher - is measure in the morning, steated with a chest strap. I use his app, HRV4Training which I would recommend [1]. It's the only way to get decent data in my experience. HRV is so senstive to various stimulii you need to measure it under exacting conditions, which you don't really get when you are sleeping. Sleep stages matter, how you are breathing, body temperature, etc.
I think my Oura ring is great but... it consistently records average nighttime HRV of around 15ms, which is implausable. However, when I wake up and measure with my Polar chest strap I'll get a more sensible reading. Fully recovered it will by about 150ms. Hurting after a hard workout it will be around 40ms. Some other interesting experiences with oura/garmin/apple are:
1. Higher nightime HRV after drinking alcohol than abstaining for weeks but then I measure with a strap and it will be low as expected
2. HRV spikes when I get out of bed in the middle to the night to do childcare related things, when it should be lower when walking around
Another thing to note is that I think I have parasympathetic saturation which means due to physiology and environmental factors you actually end up with a super low HRV when you are lying down/resting. Endurance athletes often get it - I run about 100km a week and my resting HR when fully recovered is about 40 bpm, so I guess that's the reason. When I de-train then nighttime HRV goes back to normal.
If anyone is interested in HRV I definitely recommend reading Marco's blog [1], you will learn alot.
I qualified as a CA with EY in London around 15 years ago in banking audit. Left soon after qualifying. Some weeks I clocked in over 50 hours but never usually much more. Never had to do an all-nighter though I knew loads of people who did. Part of the reason I had a good experience was that I was lucky enough to work with an excellent manager who was well organised and knew how to audit without wasting time on spurious nonsense. I had to sacrifice a few Easter bank holidays in busy season but we got back the time in lieu. Outside of busy season was fairly quiet - Thursday afternoon pub lunches etc.
Some people did far more hours than me but I think it was mostly self imposed. A small minority of the partners were twats but the vast majority were mindful of people’s well-being. Friday evening drinks in corney and barrow were sacred and on days I didnt want to work longer I just got up and left to the disbelief of the audit room - they got over it though!
Their function effectively becomes one of emotional/vibe meetings.
You and your coworkers are 'drunk', so whatever you say has an excuse now.
Because of the stiff upper lip, so to speak, culture of the normal workdays, you can't complain about workload, or that Steve is an ass, or that the project is pointless, etc. But with a 'drunk' cover, you can, and that information can get to the bosses and they can adjust things. That's why those meeting times are needed and all the folks need to be there with that excuse literally in hand.
Or, so I've been told by older functional-alcoholic consultants back in my consulting days.
Hey, at least the beer and gin were on the company card.
Work drinks in fields like law and finance is London are _huge_. Even in tech they're a thing. Working in a pretty no-name tech company, I've did my share of out-til-2am, home by 3am, then back in work by 9am. Less so now I just exited my 20s, but the culture lives on.
This is definitely true. Distance/time running is the most effective lever you can pull to increase performance assuming your form isn’t completely messed up.
I used to run competitively in my teens. Now nearly 40 and getting back into it. Recently upped distance to 50 miles a week (mostly slow) from 20 and I’m suddenly doing sub 17min 5ks. Couldn’t get below 19 mins before upping mileage.
Very good! Can second that. I run alot and sometimes get knotty leg muscles/tendons. I've found for quad knots, the best way is to jam your elbow into the knot and hold until the muscle releases. For harder to reach areas like IT band then I use a massage gun with the pointy tip but you need to be careful not to bruise the area.
Fit athletes can run quite fast at a low heart rate, that in some cases might even be lower than walking for regular people. That is to say, the runners are exerting themselves less from a cardiovascular perspective than an unfit person walking. E.g. I can run 8min/mile pace on the flat at a 120bpm heart rate (around 67% of VO2max). But I know people who have the same (or higher) heart rate by just walking or doing house work. So what exactly are we saying by pointing out that running is bad for you? High heart rates for a long period of time are bad for you? The action of running is bad for you? Something else? None of this research makes sense to me.
But why just running? What about other sports like cross country skiing, or rowing? Mountaineering? What is it specifically about running which is bad? Or are all these other sports bad too?
I had a cardiovascular age test done recently which uses pulse wave velocity [1] to determine arterial stiffness. It turns out my "cardio age" is 11 years younger than my actual age and I run at least 50 miles a week. Mostly slow, some fast. So that seems to contradict some of this research, or the pulse wave velocity test is BS?
On another note, there's so much nonsense in that linked thread above I don't even know where to start. Great timing because I enjoyed reading this hackernews thread [2] about the phenomenon that most info about a subject is wrong and you only really notice it if you are an expert or have first hand knowledge.
My understanding that the problems occur during (ultra) endurance running style events where proper care isn't taken to keep up with hydration and dietary needs (electrolytes, etc.). Blood can thicken to such a point that the heart starts to get damaged, muscle acidity rises to the point where heart muscle damage occurs, etc.
A fit individual going for a 12 mile or less run probably won't have these problems unless they're in an extreme environment.
To your point, I'm sure you could do similar types of damage from other activities done for long periods of time if the proper hydration isn't followed.
reply