A question that keeps coming up about the recent Suunto devices (Ambit line and Traverse) is how you can delete the logbook.
Tag: Suunto Ambit3 manual Page 1 of 2
This may have been a very special case of a question, but it made me notice that I hadn’t shown the waypoint part of the navigation (with a Suunto Ambit) explicitly, especially as it uses either the compass or the GPS.
This is a feature/display that has disappeared from the Suunto Traverse, because it had confused many users, as well as from the Suunto Ambit3 Vertical, where the altitude profile tracking replaces it.
What is Running Performance?
Where the recovery tests analyze heart rate variability to measure stress/recovery, the running performance indicator reflects how efficient one is running compared to one’s (weighted) average-to-date. Reflected in that score is the relationship between heart rate (variability) and speed/pace.
Running performance is related to VO2max (*the* indicator of aerobic fitness, indicating how well the body can transport and use oxygen) as well as running economy (technique and muscular performance) – see at the end of this post.
This running performance indication is only calculated
- in “running” modes,
- in moderate (to high) intensity runs (with HR exceeding 70% Hrmax, at least for some time), and
- when the HR sensor and GPS work without too many errors.
- Also, it only makes sense when running on flat and hard ground.
Soft ground means that more energy is needed to push off, and ascents/descents, of course, also increase/decrease heart rate compared to pace, making the running performance indicated, simply put, dubious.
Altitude measurement is actually taken into account so that ascents/descents should not matter.
However, altitude measurement by GPS alone (on all models except the Ambit3 Peak with its barometric sensor) is not the most trustworthy, and trail running tends to also give problematic results for pace, if the trail is rather winding and makes it difficult for the GPS to measure the pace correctly.
So, if such a move is set up as a “running” sports mode (rather than “trail running”), running performance can still be shown because the watch alone doesn’t recognize the data as actually not very accurate then and there.
However, I’d recommend activating the running performance analysis only in a “track-running” or “running test” mode and, especially, comparing the running performance indicated only for runs on similar, flat, and hard-surface courses.
The running performance actually appears in two different ways, as the current performance during an activity (and its trend) and as the 30-day trend.
Real-Time Running Performance
Running performance can be shown in real time, during a ‘move’ (i.e., while out for training) as a new line of data displaying “diff x%”, the percentage difference between the current running performance and the longer-term running performance.
Instead of just the single current value, one can also get a graph view of the running performance during the current ‘move’. This displays the percentage difference in the top line, the distance covered in the bottom line, and a graph of the running performance’s development, with a dot for each kilometer (mile) of the current ‘move’, in the graph in the middle.
This graph display is particularly interesting as it makes it possible to quickly see the trend in running performance.
Typically, as one gets more tired during a run, heart rate is likely to go up, heart rate variability is likely to go down, running efficiency (form) probably declines, and all of that is reflected in running performance going down as well.
Conceivably, running performance could also trend up, possibly if starting out slow and ‘cold’ and then warming up, getting more used to moving again, and moving more efficiently. More typically, when at a good (and peaking) performance level, it starts out higher (and then goes down).
Flat running performance during a move would (probably) indicate that this run is a really good one at a level that can be sustained easily in terms of both physiological load (how hard it is for you, bodily) and form (how well you keep up an efficient gait, for example).
Setting Up Running Performance Displays
This real-time display of running performance should be included in the default “running” mode of Ambit3 models, but of course (if you aren’t completely new to it, for example), may need to be added to the screens:
Just remember that it has to be a mode for the “activity: running” or it won’t display running performance, and decide if you want the single-line display or the graph display (or both).
As I mention in the video, setting up a display for heart rate, running performance value, and perhaps pace, does make some sense.
The graph view still seems the more useful to me, though.
Running Performance Tracking
The overall score for a run is also shown in the summary view displayed at the end of a run (or viewable in the exercise logbook as long as the move is still stored on the watch, and also displayed in Movescount), and that score is used in the second way that running performance features on the Ambit3:
Running performance cannot only be seen in a sports mode display and in real time, but also in the activity tracking / active recovery displays in the Ambit3’s time mode, showing the 30-day trend.
Here, you can see how your recent (last 30 days’) runs compare to each other and, therefore, how your running performance has been developing.
Understandably, even if it doesn’t look quite so extreme as in my example (which is mainly just based on some initial data – from lactate testing – that confused the analysis), seeing performance trend upwards is a good and motivating thing to have happen, and a downwards trend would, at the very least, provide a good warning that something must be off…
What Does Running Performance Mean?
To go a little more in-depth, a final look at the numbers…
First, another word from Firstbeat:
What’s the thinking behind the running performance indicators? It looks obviously good during a run, to be able to see that one is getting ‘weaker’, okay. But that’s to be expected. How else can it be used best? Periodization and tapering before a race, perhaps? How?
“If you really want to shock your body, i.e. get high training effect, then a big decrease in performance is expected, and a good thing. That’s one example.
It is also a way to assess how your fitness develops in the long term: For example, if you have a weekly 15km running exercise for a marathon with a target pace, then the decrement in performance should get smaller week by week. This is because the same exercise causes a smaller disturbance in your body’s homeostasis (balance state) as fitness level improves.
In addition: if performance level drops fast during the workout it is a sign of upcoming exhaustion.”
Running performance, as mentioned in the introduction, reflects physiological state (cardiorespiratory fitness) as well as running economy. Through that, it is related to, but not directly reflective of, VO2max: If running economy were perfect (a score of 1.0, i.e. the best it could be for you), then the running performance indicated would directly correspond to VO2max; otherwise, it is a product of VO2max x running efficiency.
So, you cannot quite put your running performance number into that table below directly (as the table shows VO2max, which is likely to be lower than your running performance), but it does give an indication of your likely fitness level:
The running performance / VO2max number can also be used to predict race time:
Of course, one should keep in mind that such a prediction is an art at least as much as it is a science. For example, if all you ever run is a 10k, your performance on a marathon or an ultra will most likely be ‘weaker’ than your performance score alone would predict.
If you want to delve deeper, the White Paper from Firstbeat explaining this analysis (and showing the sources that the above tables are based on) is available here as a pdf.
Otherwise, just have fun – and use the tools you have been given well ;)
Time to update my Ambit – or now, really Ambit3 – manual…
An estimation of the recovery time needed after a training session has been a part of the Ambit3 line from the beginning.
In fact, to be exact, post-exercise recovery time was already displayed by the Ambit2 and even the original Ambit. The Ambit3 line, however, added an active recovery estimation/tracking which takes into account not just the stress of an exercise, but also the amount of activity done afterwards.
(This feature is still often mistaken for an activity tracking á FitBit, and it could be implemented like that, but this is not how it is now and how it was meant to be: the data recorded is not ‘translated’ into steps and not stored anywhere it would be accessible once it has been cleared from the Ambit3’s memory. Rather, it is used to tell if you got your rest and recovery after a training session or kept on running around and should take longer to fully recover.)
Recovery Status / Tests
The new recovery tests are something else again:
They analyze heart rate variability, which is a measure of recovery state and stress, to give a physiologically based measure of how well rested one is.
This can be done in one of two ways:
The “Sleep test” requires one to wear the HR strap for the whole night, which can of course be uncomfortable, depending on the person, but is less influenced by factors such as feelings of (mental) stress. It also runs over a longer analysis time, and should therefore be more of an in-depth analytical tool:
The “Quick test” is much faster, taking only 3 minutes, but can be influenced rather more strongly by how relaxed or stressed-out one is. This is why it is recommended that one prepare everything and then do the quick test right after waking up, before even having got out of bed.
At the very least, this is a test that should always be done under the same conditions, not whenever the fancy strikes, or it may end up measuring the effects of an earlier exercise, caffeine intake, or work stress more than one’s actual recovery state – as happened when I turned it on at the end of a day, just to show how it works:
For both tests, the first three tests done of each are used as calibration tests.
For those, when you start the test, your Ambit3 will initially also display “calibration test”) to adjust the technology to individual status.
Recovery Test Results
Even so, the results of the recovery tests can be rather more surprising than seriously enlightening.
Case in point: Me.
During a few weeks of testing, I have hardly ever seen my sleep recovery giving a value above 50%, marking me as constantly “recovering,” even after several days without much physical exercise and with what I felt was decent sleep.
For the same days, the quick tests were only rarely below 50%…
By the way, what the recovery is meant to indicate is the following:
- 0%-20%: “Not recovered” – Rest is recommended, not training.
- 21%–50%: “Recovering” – Easy training is okay, but more not recommended.
- 51%-80%: “Recovered” – Training up to hard intensity / HR zone 3 is okay.
- 81%-100%: “Fully recovered” – All training should be okay.
In this final video, you can see the results from an(other) morning, with an overnight sleep test followed by a quick test. The combination of the two is hardly necessary and also gave the above-mentioned divergent results, but this quick test, at least, was done as it should be and gives a decent result:
With the different results from two tests following on the heels of a each other, it’s a case of “Go figure.”
The two measurements did, however, at least tend to track each other’s ups and downs relatively well, so the trends are probably interesting and useful.
Also, even with the differences, I prefer a measurement done when I want to do it (as with the Ambit3) to the implementation of the recovery check on Garmin’s fenix3, which comes after 6 minutes of an exercise, when I’m already out and doing my training. (And the fenix3 said that my recovery state was only “fair” rather than “good” only once during all my testing, on a second day of mountain training, when I could tell that I was sore anyways. All other days, it was never anything but “good.”)
Interview with Mikko Seppänen, Firstbeat
Seeing these idiosyncrasies, I asked Mikko Seppänen, physiologist at Firstbeat Technologies, to explain further…
Sleep quality testing is being explained as also being a kind of recovery testing, but is much longer-term and gets different results. So, which test is recommended for what user / use case?
Firstbeat: Sleep recovery test always gives a broader insight to recovery state because there are less external interfering factors that influence results AND the measurement period is much longer. That’s why it gives a more reliable result.
Quick recovery test is easy and quick to perform and therefore gives extra value for the cases when night measurement is not the best option:
You may sometimes feel unwilling to sleep with the heart rate belt / you have simply forgot to start measurement in the evening / something unexpected has happened during the night (baby crying) etc…
Sleep quality testing requires that one wears the HR belt while sleeping, which some people will find a disturbance itself… (Why) Is it worth doing so?
Firstbeat: Sleep measurement is definitely worth performing because it gives more reliable results (see the arguments above).
The instructions for the quick recovery test say that it should be done in the same conditions and that it also needs a baseline of tests. Does that mean there is no good use for the QRT to just quickly see how exhausting a (just-finished) training session was or if recovery level is good? (If one compares to Garmin’s fenix3, there one gets a recovery level indication after 6 minutes of a training session using the HR belt – totally different time/use.)
Firstbeat: Using the quick recovery test after an exercise makes no sense because the test is designed to measure the recovery status always in the same condition. This is to help the user to estimate his/her readiness for a coming training session.
Post-exercise condition is always different and the results are associated to fatigue à the harder the exercise, the lower the recovery score. This is because the sympathetic tone is dominating after exercise and consequently, heart rate is high and heart rate variability diminished.
The feature that Garmin has is slightly different: It evaluates “readiness” based on current performance level (measured at the beginning of the exercise) and recent training history (how much and how hard the training in the recent days was). Both Sleep recovery and Quick recovery tests allow the user to assess his/her “readiness” and consequently plan coming workouts already beforehand.
Related to the last, why is there a need for a baseline when other HRV testing seems to be used to give an indication of stress levels from single measurements… What’s the difference in analysis?
Firstbeat: Three “calibration” tests are recommended for both sleep and quick tests and the recommendation is to perform them in a well-recovered state. This allows to scan an “individual recovery scale”, i.e. to find what is the maximum intensity of recovery for that person. After this personal scaling, the future results are more reliable.
What would explain a (rather large) difference between sleep and quick recovery test results?
Firstbeat: One explanation for the differences between sleep and quick tests is that the sleep test is always performed in a calm state whereas interfering factors may appear before or during a quick test. Both test results tell you how recovered you are compared with your best result. So, if you have not done any quick test in a really calm state then all results that you get are slightly overestimated.
But anyway, the quick test is more like a screening tool to, for example, observe trends in recovery state while the sleep test is more like in-depth analysis. AND it is likely that there are differences between the two test results to some degree.
Low sleep score may also be related to heart rate dynamics, e.g. when you have a high heart rate and a training effect (as measured by HRV analysis during the exercise, shown via the PTE) that accumulates quickly. So, you may have individual physiological characteristics related to a high sympathetic tone of your autonomic nervous system. If you usually train with a high intensity and have lots of work stress in addition, that may intensify sympathetic tone and decrease recovery score. Ilnesses and medications also decrease the recovery score.
For users who also use Firstbeat’s Athlete software: How could one – or Could one – use Firstbeat Athlete and the data from the Ambit3 (especially recovery and running performance) in parallel the best?
Firstbeat: Neither of the recovery tests is available in Firstbeat Athlete software. Athlete’s Training coach feature provides added value, for example.
So, if I do a recovery test and it tells me I must be completely stressed out (my average sleep quality value seems to be around 30%…), would you recommend going with that result and not doing any intense training, going with the recommendation given by Firstbeat Athlete’s Coach feature, or just going by feeling? This is where I’m wondering how to best approach all this modern tech ;)
Firstbeat: As you know, Training Coach only measures how you have trained and prescribes coming training sessions based on that. So recovery score does not influence Coach’s training prescription. Training Coach prescribes training sessions safely so that there are more easy/maintaining training sessions than improving (or harder) sessions, which usually allows you to recover adequately, thus allowing your fitness to improve. So I suggest that you could try to follow the coach for some time and see how your fitness (and sleep score) progress!