The Garmin coaching instrument provides reliable support, yet it requires a straightforward adjustment.

In 2024, tech giants Apple and Google/Fitbit finally hopped on the personal coaching trend train, a move that was long overdue. I attribute my enhanced VO2 max to diligently following the training load guidance provided by my wearable devices’ coaching features, specifically Garmin’s training load focus graph. Despite the best efforts of any model, there remains a significant margin for error, leaving me delighted to express my dissatisfaction with their shortcomings.

Many struggle to comprehend coaching principles that are overly complex. Some individuals fail to distinguish sufficiently between significantly disparate types of workload. While some individuals may place too much emphasis on their resting heart rate average when selecting a workout load, others consider various heart rates throughout a run.

Here is the improved text in a different style: I’m eager to integrate distinct coaching features from Garmin, Coros, Apple, and Fitbit into a singularly impressive coaching platform that effectively showcases my training endeavors.

The coaching load TL;DR

For those unfamiliar with the concept, my reference point is a numerical value known as coaching load, which is derived by multiplying the duration of physical activity by the intensity of one’s exertion, measured through heart rate. 

A 30-minute, zone-2 or -3 run could potentially earn you 60 coaching points (30 x 2), whereas a leisurely two-hour walk might only yield 40 points (120 x 0.33). A 15-minute observation exercise could potentially yield 150-200 points, depending on your level of engagement.

While various manufacturers employ distinct approaches to calculate load, they also utilize unique multipliers and heart rate zones tailored to their specific brand. I completed a 10-kilometer run while simultaneously wearing four wearable devices; despite nearly identical heart rate and GPS tracking data, my coaching load scores ranged from 130 to 220, with distinct values for each device: 130, 140, 160, and 220. The perceived quantity seems unbalanced. 

Why does it matter, then? As a consequence, they assess the cumulative impact of their weekly exercise ratings against their four-week average to determine how they stack up. To maintain optimal performance, you must constantly ensure that your daily workload matches or exceeds your long-term capacity for sustained effort. The success of your training regimen hinges not on the specific weight you lift, but rather on whether that weight represents an increase from previous sessions, as long as it doesn’t lead to overtraining and burnout.

Garmin may accurately capture your daily activity, tracking every step taken and workout completed. It will likely provide a general idea of your overall weekly training volume, serving as a helpful reminder to balance hard days with recovery ones. However, it may also mistakenly assume that more is better, pushing you to overreach or ignoring the importance of easy days and rest.

Garmin provides personalized guidance by informing users whether their current workload is “optimal” for fitness improvements, utilizing a coaching load ratio that assesses both their weekly and monthly averages. While I particularly want to coach my load and focus.

Beneath my coaching schedule, I find a graph that breaks down my four-week training program into three categories: high-intensity exercises, moderate-intensity exercises, and low-impact exercises. 

Typical operating knowledge is something that cannot be learned by operating laboriously every time.

To boost overall well-being, we suggest incorporating “conversational tempo” exercises in low-intensity cardiac zones to improve cardiovascular health, focusing on sustained effort at moderate intensity. Additionally, max-effort sprints can be effective for burning anaerobic energy and enhancing muscular endurance when the body cannot quickly adapt to oxygen demands.

Garmin’s graphs alert me when my cardiovascular or anaerobic “scarcity” levels are low, prompting me to adjust my coaching load accordingly – a strategy that diverges from the manufacturers’ recommendation to push for maximum load. Over the past year, I’ve been able to boost my VO2 max from 46 to 51.

One primary concern I have regarding Garmin’s training load focus is the disproportionate emphasis placed on heart rate. When exercising at a moderate intensity, my resting coronary heart rate increases to approximately 60 beats per minute during a three-mile jog within my target zone 2 range. Currently, I completed a six-mile run, with the first three miles done at a moderate pace (zone 2) and the subsequent three miles covered in zones 3-4, resulting in an overall excessive cardio load.

According to the Garmin Forerunner team, each run is thoroughly examined from start to finish to identify its primary classification. While they divide the exercise’s intensity into anaerobic and aerobic components, we won’t further segment it into high- and low-intensity cardio segments.

Following my inquiry about possibly “contemplating calculating and splitting up load focus primarily based on mile splits or different standards,” I received a brief reply: “We’ve considered it.”

Their response left me with little optimism, but I envision a utopian scenario where Garmin distributes coaching loads into bite-sized portions rather than focusing solely on averages. By incorporating a brief warm-up and gradually increasing intensity, I might jog for just a few miles before finishing with a high-intensity aerobic mile, enjoying the rush without compromising the overall effectiveness of my earlier self-control.

I’m also doubtful about the effectiveness of Garmin’s anaerobic/breakdown separation, considering its limitations. Last month, I completed a half-marathon where I primarily operated in zones 3 and 4; however, I consistently exceeded 90 percent of my maximum heart rate for much of the final thirty minutes. I achieved an anaerobic training effect at the end, solely due to excessive cardiovascular activity.

In the wearables market, three prominent brands – Apple, Fitbit, and Coros – have garnered attention for their innovative products, but also faced criticism for perceived shortcomings.

My innovative coaching platform leverages the cutting-edge technology and expertise of Garmin at its core. Notwithstanding my reservations, I appreciate the app’s emphasis on structured coaching loads and daily prompts for exercises that adapt primarily to your preference for either increased anaerobic or low-aerobic intensity. Let me borrow some insights instead: I’d examine the challenges faced by Coros, Apple, and Fitbit/Google in their respective wearables spaces, then tailor a solution to our unique needs.

With my Vertix 2X, I no longer have to worry about averages. Each running program allocates its coaching responsibilities across three categories: straightforward, moderately demanding, and complex. When examining the four-week depth distribution graph, its accuracy becomes immediately apparent. With the monthly Tempo Zone Distribution graph, you receive additional granularity by splitting actual load totals across each heart rate zone.

What prevents me from using COROS more frequently is the lack of guidance. Garmin’s “optimum” training intensity guidelines are a distinct advantage, as they automatically adjust workout prescriptions based on individual performance, in contrast, COROS gives users the freedom to define their own coaching loads, unfettered by predetermined norms? As a proactive step towards overcoming potential challenges, I am seeking supplementary guidance to ensure the optimal outcome.

I cannot comment on confidential business matters. Google publicly disclosed details about its Fitbit acquisition at the Made by Google event, indicating that Fitbit’s calorie burn tracking is based on logged exercises and basic physical activity.

While other health watches focus exclusively on tracking training load when “training,” Fitbit doesn’t draw a distinction; you can record training load at any time your heart rate spikes above normal, regardless of the activity. While some individuals might prefer additional oversight to alleviate coaching responsibilities, others may appreciate recognition for consistently completing tedious tasks or taking short breaks, such as walking their dog for 10 minutes. Little issues add up.

Apple’s latest coaching load graphs, featuring 7- and 28-day metrics, appear to be an encouraging innovation, making them potentially appealing to casual athletes seeking guidance. While they may lack the precision of Garmin or Coros offerings, their accessible design suggests a thoughtful approach to athlete engagement.

I appreciate how Apple allows users to personalize their workout experience by adjusting the coaching load impression based on the exercise’s intensity, scored from 1-10. Recently, I’ve noticed that Garmin consistently underestimates my hiking route’s distance due to my consistent heart rate, despite my tired muscles screaming at me from tackling steep inclines. I wouldn’t hesitate to adjust the auto-generated quantities as needed when I’m satisfied with the revised figures.

No one will have any issues getting on board with a well-coached team load. Every entity has its inherent strengths and corresponding drawbacks. But wouldn’t I rather have a slightly imperfect coaching tool than none at all? As more manufacturers adopt this approach, it’s likely to lead to a wave of innovation across the industry, with companies “borrowing” and building upon each other’s ideas.

While committed to using Garmin for the time being, I’ll need to rely on my temporary solution: Complete a run once I’ve finished one exercise type, and then immediately start another high-intensity cardio or anaerobic session? Perhaps one day Garmin will allow me to ease up on constantly tracking my heart rate with such intensity.