devashish_paul wrote:
DJHollingsworth wrote:
I just wanted to go for a peaceful, mind clearing training run on my treadmill. All was well until a raging debate fired up between my Gamin 920xt and my treadmill monitor. I was breathing too hard to moderate properly, Lester Holt could have done a better job than I did. According to my treadmill, I was running a 7min mile (set at 8.6mph with 1.5 degree incline), but my Garmin vehemently opposed this stating my pace flip-flopped between 7:35-7:20.
What gives? Who is right?
I'm guessing that the Garmin is subject to error and calculates my pace off of my cadence and GCT? The treadmill is quite old, but I did do a very sophisticated calibration of it last year .... I rigged my bike up onto the treadmill, turned it on to 10mph and checked my bike computer ... it was dead on.
So, based on this ... who would you vote for?
It is kind of unimportant which electronics say what. At the end of the day, it's all training. What you are working towards is physiological adaptations. Your perceived exertion SHOULD be a sufficient enough metric to understand if you are getting the stress load that you need. None of this is magic. Stress your body, rest, repeat. If you want to know your real pace, just get to a track and measure your splits accurately. You don't need accurate speed/pace metrics from every workout, just physiologically stress your body is what you're searching for.
If I recall correctly Brett Sutton takes away the clock on many track workouts too and just gets his athletes to do the workout off perceived exertion.
blasphemy!
but yeah, numbers don't matter that much especially on a treadmill where they don't correlate to race pace