The PaaS section seems odd to me too. AWS 63% followed by Vercel 7.9%. But Vercel runs on AWS I believe. Azure just 4.6% and no showing for GCP at all.
Even when it identifies the specific project, it doesn't know C#. I took some scans of some notable CMS websites (so the programming language is provably correct).
ASP.NET could mean a bunch of programming languages and I'm assuming that a ASP.NET Server doesn't disclose that.
It's probably safe to guess mostly C#, but that requires a different metric.
'Tis true. I used to know an absolute ton of big sites that were written in 100% VB.NET ASP.NET. I'd still be writing all my backend in VB.NET if it wasn't a second tier .Net language these days.
The 10% share for ASP.NET among the top 5,000 domains shows that .NET (and therefore also C#) is a very serious player in building web apps and APIs and for good reason. .NET is a solid, fast, secure, and mature technology, and it's only getting better. All other significant frameworks were JS based, which is no surprise to anyone, as a lot of modern sites are built as SPAs.
Opposite experience here. Went from Apple Watch to Garmin, couldn't be happier. Never had an issue with the charging point chafing, it is recessed and no problem. Buttons to start/stop/pause/resume activity work as expected, so much better than trying to swipe and tap the Apple Watch screen especially in wet conditions. GPS sync never been an issue for me, you can start an activity before it syncs and it figures it out.
> GPS sync never been an issue for me, you can start an activity before it syncs and it figures it out.
I’ve had a lot of issues with this, like going running 15 km and it registers only the last 10 km. My workflow now is to put the watch on the balcony while it finds the satellites, and then go out when it’s done.
Never had this happen to me. Admittedly I am in a very rural area, and while I do sometimes get some gps points that are "off" it's generally very fast and accurate. Basically all the errors I've personally run into fall into what I'd consider acceptable margin of error.
Even in heavy tree cover on a remote island for a hike last year. It (Garmin Instinct 2X) was incredibly accurate.
A Garmin watch is absolutely designed for wearing all the time, even when sleeping. You might prefer not to for reasons of appearance or because there are features of some other smart watch that you like, but Garmin is fine for what I use it for and does notifications etc. The battery life was a game changer for me (as an Apple Watch switcher) since it's now something I just don't worry about whereas with Apple Watch it was a daily thing and it let me down on several runs too.
Experience of those race predictions varies! Mine are over-optimistic but not by that much, a friend is the other way round and Garmin continued to predict a slower time even when he actually recorded races in faster times.
I think its more potential, my 5k/10k are quite accurate but my half and full are quite off - which makes sense as they're the distances I train for. It also doesn't take other factors into account like running on track vs road
That makes sense. If you do longer runs (and long fast runs) then your half/marathon time will be more accurate. In general, the issue with using VO2max to priduct race performance is that it doesn't take into account account running economy which is a massive factor in determining performance for longer distances. Same with lactate threshold, which has a big impact on all distances. E.g. at what point do you go from a metabolic steady state to an unsustainable state. It's the most important factor in distance running in my opinion. The threshold can be at quite a slow pace even for someone with a high VO2max if they are not doing the right training. E.g. think of someone who is excellent at HIIT and has a VO2max of 60+ but can't run a fast 10km.
Pretty sure garmin do take other factors into account for their race predictions as they’ll update when your lactate threshold does, even if your vo2max remains the same.
I think you are right regarding lactate threshold but im not sure how they factor in running economy as it's difficult to calculate. You need an accurate VO2 measurement. I guess they use HR as a proxy but in practise I find HR isn't such a good measure of metabolic output for various reasons; hills, unrelated stressors, heat, aerobic decoupling, etc.
Well.. a crude estimate of relative running economy is pace/heart rate and tracking it over time. Seeing the number go upwards means your economy is increasing and vice versa.
A fair amount of people track this because it's a feature of pretty much every training/coaching app.
I have an Apple Watch 7 and a Garmin Forerunner 265. The Garmin gives me a much higher VO2Max. I have no idea which is right but one factor seems to be the max heart rate, which the Garmin calculates but in Apple Watch seems to be fixed based on age unless you set it manually. Reluctant to set it manually as it will change over time and would neeed re-calculating so the Garmin approach seems better to me.
> I have an Apple Watch 7 and a Garmin Forerunner 265. The Garmin gives me a much higher VO2Max.
Realistically, does it even matter? It’s not a usable metric by any means nor is it particularly meaningful unless you’re an elite athlete (and even then, you probably don’t use the metric to tweak your training).
The absolute doesn't really matter (except for bragging rights), but the trend is definitely useful if it accurately follows your form.
Of course, a vo2max doesn't explain everything as an endurance athlete. As a cyclist it has a big correlation to FTP, but there are also different metrics to be good at. Short sprints, recovery after bursts, plain grit for multi-hour rides etc. are all different skills not shown in a single number.
The absolute value does matter for several reasons, but the obvious one that sticks out is in understanding the effectiveness of your training.
Example: if your real max is 60, but your watch says 50, you may be wondering why hard training isn’t increasing it.
Another example: if your real max is 35 but your watch says 45, you may misinterpret the signal when it jumps to 55 relatively quickly after a few weeks of hard-ish work.
Plus, if the value is significantly inaccurate then who knows what else is inaccurate about it? I appreciate that Apple have put effort into making it accurate.
But my point was more that if it shows 45 (but real is 35), and then you work out a lot and it shows 55 (but real is now around 45), it's still useful even though the values are off. As long as the error/bias is the same.
100%. Every semi-serious cyclists would be running a power meter first and foremost (heck even average joes these days because most modern high-end road bikes come with one already). Far easier to do a 20min/ramp test every so often instead of trying to focus on VO2 max.
Yup, but as I said, it's nice to not focus on a single number. FTP doesn't tell how well I can recover after a hill at 120% of ftp, so even though I work on increasing my ftp, it's nice to keep in mind other aspects as well. Both vo2max, but also just how I feel when doing it, how my heart rate is during comparative rides, or even how well I'm fueling.
I just focus on the trend rather than the value. Last year, after being infected by two viruses in parallel my vo2max plummeted from ~55 to 40 in a month. It correlated with how I felt, like 15 years older. It took me six months to get back to 55, and then it stayed around that value quite consistently, viruses or not.
Similar for me, but I've also not really seen my behavior influence it too much. I clearly have better and worse weeks / months, where I might walk at 10min/km and require a 90-95 HR to do that, and worse months where I'll only walk at 11min/km and end up in the 100-110 HR range, but it's not like my exercise levels or weight or nutrition or anything would differ much between the two, they are all very consistent. Likewise when I increase cardio training I don't see any correlated change in VO2max. That also makes sense, as VO2max is famously difficult to train.
I suspect for me and probably many others in the "acceptable fitness level" category the main factor influencing what ends up being reported as VO2max is stress, both physiological and psychological. That correlates real good. At least for me.
In my experience, vo2max doesn't seem to correlate with stress. I've been stressed out for the last few weeks at $dayjob, and my vo2max has been consistent with more relaxed periods (high). How much of a variation do you perceive during stressful periods?
Is it possible you mean 'readings' from the monitor rather than 'lectures'?
If so that would be a very easy translation error to make. ('Readings' and 'lectures' can be synonyms, in the sense of someone knowledgable reading something out loud.) But it could just be me misunderstanding: sorry, if so.
I also have bradycardia, one of the goals for having a good garmin fitness age for me is maintaining sub 46bpm heart rate. So I think it takes it into account
