1

Motion Based and Garmin (Read 1246 times)

RunFree7


Run like a kid again!

    I want a way to judge how hard the course I am running is versus other days. I thought I would use elevation for that so it could help explain some runs that were faster then others. Anyway I was wondering how you guys/gals do this with your Garmin? I have the 305. Currently I am just taking the max eleveation - min elevation to get an idea so that I can compare runs.
      2011 Goals:
      Sub 19 5K (19:24 5K July 14th 2010)
      Marathon under 3:05:59 BQ (3:11:10 Indy 2010)


    Lazy idiot

      I'm no genius when it comes to this stuff, but I think you're being too simplistic. If you are simply isolating the elevation variable, you need to take into account the total incline and total decline and not just the overall elevation change. For example, take course #1. This 10-mile course is straight downhill, and the max elevation is 900 ft, and the min is 500 ft for a total of 400 ft in elevation difference. The there is course #2. This course has the same min and max as course #1, but starts out at 500 ft and contains five hills (each is nearly the entire 400 ft) within those 10 miles for a total of around 2000 ft in elevation difference. Which will be harder? In comparing runs, you will also have many other variables to consider. I'll start a list... - Time of day - Temperature - Humidity - Mood/attitude - Familiarity with the course - Etc... There will all affect your run (and how 'hard' you perceive it to be) in varying degrees, but their effect will be evident in some way. My two cents...

      Tick tock


      A Dance with Monkeys

        Make sure you use the motionbased Gravity service, which corrects away some of the artifact from armswing. I usually use total elevation climb and descent. Just the difference between max and min does not quite get the severity of a course. For example, one run may climb from 400 feet elevation to 500 feet elevation over a mile, while another may make that climb (and descent) 3 times. Total elevation change for the first would be +100/-0, while for the second it would be +300/-200 while the min and max are the same.


        Lazy idiot

          Make sure you use the motionbased Gravity service, which corrects away some of the artifact from armswing. I usually use total elevation climb and descent. Just the difference between max and min does not quite get the severity of a course. For example, one run may climb from 400 feet elevation to 500 feet elevation over a mile, while another may make that climb (and descent) 3 times. Total elevation change for the first would be +100/-0, while for the second it would be +300/-200 while the min and max are the same.
          Thanks, Trent. Easier to understand than my example.

          Tick tock


          A Dance with Monkeys

            (I think we posted simultaneously)
            RunFree7


            Run like a kid again!

              Well as I learn more I am trying to listen to my body and understand the numbers. I have been recording the Avg Pace, Avg HR, Avg Temp, Avg Humidity and I was trying to capture how hard the course was that I ran. I am really trying to pay attention to HR. With that said I did look at Total Elevation but it looks like a factor of distance as well. I almost feel like you have to take Total Elevation and divide it by miles to get something like Elevation per mile to compare them. When running these two paths I know that run B is a harder run but I just don't feel the numbers are telling me this. What am I missing. Run A - Loveland Elevation Change Total (ft) Total Elevation 2,253 Elevation Gain 1,140 Elevation Loss 1,114 Net Elevation Change 26 Vertical Speed Average ( ft/min) Maximum (ft/min) Ascent 10.1 158.8 Descent -9.8 -169.7 Grade Average (%) Maximum (%) Overall Grade 0 -- Ascent Grade 3.4 11.8 Descent Grade -3.1 -10.5 Relevant Data Start Elevation (ft): 613 Finish Elevation (ft): 639 Min. Elevation (ft): 577 Max. Elevation (ft): 664 Run B - Lebanon Lebanon Miles 8.5 Elevation Change Total (ft) Total Elevation 1,138 Elevation Gain 567 Elevation Loss 571 Net Elevation Change -5 Vertical Speed Average ( ft/min) Maximum (ft/min) Ascent 7.2 105.1 Descent -7.3 -132 Grade Average (%) Maximum (%) Overall Grade 0 -- Ascent Grade 2.6 13.7 Descent Grade -2.5 -13.4 Relevant Data Start Elevation (ft): 606 Finish Elevation (ft): 601 Min. Elevation (ft): 599 Max. Elevation (ft): 813
                2011 Goals:
                Sub 19 5K (19:24 5K July 14th 2010)
                Marathon under 3:05:59 BQ (3:11:10 Indy 2010)


              I've got a fever...

                Make sure you use the motionbased Gravity service, which corrects away some of the artifact from armswing.
                Trent is way right -- MB Gravity is essential if you have significant elevation changes. This post here shows my usual out-n-back run with and without the MB Gravity correction. The elevation profile of an out-n-back should be symmetrical, and you can see that with MB Gravity -- symmetry. Without MB gravity -- not so much.

                On your deathbed, you won't wish that you'd spent more time at the office.  But you will wish that you'd spent more time running.  Because if you had, you wouldn't be on your deathbed.