u/adsarelies — reddlx

All the sneezes in movies are fake.

Have you noticed that? It's because if the actor actually sneezes while shooting, and that it's not in the script, they would cut and retake. Why?

We humans sneeze on a regular basis. Why must all characters on the screen never sneeze out of just... being normal human beings?

Ah, I can hear it already. Random events like a sneeze would be a distraction for the audience. Why? You hear people sneeze, the most you would do is say bless you. Less than 5 seconds later you'd probably completely forgotten about that whole event. Why is it that when a character sneezes on screen, everyone will infer some cause and effect that sneeze would have with the central plot? When in real life, you never do that. You'd never ponder if that person who just sneezed is about to die of a horrible disease, or signal the coming of a disaster. It's just a fucking sneeze.

There is no random event in a movie. Everything *has to* have a reason to exist. Every event, even a sneeze, must have a cause and effect, relevant to the plot. Real life is not like that. Some stuff just happens for no reason and have no consequences whatsoever.

Why do we *expect* such "cleanliness" with regards to the plot? It's because we've been *trained* to see everything in movies having a reason to exist. We are taught that Chekov's gun that *must* be used. We are conditioned to expect a squeaky clean, ultra high SNR with the movie's plot and message. Any randomness and happenstance is a blemish that must be removed. And we still call it "realistic".

I think we should as audience tolerate some level of "noise" in the plot. Some things in life just happen with no particular relevance to the plot. Just let it be. Don't think too hard on a sneeze.

I'm riding with a power meter and a watch-based HR monitor. Now, I know what you're going to say about the watch-based HR monitor being not as accurate as a chest strap. I've tested it myself and, at least for me, it's close enough to a chest HRM. And that's besides the point anyway. I also know that the Garmin Connect's estimates are not super accurate either. Again, besides the point.

With those out of the way, I just want to understand how the "primary training effect" evaluations are calculated, because it doesn't quite make sense to me. I've been riding for several years. It's only recently that I find it much more difficult to get out of the "base (low aerobic)" rut. Even in rides that I'm clearly pushing into and beyond zone 3 power for the majority of the ride, it's still getting that evaluation. The screenshot is from a recent ride. Even though it was a short one (9 miles, about 32 mins), i spent less than 12 mins being in z1 and z2.

My question is: is this "Primary training effect" evaluation based on heart rate, power, or a combination of both? I set up both zones using Garmin's own recommendations. I find it harder to push my heart rate up into z4 and above, while my power zones are more even. so I can understand if the calculation is HR-based. But then shouldn't using power data be better, more reflective of my training? I know this estimate in Garmin Connect may not mean much. I just want to understand what it's really looking at.