Pages: 1 |
| Motion Based and Garmin (Read 328 times) |
BearcatRunner view log |
posted: 7/9/2007 at 5:13 PM |
| 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. |
2008 Goals:
Run Sub 20 5K
Run Marathon under 3:52
Get down to 145#
|
|
|
| view log mmm... monkey brains |
posted: 7/9/2007 at 5:52 PM
modified: 7/9/2007 at 5:54 PM |
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... |
Drew
Road to the Monkey
Just run, baby.
Your hide will make a fine poncho. |
|
|
| view log Funky Monkey |
posted: 7/9/2007 at 5:53 PM |
| 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. |
| It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys attack. |
|
|
| view log mmm... monkey brains |
posted: 7/9/2007 at 6:48 PM |
| Quote from Trent on 7/9/2007 at 5:53 PM: 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. |
Drew
Road to the Monkey
Just run, baby.
Your hide will make a fine poncho. |
|
|
| view log Funky Monkey |
posted: 7/9/2007 at 7:15 PM |
| (I think we posted simultaneously) |
| It's all fun and games until the flying monkeys attack. |
|
|
BearcatRunner view log |
posted: 7/9/2007 at 7:32 PM |
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
|
2008 Goals:
Run Sub 20 5K
Run Marathon under 3:52
Get down to 145#
|
|
|
| view log Playmaker / nemesis |
posted: 7/13/2007 at 4:35 PM
modified: 7/13/2007 at 4:35 PM |
| Quote from Trent on 7/9/2007 at 5:53 PM: 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. |
20th Century: 800m: 2:04 |1600m: 4:37 |3200m: 10:06 |5k: 16:23 |10k: 35:38 |15k: 54:20 |25k: 1:35:59
21st Century: 5k: 19:42 |10k: 43:00
What are you doing? |
|
|
Pages: 1 |
|
