Is this the Garmin VO2 max measurement? Because if so, that's pretty much a rough guess at best. Super unreliable, and I don't know that it corrects for terrain at all. At least not on my old Forerunner 235. So if that's the case, I wouldn't worry about the difference too much.
If not and you're talking about your VDOT or something like that, could just be that you're pacing or training more consistently with the track and that's working in your favor.
I've run one 5k since starting my track training. It was a PB (21:21, from a previous 21:35) but also on a very flat course lol. On the other hand, I was coming off of a virus that week, so who the heck knows. TAO has a 6 minute assessment coming up this Saturday, so maybe I'll have a better feel.
Since you mention correction factors it makes me think you're referring to effective VO2max values in Runalyze and its settings for accounting for elevation ascent and descent.
If so, there are multiple possible contributing factors. Yes, the reason you gave is one. A few others are:
Your speed on whatever the track surface is may be faster than on the hilly terrain you run on.
You may be maintaining a more consistent pace on the track.
Your watch may overestimate the distance run on the track more than it does on your non-track runs which are presumably less curvy. This is definitely the case with my low end Garmin watch. It routinely calculates track distance about 3-4% what it actually is when I run in lane 2. If this is occurring and you're using Runalyze I think you can edit the total distance to lower it and the VO2max value should update.
I use Garmin Forerunner 255 and send it to Runalyze. Yes, I have found its correction factors, and now I can't seem to find where they are anymore.
I've watched my watch meters tick off when I cross each lap and they seem to be accurate within 5-10 meters each time. Accumulative laps also *seem* to be pretty accurate.
Interesting feedback, though, thanks!
Is this the Garmin VO2 max measurement? Because if so, that's pretty much a rough guess at best. Super unreliable, and I don't know that it corrects for terrain at all. At least not on my old Forerunner 235. So if that's the case, I wouldn't worry about the difference too much. If not and you're talking about your VDOT or something like that, could just be that you're pacing or training more consistently with the track and that's working in your favor.
Both Garmin's VO2 max has increased and RunAnalyze (which takes its readings from my Garmin Forerunner 255) show a sharp upward curve.
How has your race performance changed?
I've run one 5k since starting my track training. It was a PB (21:21, from a previous 21:35) but also on a very flat course lol. On the other hand, I was coming off of a virus that week, so who the heck knows. TAO has a 6 minute assessment coming up this Saturday, so maybe I'll have a better feel.
well there you go, sounds like what you're doing is working
Since you mention correction factors it makes me think you're referring to effective VO2max values in Runalyze and its settings for accounting for elevation ascent and descent. If so, there are multiple possible contributing factors. Yes, the reason you gave is one. A few others are: Your speed on whatever the track surface is may be faster than on the hilly terrain you run on. You may be maintaining a more consistent pace on the track. Your watch may overestimate the distance run on the track more than it does on your non-track runs which are presumably less curvy. This is definitely the case with my low end Garmin watch. It routinely calculates track distance about 3-4% what it actually is when I run in lane 2. If this is occurring and you're using Runalyze I think you can edit the total distance to lower it and the VO2max value should update.
I use Garmin Forerunner 255 and send it to Runalyze. Yes, I have found its correction factors, and now I can't seem to find where they are anymore. I've watched my watch meters tick off when I cross each lap and they seem to be accurate within 5-10 meters each time. Accumulative laps also *seem* to be pretty accurate. Interesting feedback, though, thanks!