Use time in pace zones for totals or HR?

1

I am almost done with getting the first version of pace zones out for running. One question I have is should “time in pace zones” rank higher than “time in HR zones” for the purposes of computing totals for time in zones for the week, year etc? This will happen for runs with pace zones done with a HR monitor.

Intervals.icu does elevation correction if the device does not have a barometric altimeter (i.e. uses inaccurate GPS for elevation) and computes gradient adjusted pace. The pace zone times can be taken from the gradient adjusted pace or normal pace. So they should be a good measure even on a hilly run.

I am inclined to give HR priority anyway and only use pace zone times if there is no HR data or the HR data has been flagged as bad.

2 Likes
2

Tricky one. I’ve trained based on both but think I would use HR first in this case

Good work in getting the GAP working. Will be interesting see what it looks like with today’s session.

1 Like
3

I would prefer time in pace zones. I run/ride 7 days a week, and often carry a lot of cumulative fatigue. Somedays my HR just won’t go very high. For example, this morning I ran 14 miles. My HR load was 134, but my pace zone load was 163. It’s not always that far apart, but HR is usually lower.

I just wanted to add, you have made an asskicking website! Thank you!

3 Likes
4

Tx. Would it make sense to use the existing training load priority for this? So the order for time in zones matches what you have chosen for training load? Trying to avoid having to add yet another option.

Screen Shot 2021-06-08 at 21.25.13

1 Like
5

That sounds good to me. Thank you.

6

I actually decided to use a separate option in the end: “Use pace instead of HR for time in zones”. On the sport settings and each activity. Only way to make it work for everyone :slight_smile:

2 Likes