Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill
Quote | Reply
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?


Dan Hollingsworth

Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years. People grow old only by deserting their ideals. Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up interest wrinkles the soul." - Douglas MacArthur
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [DJHollingsworth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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?

i know the feeling... my 920 buzzes as i've run 1 mile, yet my treamill shows that i've done 0.85. i've spoken to Garmin. mine is still relatively new so it needs to "get to know me" a bit better. so its algorithms are based off what i'm doing outside with GPS and it tries to replicate it inside. tough to factor in inclines, etc. when i use it indoors, its strictly for Heart Rate. my stride length changes as i focus on form, etc. but i wish i could use those numbers, my garmin is faster than the treadmill.
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [DJHollingsworth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
A lot of people run with a different stride and cadence on a treadmill than they run outdoors. I cannot remember if a 920 auto-calibrates your stride length from the foot pod, or if you manually enter it. I think your stride length on a 920 is manually entered. So, the possibilities are:
  1. Your manually calibrated stride length is just wrong
  2. Your cadence is different - look at average cadence on an outdoor run vs. your treadmill run if this is true, your treadmill cadence should be lower than your outdoor cadence

Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [exxxviii] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I don't recall actually entering my stride length ... perhaps that's the problem. I also don't have a foot pod, just the HRM strap. I definitely noticed that my cadence was higher out on the road the other day than it was on the treadmill today. I intentionally tried to pick up my cadence, but didn't notice a significant drop in pace per my Garmin.

Interesting ... I'm not losing sleep over, just curious as to which is likely more accurate.


Dan Hollingsworth

Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years. People grow old only by deserting their ideals. Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up interest wrinkles the soul." - Douglas MacArthur
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [DJHollingsworth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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?

Treadmill calibration is all over the place. I would be more likely to trust my Garmin over the full session distance.

https://www.pbandjcoaching.com
https://www.thisbigroadtrip.com
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [DJHollingsworth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
That's about what I would expect while running on a treadmill without a foot pod. I experience the same thing.

I put the foot pod on my shoe and I'm within 10 sec/mile
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [DJHollingsworth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DJHollingsworth wrote:
I don't recall actually entering my stride length ... perhaps that's the problem. I also don't have a foot pod, just the HRM strap. I definitely noticed that my cadence was higher out on the road the other day than it was on the treadmill today. I intentionally tried to pick up my cadence, but didn't notice a significant drop in pace per my Garmin.

There's your problem. The wrist-based accelerometer is absolute rubbish for determining pace, even with plenty of outdoor runs under your belt. Treadmills are notoriously unreliable for pace/distance so if you had a footpod I'd say trust that, but seeing as you don't either or neither could be correct.
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [DJHollingsworth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
My two bits --- I would go off the treadmill even though we like to use our watches for distance pace etc, when you have the treadmill set at an incline that will throw everything off - have a look at the excel sheet attached it provides a calibration factor when comparing running on an incline to what your actual pace would be if running outside on the flat (it takes into consideration wind etc) there was a thread here and a like to Cody Beals who wrote a good article on this.

I would agree with Gskalt - the best metric to use would be heart rate when on a treadmill, but then you have an increase in body temp which increases heart rate oh the issues we face :)

Train safe.....

------------------------------------------------------------
"PAIN is nothing compared to what it feels like to QUIT" Wink
Last edited by: mooseknuckle69: Oct 20, 16 14:48
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [DJHollingsworth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
If I use a garmin watch (any of them) that have the distance calculation by accelerometer built into the watch, the watch will slow down as I speed up the treadmill.

That function is pure garbage. Use the TM stats, or a footpod.

https://markmcdermott.substack.com
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [DJHollingsworth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
At my gym the treadmills are not well calibrated (some clearly run fast, some slow). However you checked yours with your cyclometer and it seems accurate. I'd go with that.

My Garmin is waaaay off on my treadmill runs (like 1:30min/mile); I certainly wouldn't trust it.

ECMGN Therapy Silicon Valley:
Depression, Neurocognitive problems, Dementias (Testing and Evaluation), Trauma and PTSD, Traumatic Brain Injury (TBI)
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [DJHollingsworth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [DJHollingsworth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Treadmill calibration this way isn't usually accurate because treadmills slow down and speed up as your foot strikes and then pushes off. You have to measure the belt length, then put a piece of tape on it and have someone count the revolutions as you run on it to get an idea of how accurate it really is.
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [aw3] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
aw3 wrote:
DJHollingsworth wrote:
I don't recall actually entering my stride length ... perhaps that's the problem. I also don't have a foot pod, just the HRM strap. I definitely noticed that my cadence was higher out on the road the other day than it was on the treadmill today. I intentionally tried to pick up my cadence, but didn't notice a significant drop in pace per my Garmin.


There's your problem. The wrist-based accelerometer is absolute rubbish for determining pace, even with plenty of outdoor runs under your belt. Treadmills are notoriously unreliable for pace/distance so if you had a footpod I'd say trust that, but seeing as you don't either or neither could be correct.

This! My Fenix 3 with footpod nails speed almost every time, always within 0.1 mph. Looking back at my files before I got the footpod, the accelerometer based pace is a joke. Worthless.
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [DJHollingsworth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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.
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [DJFaithful] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DJFaithful wrote:
aw3 wrote:
DJHollingsworth wrote:
I don't recall actually entering my stride length ... perhaps that's the problem. I also don't have a foot pod, just the HRM strap. I definitely noticed that my cadence was higher out on the road the other day than it was on the treadmill today. I intentionally tried to pick up my cadence, but didn't notice a significant drop in pace per my Garmin.


There's your problem. The wrist-based accelerometer is absolute rubbish for determining pace, even with plenty of outdoor runs under your belt. Treadmills are notoriously unreliable for pace/distance so if you had a footpod I'd say trust that, but seeing as you don't either or neither could be correct.


This! My Fenix 3 with footpod nails speed almost every time, always within 0.1 mph. Looking back at my files before I got the footpod, the accelerometer based pace is a joke. Worthless.

Yes! This! My Fenix 3 just using the watch compared to a treadmill, was all over the place. I got a foot pod, and since then it is very reliable, often times dead on with the treadmills I use. Occasionally when there is a difference, I feel confident chalking it up to the treadmill I'm using. I just the watch data, regardless of what the treadmill says. It's that consistent(with the foot pod).
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote:
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.

As much as I love my data, gotta admire this line of thinking.

Stim / Psych / Fun
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [DJHollingsworth] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Got a speedometer on your bike? I used my gsc-10 on my back wheel to see the speed on my Garmin while having been it on the treadmill running at 10mph. From there you have a percentage for offset.

http://www.clperformancetraining.com
http://www.pillasport.ca
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
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
Last edited by: pk1: Oct 20, 16 19:58
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [pk1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I run both when I am on the treadmill and the 920 seems to be getting closer to what the treadmill reads, still not great without a footpod. I take the treadmills word for it as the pacing feels much closer.
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [pk1] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
pk1 wrote:
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

Maybe if I can expand on this. My experience has shown that once you get athletes on the track, they can dial in their 400m pace to within 1-2 seconds per 400m without looking at the watch. They can just tell you what pace they did after a while by feel. That's when you have pace vs perceived exertion dialed in. Once on the treadmill, you can kind of tell if that effort on the treadmill at 10 mph actually equates to a 90 second 400m (6 min mile) or not. I am just using this because the math is easy. It might be an 8.6 mph interval at a 6 percent grade which also theoretically converts to 6 min mile pace according to :

http://www.hillrunner.com/training/tmillchart.php

The point being the training stress can some whatever way you want regardless of what the foot pod or treadmill says. As long as you have the perceived exertion dialed up and it not dialed up because you have no FAN (example in a fitness club that rarely does), then you're getting the same training load. The key here is the FAN. You could end up with a high perceived exertion at a much lower speed due to lack of cooling. Outside, you if you run 6 min miles (10 mph)....even in still air you have the cooling of a 10 mph "FAN". So your actual training load at the same perceived exertion outdoors may be higher mainly because you have enough cooling.
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [devashish_paul] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I totally get and agree with what you are saying. It was more of a curiosity than anything else. I'm definitely more of a perceived effort guy than I am anything else. Interestingly enough, I often find that my RPE on a treadmill is lower than when out running on the road.


Dan Hollingsworth

Nobody grows old by merely living a number of years. People grow old only by deserting their ideals. Years may wrinkle the skin, but to give up interest wrinkles the soul." - Douglas MacArthur
Quote Reply
Re: Fact check this debate: Garmin 920 vs my Treadmill [DJFaithful] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I was talking to a garmin rep at a half marathon a couple of years ago when they were first putting the ability to track pace based on the internal accelerator and the lady was telling me how great it was. So I asked the obvious question...what happens when I take a drink, wipe my head with a towel, or change music on my phone? Crickets. Sure enough, under some loose testing conditions, the Fenix 3 quickly fails to keep accurate pace if your wrist is doing anything other than swaying back and forth in a very predictable manner.
Quote Reply