Sunday Runday
In this weekly column, Android Central Wearables Editor Michael Hicks delves into the realm of wearables, applications, and fitness technology linked to running and health, as he strives to enhance his speed and fitness.
Last week, my new Garmin Forerunner 970 warned me against running due to my nearing weekly tolerance. Unfortunately, I learned firsthand what transpires when you dismiss Garmin’s insights.
After experiencing a drop of around 40 miles from my regular mileage in May, I aimed to make a comeback in June by increasing my steps and distance. I kicked off June by participating in a half marathon while sporting Ray-Ban Metas, followed by another challenging, hilly run with a local running group for Global Running Day.
By the conclusion of my 7-mile run, I had fallen behind the group and felt weak with a tight right hamstring. A review of my watch revealed I had indeed surpassed my body’s running tolerance.
Desperate to breathe life into my fitness journey, I embarked on a low-aerobic jog a couple of days later once my training readiness score improved somewhat. This turned out to be a mistake: Though my heart and lungs felt fine, my hamstring virtually collapsed on me, and I ended up limping home. After a week of recovery and a hectic travel schedule at an XR convention, I found myself back at square one.
The situation provided me with two valuable lessons: Garmin’s estimate of running tolerance is legitimate, and I sincerely hope it does not remain exclusive to Garmin’s $750 running watch like many other “premium” features.
Understanding Garmin Running Tolerance
According to Garmin, Running Tolerance assists in identifying potentially harmful training patterns and helps you manage the impact of running on your body as you strive to build and maintain mileage.
This feature builds on acute load—the impact of your training from the past week—which most Garmin Forerunner models capture. However, this metric emphasizes excess post-exercise oxygen consumption (EPOC), rather than the biomechanical load.
Running Tolerance makes a change by accounting for various factors such as weight, speed, intensity, ground contact time, cadence, and significant ascents and descents during each run.
The objective is to monitor the “force applied by the ground on your body.” For instance, a fast downhill run might be “three times more demanding than an easy run on flat terrain.” You might not recognize this, since the run felt manageable for your lungs.
Garmin assesses your acute impact load miles against your running tolerance using your recent running data. It alerts you if you enter a “cautionary state,” warning you to be mindful of potential injury or burnout.
This metric is distinct from Garmin’s usual post-run recovery estimate, as it considers more than just your cardiovascular system. This context is crucial for runners!
Of course, many dedicated runners will exercise better self-control than I did and heed their body’s signals to stop. However, running tolerance provides essential insight for anyone looking to elevate their training.
Newer Runners Benefit More from This Feature than Veterans
Garmin’s approach with wearables involves restricting certain software features, like offline maps for the Forerunner 970 while the 570 lacks it, or how the Forerunner 165 utilizes training load data in the background yet doesn’t let you see the widget. They incentivize users to pay more for enhanced tools.
And while Garmin may dictate that premium models like the 970 and Fenix 8 have access to maps, real-time stamina, Strava Live Segments, and endurance scores, we have to accept this reality.
However, running tolerance is specifically meant to avert injuries by indicating to individuals who are unaware of their limits. I’d argue this aspect is crucial for beginners or casual runners who could easily injure themselves, by revealing how the impact of a run can greatly outweigh the miles covered.
Will casual runners invest $750 in a running watch? Probably not, nor should they! Not until they reach a level that maximizes the features’ utility. Yet running tolerance does not strike me as “advanced”; it feels essential.
I regret ignoring my running tolerance data, but at least I received a warning. Other Garmin watch users might not have that context. Thus, I hold out hope that Garmin’s running tolerance concept will eventually extend to more models, aiding individuals in avoiding injuries!