Ah this could be messing up a lot of things now you mention it. I was getting suspicious with it last year.
Last night was fine in the treadmill and for two hours on the bike in the morning.
Did you try a new strap?
1 Like
After a couple of batteries I decided it was nackered so bought a new one and it’s been fine.
Similar thing for me where it would seem normal for 10-15 minutes like that before going bonkers.
A lot of the algorithms for recovery and effort will be based on HR and probably training peaks as well.
Mine was saying long recovery needed after an easy 30 minute run 
1 Like
£45 new and although money is tight, the real problem is the procrastination it kicks off…my FR265 watch is more reliable and covers swim. Form goggles work with Polar H10, but they don’t sync into Garmin or TR. And so on.
Probably buy a new one for Christmas 
1 Like
I get the dual so it works with ant+ and Bluetooth for Zwift on the iPad. Running stats are pretty accurate on the dreadmill as well.
But at around £100 they ain’t cheap, especially for a sweaty git like me that has very corrosive sweat
I’ve got a tickr that I try and use on Zwift now.
1 Like
So.
Running power on the newer Garmins. I assume it’s all a load of total made up bolox?!
1 Like
Made up in that it is a different calculation from Stryd and other manufacturers interpretation of running power.
But it should be comparable from one garmin run to another. It mostly compensates for gradient, so if your barometer is off then the power will be off. But I think there is also compensation against the weather forecast (wind) so if running in shelter it could be off for that too.
Doesn’t know if you are running on or off road though, so will under-report power for off-road runs compared to on-road.
3 Likes
Yeah, I think it’s meaningless bollox even compared to some of there other metrics. I’m either breathing out of my arse or jogging 
Mine has suggested twice this week that it wants to set my estimated HR max to 191 
It either thinks I’ve got an MW22 gerbil heart or is telling me to try harder
3 Likes
I think it’s got good science behind it. An easy 1hr run for me averages around 290-300W. A hard hour iirc 330W. Iirc.
But I’m not using it for anything yet.
2 Likes
Problem I have with it is calling it “power”, its not measuring power, it using accelerometers and code to derive a figure and then putting a unit of power on it.
It might be consistent and it might be useful but I cant see past that and so to me sounds like bollocks.
5 Likes
I was the same a few years ago on Stryd but I have to defer to the scientific papers/evidence. I want some kind of strain gauges but algos and accelerometers are good enough.
1 Like
Yeah good shout. Just think if it as a ‘running metric’ and not power.
I can’t get the comparison to bike power out of my head - in your example, you don’t do an easy hr spin on a bike at 300w! I know they’re vastly different, but my brain is natural defaulting to that comparison.
Ta
2 Likes
The bike power comparison is what makes me doubt it. Just can’t see how it is so much higher, although I appreciate the bike holds most of your weight.
It just over complicates running for me, as above I generally just run slow or slower these days
Plus with the off-road running we do I’m not sure how each terrain compares.
2 Likes
Christ Garmin make it difficult to differentiate their offerings.
Kids stole my old 645 off the wife so looking at replacement/upgrade for her.
New models have x, y and z - but neglect to tell you they’ve removed a, b and c functions in the process.
Trying to compare foreunners, to vivoactives, to vemus to whatever else.
Then amazon threw in some curveballs with other suggestions before spotting they were refubs and used ffs.
2 Likes
Forerunner 265.
2 Likes
DCR offers some decent comparisons. I presume she needs multi sports rather than just a bike specific one.
As it’s for the Mrs it probably needs a few petabytes of storage to record her bonkers activities 
2 Likes
Way over kill for what I think she needs tho. And way over budget (I’m not buying for myself 
)
Currently looking at 255s, vivoactive 5 (though dont think has any basic mapping) or a refurbed 745 (as what I have and I know be more than sufficient).
Yeah been trawling DCR most of morning (between ensuring your HR & payroll solutions are on point I might add )
3 Likes
I would say the 165 as it’s shiny and new. But doesn’t have bike power, which I assume she needs to lord over you.
3 Likes
You probably just need to figure out three use cases for your wife, and a budget.
Then buy the 265 or the 55.
1 Like
Do you ever get the impression that Garmin operates in product silos that don’t talk to each other? 
6 Likes
No don’t need bike power ironically.
Mapping (just basic stuff) seems to be one that’s not included on quite a few and the only thing letting the Vivo down (not sure if you can fudge with 3rd party app).
Open water swimming be nice. She doesn’t swim loads, but it upgrading it night as well. Think that’s where the Vivo completely switched those 2 apps being available from 4 to 5.
Music another nice to have. I use mine tons.
HR ant+ transmission another handy. I exclusively use my watch rather than chest strap indoors and good back up for her when she forgets chest strap.
Edit. Also ideally one that comes in small form factor.
1 Like