Understanding Garmin Connect Stats !!

futurefarmer

Hey all
Im new to Garmin connect but i have been running for awhile, just looking for some help understanding what i need to do with the information that i am gathering and be able to analize it properly
Example todays session was straightforward speed session 4x1 mile repeats 1 min Between data gathered (all averages)

Timming 6:26 (straight forward)
Heart rate 5.6z (BPM i presume is an option i havent ticked !)
Cadence 188 SPM (Foot turn over ? what is the goal i should be aiming for)
Vertical oscillation 7.5 CM (height im lifting my feet? but what is a good number?)
Avg ground contact 232 MS (Time of foot strike? again what should i be aiming for?)

Sorry for the long post i just need help to use this information so i can see what way my training needs to go

Thanking all who read this and respond :-)

drquirky

futurefarmer wrote: »

Hey all
Im new to Garmin connect but i have been running for awhile, just looking for some help understanding what i need to do with the information that i am gathering and be able to analize it properly
Example todays session was straightforward speed session 4x1 mile repeats 1 min Between data gathered (all averages)

Timming 6:26 (straight forward)
Heart rate 5.6z (BPM i presume is an option i havent ticked !)
Cadence 188 SPM (Foot turn over ? what is the goal i should be aiming for)
Vertical oscillation 7.5 CM (height im lifting my feet? but what is a good number?)
Avg ground contact 232 MS (Time of foot strike? again what should i be aiming for?)

Sorry for the long post i just need help to use this information so i can see what way my training needs to go

Thanking all who read this and respond :-)

TBH a bunch of that stuff is completely not important. Focus on training smart, following a plan and using races as a way to gauge progress. That cadence/ vertical oscillation/ ground contact stuff will make zero difference to you and an over interpretation of it could actually lead to injury.

Man the fast lads of the 70s and 80s (who were really f'ing fast by Western standards) would have a great laugh looking at these kind of stats....

futurefarmer

Thanks for the response but i like the bio mechanics behind running and i believe running smart can and should involve this data if its on hand, Runners of bygone years who reached the penicle pushed the boundries in all sorts of ways and you can be sure they analized every last thing that they could have, Running smart is what is all about at this stage but i would like a yard stick of sorts

Thanks for the reply though

drquirky

futurefarmer wrote: »

Thanks for the response but i like the bio mechanics behind running and i believe running smart can and should involve this data if its on hand, Runners of bygone years who reached the penicle pushed the boundries in all sorts of ways and you can be sure they analized every last thing that they could have, Running smart is what is all about at this stage but i would like a yard stick of sorts

Thanks for the reply though

I see what you're saying but important to note, runners from Western countries have actually pretty much stagnated/ regressed in times since Billy Rodgers et al were hammering out crazy milage weeks and racing their brains out. Sometimes too much data can be a bad thing. I love running because if you put the time in, train hard/ smart and most importantly are consistent you;ll be shocked with the massive gains you'll make.

Just out of interest, what kinda times are you running now. I ask this because if you're a 2:30 marathoner I could see a change in cadence or vertical oscillation making marginal gains but if you're a 4:00 marathoner I think you'd be better off spending your time running!

futurefarmer

Sub 3 but hoping for improvment in Dublin. My own two cents runners at every level can gain by analising themselves in every aspect, foot oscillation is an area that should definately be looked at is its going to save energy and make you a more efficient runner. way 2 many ppl following coaches and never asking why or how to improve just following on "because thats the way it is done" !

drquirky

futurefarmer wrote: »

Sub 3 but hoping for improvment in Dublin. My own two cents runners at every level can gain by analising themselves in every aspect, foot oscillation is an area that should definately be looked at is its going to save energy and make you a more efficient runner. way 2 many ppl following coaches and never asking why or how to improve just following on "because thats the way it is done" !

Cool- yeah I'd say it could help you if you use it right (and I have no idea how to use it lol) but here's a question- How the hell can anyone explain Jeptoo/ Radcliffe and the crazy amount of inefficient motion used in both their actions? (relative of course to the astonishing times they've both run)

futurefarmer

Im just trying to make my running style as complete as i can so as to improve my own times but of course there are going to be ppl who break all the rules and still will be poles apart from the rest but does that mean the rest of us should try to emulute there style ! There will never be anything to compensate for ability but ability can compensate for an awful lot, im trying to work with what i have.

Now if anyone can help with my original Q than i would really appreciate it

drquirky

futurefarmer wrote: »

Im just trying to make my running style as complete as i can so as to improve my own times but of course there are going to be ppl who break all the rules and still will be poles apart from the rest but does that mean the rest of us should try to emulute there style ! There will never be anything to compensate for ability but ability can compensate for an awful lot, im trying to work with what i have.

Now if anyone can help with my original Q than i would really appreciate it

I'll bow out after this comment but my point w/ using the two best female marathoners in history is that sometimes your natural style is the most efficient for YOU and you only.

At any rate good luck with foot and vertical oscillation hope it gains you the 30secs over 26.2 it should!

viperlogic

I track my Garmin Running Dynamic stats on my training log here but only for comparison reasons between different sessions (and that I'm a data junkie, work in analytics/big-data!). My stats don't line up to what some may consider the norm or good eg cadence of ~180 whereas mine is always sub 160.

This morning I tried to run at 180 cadence for awhile as just read this thread prior to heading out on my run, my vertical oscillation dropped immediately from ~10cm to ~7cm and ground contact time dropped from 290ms to 250ms, all which are considered to be better stats but my god did it feel weird/alien-like and was certainly putting a strain on my calves and shins and also felt more tiring so I stopped and went back to my "normal" stride.

futurefarmer

Are they better stats ? This was my original question where can I find out what runners stats of varying abilities are? ? Everyone runs in a way that's comfortable but if by changing your style slightly can improve things than why wouldn't you!

viperlogic

This is what is in the Garmin FR620 manual. It's compiled I believe by Firstbeat

Krusty_Clown

futurefarmer wrote: »

Are they better stats ? This was my original question where can I find out what runners stats of varying abilities are? ? Everyone runs in a way that's comfortable but if by changing your style slightly can improve things than why wouldn't you!

Forcing changes in your running style could have a negative impact on your running economy, and could greatly increase your propensity for injury.
Some articles by Steve Magness:
180 isn't a magic number- Stride Rate and what it means
Understanding Stride Rate and Stride Length
How the World's best runners strike the ground

I'd share drquirky's view that the best way to improve your running form is through lots of miles.

oldrunner

Interesting articles. Thanks for the links.

Since I got the 620, I have found the stats fascinating but have no idea what to do with them. For what it's worth, I tend to average 176 strides per minute and stride length of 1.2 metres when running normally (i/e/ easy or steady runs). This goes up to 200 per minute and stride length of 1.65 metres when running sessions (e.g 600m interval). All very interesting but I'm not sure it helps me figure out what to do with it.

I'm probably too long in the tooth for major change but there's always hope (I certainly wouldn't claim to be have the best form). I did make a change in the plane of my left arm swing a few years ago on the advice of a physio as I was crossing my body and forcing my hip to swing in as a result, exaggerating my risk of injury. It seems to have helped.

The articles are pretty clear - improving biomechanics can be beneficial and is important but that there are many ways to make improvements. This concluding quote form the second one sums it up well in terms of working on stride length / or rate:

"What I’ve found in my years working on running mechanics and in being taught by some of the best minds on the subject, is that I nor them have ever focused on stride rate or length. Those are outcomes of what you do. They are feedback. They are not things you directly change. If you take care of the mechanics, whether it’s arm swing, body position, force application, footstrike or whatever, the rate and length will optimize."

I would disagree with you "that the best way to improve your running form is through lots of miles." I believe that you do this by working on sessions that will help with form and that you actively concentrate on form - for instance, sharp steep uphill running concentrating on body position, foot landing, knee lift etc., or classic 400m sessions but making sure to concentrate on form not on speed. I generally encourage newer runners looking for improvements to focus on one aspect of their form at a time and to 'visualise' good form by watching other runners with good form. For many people, there can be one obvious flaw, for others very little obvious.

spurscormac

I would think it's more useful to analyse the stats when you race as opposed to training.
How does it change over the duration of a race, do your stats look "better" at the times you felt best in the race, do they get "worse" as you tire during a race.
It's something like this I would think might help, maybe focusing on cadence later in a race if you have seen that you tend to drop off as you tire.

Krusty_Clown

oldrunner wrote: »

I would disagree with you "that the best way to improve your running form is through lots of miles." I believe that you do this by working on sessions that will help with form and that you actively concentrate on form - for instance, sharp steep uphill running concentrating on body position, foot landing, knee lift etc., or classic 400m sessions but making sure to concentrate on form not on speed.

I'd certainly agree with that. I guess what I was trying to say is that stride rate/length and oscillation are not things that you specifically go out and target, but are rather a result of improved form and greater efficiency. Rather than just going out and aimlessly running lots and lots of miles, following smart, well-structured training programs (which would include those same form drills) you'll see gains in form that will manifest in changes to stride and vertical movement.

Krusty_Clown

Here's some stats that Steve Magness put together on the subject (subjectivity) of stride rate. He started at around 7+minute mile and increased his pace every 45 seconds (up to around 4:30/mile). It kind of suggests (based on a sample of one) that this whole 180 spm is bunkum. Stride rate, length, ground contact time all seem to be relative to pace (and pretty linear), so there's little value in looking at them in isolation. Any value in looking a the stats should come from comparing workouts at the same pace (for example a comparison of stride rate at the same pace on the same treadmill).

adrian522

Another good article on cadence here:

http://www.informrunning.com/2013/04/cadence/

oldrunner

Krusty_Clown wrote: »

It kind of suggests (based on a sample of one) that this whole 180 spm is bunkum. Stride rate, length, ground contact time all seem to be relative to pace (and pretty linear), so there's little value in looking at them in isolation.

I think you may be mixing up cause and correlation - pace actually increases relative to stride rate and length (and maybe ground contact time). Increasing your stride rate and / or your stride length makes you go faster not the other way around.

Targeting 180 strides per minute may well be bunkum but I don't think these statistics contribute to the debate - after all, his range from time 100 to time 400 (i.e. when he runs somewhere between 6:10 and 4:50 pace - not jogging not sprinting) is 170 to 190 with an average of 180.

Krusty_Clown

oldrunner wrote: »

I think you may be mixing up cause and correlation - pace actually increases relative to stride rate and length (and maybe ground contact time). Increasing your stride rate and / or your stride length makes you go faster not the other way around.

I suggested there was a direct relationship between the two, not that one is a product/outcome of the other.

oldrunner wrote: »

Targeting 180 strides per minute may well be bunkum but I don't think these statistics contribute to the debate - after all, his range from time 100 to time 400 (i.e. when he runs somewhere between 6:10 and 4:50 pace - not jogging not sprinting) is 170 to 190 with an average of 180.

The original poster wondered what cadence he/she should be aiming for. The suggestion was that they should aim for a cadence of 180 spm. This data suggests that 180 strides per minute is just an arbitrary number and considered independently of any other data points doesn't have significant relevance.