Rucking activity and trail running with backpack
-
@maszop The difference to all of those (except elevation) is that the rucksack is a predictable, constant, easily measurable factor over the duration of each such activity. And Suunto is already using weight as a factor as @Adrian.S describes.
Elevation has Naismith’s rule or alternatives. No idea how/if Suunto already incorporates similar.
Your other factors are also relevant but extremely inconvenient to measure (bucket, anemometer & pitot beanie?), variable between activities (marshes expand/contract) and/or subjective (“cold”, “difficult”).
-
@Adrian.S Garmin is now starting to roll out rucking as an activity type. If Suunto has “mermaiding” it should certainly have rucking haha. Just a classification as a sport activity. It could be barebones and literally just be an activity type without further consideration. But rucking is different than walking. Rucking is different than hiking (unless you are carrying a weighted pack). I don’t see how a growing sport/activity couldn’t just be added. If you have mermaiding, you need rucking LOL.
-
@ROBMONTGOMERY I totally agree.
-
@ROBMONTGOMERY Just make a custom sport mode from hiking or trekking and call it rucking…don’t see an issue here. Your hr will increase with more weight so that should be reflected in the CTL/ATL/TSB calculations. There is no need to add extra weight.
-
@Brad_Olwin So, if weight is irrelevant, why to put any number to the user profile?
-
@Lazyjones weight is most likely used in calories calculations / daily calories, besides that probably not much else.
-
@aiv4r For me activity is all about energy. I need to know how hard was the training, and energy is just physics: mass, time and distance. Everything else is bonus I can ignore, like HR
Of course HR tells something about my athletic changes over the time and about unmeasured factors like wind, ground resistance, etc. but I can live without it easily
On the other hand… sleep tracking is nice and recovery data, but still - neglecting weight we carry during activity is horrible mistake imo. -
@Lazyjones but energy expenditure is based mostly on HR, the harder you work (based in HR) the more energy is needed. Burned calories is probably very innacurate anyway, so adding removing 20kg would still be quite inacurate. The most important measurement looking for intensitity and effort is HR. And as it was mentioned already the bigger your backpack - the more hard you will work (meaning HR will be higher)
-
@aiv4r I’m sorry, but no. HR has literally nothing to do with energy. Nothing.
If you train good enough, after some time you will increase strength and will do greater work with the same HR as before. So HR is the same, but energy is bigger. Simple. -
@Lazyjones not in a mood to argue, but I hope you are aware that if your logic is correct, any watch has 0 chance to calculate anything, except time. Because only thing that watch can count with precision is HR and time
And just an example: when you become fitter and stronger, the same acticity requires less energy to be completed - therefore HR is lower while doing the same thing.
-
@aiv4r What??
Quite opposite. Watch can precisely measure only time and distance (+ elevation) and if you set weight - the energy. HR is the least precise measured thing.
Energy is energy and is not dependant from you. It depends on weight, distance and time.
However I must agree: for all sports where you can not measure the work (yoga, weight lifting, dancing and hundreds more :), you must rely on HR)
I just realized how much I’m biased with bike riding.
Cheers. -
@Lazyjones i think we might be talking about different things. Enegry Expenditure vs Power/Strength needed. Lets leave it at that it is complicated. Cheers
-
@aiv4r Yeah.
I’m sure I’m right about physics, but… also I fixed myself on GPS related activities too much. For all other sports there’s no escape from HR as indicator, you are right in this case.
