Garmin Scales

Sea_Shell

Thanks for that info.

Have you ever "tested" them by, say, weighing yourself twice and drinking a large glass of water in between?  Or before and after going for a P.

Did it give different figure for water / fat percentages?   

What about if you weigh yourself holding an inanimate object, like a 1kg dumbbell, does it show different % then.

I do wonder about the claims that these "smart" scales make to be able to measure these things. 

Grumpy_chap

Sea_Shell said:

Have you ever "tested" them by, say, weighing yourself twice and drinking a large glass of water in between?  Or before and after going for a P.

No, but there's always a first time.
In fact, having just done this, I recall I did do something similar once before but gave up at the warning messages about being an incorrect data set.  This time I just over-rode those as being me.

Here is what I did:

• Weighed a carboard box we have in the hallway. 7.45 kg
• Weighed myself normally 
• Weighed myself holding the cardboard box.

Here is what happened between my two weigh-ins:

• Weight moved by 7.55 kg UP
• BMI UP
• Body Fat% UP
• Fat-Free Weight UP
• Subcutaneous Fat% UP
• Visceral Fat UP
• Body Water% DOWN
• Skeletal Muscle% DOWN
• Muscle Mass UP
• Bone Mass UP
• Protein% DOWN
• BMR UP
• Metabolic Age UP

This is a rather non-scientific test but I would say that all the changes were in the direction I would expect

Sea_Shell

Would fat % go up though if more of "you" is made of cardboard?!? 😉

I'd have thought it should reduce 🤔

Grumpy_chap

I think the movements are broadly as would be expected.
The scales measure resistance from the right leg to the left leg (or vv).
All the box has done is increase weight while everything else measured has stayed the same.  The scale now thinks the current has passed through a greater mass of me than without the cardboard box, so that gets interpreted as fat.  The scale cannot tell that I was just holding a box in my left hand and not that I developed an instant beer belly.

These might help explain:
https://www.bestbuy.com/discover-learn/how-do-scales-measure-body-fat-and-are-they-accurate/pcmcat1657566621672#:

https://www.healthline.com/health/body-fat-scale-accuracy#how-they-work

While the scales may not be 100% accurate, they give a base-line for monitoring your changes.

Grumpy_chap

It seems impossible but another new month has started already.

I realised that I did not do a 5k run once in the whole month of August so got back to Park Run on Saturday and my time was one-and-half minute behind my target, so really quite off pace.  I was able to maintain pace for the first 2K but then dropping back.  Maybe that is to be expected after a whole month of no running.

My resistance training was quite effective I feel for the month of August, but that does not have a simple metric to monitor against, unlike the running

strawb_shortcake

Have you tried hill sprints? This is something I want to try to build up my running/jogging capacity. 

I think I'm the world's slowest runner, and got into the habit of 2 miles rather than 3 but I can't seem to get any quicker, I'm only aiming for a 10 minute mile at the moment but really struggling to get under 12.

Grumpy_chap

annabanana82 said:

Have you tried hill sprints? This is something I want to try to build up my running/jogging capacity. 

Maybe some HIIT would be a good idea.

I have just been focusing on trying to drive the time down by progressive overload

Okell

Grumpy_chap said:

annabanana82 said:

Have you tried hill sprints? This is something I want to try to build up my running/jogging capacity. 

Maybe some HIIT would be a good idea.

I have just been focusing on trying to drive the time down by progressive overload

Forgive me saying so, but might that not be the problem?

I haven't followed this thread for a year or so, but would I be right in recalling that you have previously said that a very large proportion of your running training is carried out at relatively high intensity ( > 80% max HR ) and that you are pretty much looking at improving your times every time you run?  (As I say, apologies if I've got that wrong - it's a long time since I last visited this thread.)

I think that somebody pushing themselves to that level of effort might make sense if they were starting from a low benchmark (ie without some sort of progressive overload a beginner will never improve at all) but you aren't at a low benchmark, are you?  Aren't you running 5k in around 20 minutes or quicker?  I'd describe you as a good runner.  I've been running for 50 years and you're definitely better (or at least quicker...) than I am!

I think somebody else (possibly @Sea_Shell?) suggested to you last year that you should significantly change the balance of your training if you want to get quicker. 

The current view is that decent, reasonable runners should be doing approx. 80% of their training at very low intensity (=<70% max HR) and the remaining 20% at high intensity (> 85% - 90% max HR).

What that means is that you draw up a training plan where your sessions are planned as four sessions "easy" followed by one session "very hard".  And keep it like that.  Do not - for example - think that if you are going for a five mile training run that you can run four miles easy and sprint the last mile.  That is not an 80/20 split - it counts as one very hard session.

The benefit of such a regime - apparently - is that it allows you to increase the volume (both mileage and duration) of your aerobic training because it has less physical impact on your body, is less likely to cause injury, is less "draining" and therefore allows you to train more frequently.  This increase in frequency and increase in volume contributes to improving your VO2 max which - in theory - will improve your 5k times.

So every time you go out running (or don't you do most of your running on a treadmill?) forget about running quicker than last time.  On four sessions out of five run slow and easy, but run further and for longer, and then on the fifth session really go for it.

I'm not a great fan of HIIT myself (unless you are really pushed for time**) but I am a great advocate of any interval training at >85% Max HR, and particularly of including hill sprints in interval sessions.  Properly executed hill sprints can improve running form too.

A couple of Youtube channels I'd suggest you might find helpful:  James Dunne - The Worst Part of Running SLOW to Run Faster (NOT WHAT YOU THINK) - YouTube  and The Running Channel - Why Running Slow Makes You Faster - YouTube.

The James Dunne channel is also really helpful with rehab and strengthening exercises and running form.

But now the disclaimer...

I've tried the 80:20 split but it hasn't helped me at all.  I think it works very well for "professional" athletes but not so much for "recreational" runners.  If you are running ridiculously high mileages you want the running to be as easy as possible.  But if the mileage isn't ridiculously high you need it to be sufficiently challenging to allow you to improve.

So when I adopted the 80:20 split I discovered it allowed me easily to run five times a week rather than three or four times; I significantly increased my weekly mileage, and I found the running much easier and much more enjoyable than when I was running at a higher intensity

But I was spending much much more time each week running - and I didn't seem to be getting any quicker.  So the bang for my buck in terms of minutes invested was diminishing rather than increasing  [Edit:  that sounds too negative.  I was disappointed I wasn't getting quicker but I was certainly enjoying my running much, much more than I was when I was always trying a little bit harder.  So that was very good]

But my wife tried it and her times took off!

So why not give it a go?  It didn't work for me but it definitely worked for my wife and everybody else swears by it.  But you do need to persevere with it for three or four months.  Try it over winter and forget about trying to get PBs until into the spring.

** My understanding of the original Japanese research underlying HIIT was that the group that showed the significant VO2 max improvements were still doing the same low intensity endurance training that the control group were doing...    [Edit:  I mention this because some people have seen a bit about HIIT on social media and think it's a way to quick gains - it isn't.  HIIT can significantly increase VO2 max when it's a supplement to boring and tedious slow distance work, but it can't replace it.  The HIIT is the icing on the cake, but there might be more effective - and more tasty - methods of anaerobic training...]

Grumpy_chap

Thanks @Okell
You do seem to have hit the nail on the head:

Okell said:

without some sort of progressive overload a beginner will never improve at all

I was a beginner and I was simply following progressive overload but that has no plateaued.
You've given some good ideas for alternative strategies.
I think my biggest one is to recover the volume of running I do as I've also not been doing enough lately.

Grumpy_chap

Following the summer lull, getting back into regular running is proving difficult.
I have had some success with resistance training so, hopefully, once my aerobic activity level increases I will be able to get some good performances.
Does it work like that?