Just done some testing with it and its looking much better now.
There’s still this case though, where Z5+ < 3%:
I’d say with 72.9% in Z1+2 it should be classed as Base, rather than Threshold.
Hey guys,
I found this interesting debate, and I hope you can clarify a question for me that I have on the same issue. I read this thread thoroughly but did not find an answer yet. So please forgive me if I am missing anything. My question is rather simple, and I hope there is a simple question too.
If my overall training of, say, one season is looked at in intervals.icu, will the classification as “Polarized”, “Threshold”, or “HIIT” be based purely on time spent in zones? Or will the classification be based on the actual purpose of my training sessions?
From your shared code @david I cannot tell if it’s time-based or session-based what the classification is relying on.
One example. If I purely do HIIT sessions, I will still accumulate much more time in Zone 1 (because a typical HITT session is much about coasting along until the next hard but short effort) than in Zone 5 or 6. So If I was looking at time spent in zones, my training is likely to look “polarized” when it is actually HIIT only.
I hope you can answer my question, and I wold very much appreciate a rather simple answer to it.
Keep up all the excellent work @david .
It’s classified based on time in zone.
As you rightly say, the purpose of a session might be HIIT, eg. 4-10 sets of 30s all out efforts, with 8 minutes rest in between. The goal then might result in 10/10 on the RPE scale, as it is only the 30s efforts that count and not 5/10 (challenging).
1 Like
Thank you very much @Gerald for clarifying on this. I must admit, that I hoped for another answer, because of from what I understand, the classification should be based on session count, not on time spent in zones. But maybe I get the whole 80/20 idea of Seiler wrong? Please correct me then.
But I do understand that it would take a lot of additional effort to program an algorithm detecting what purpose any training session serves. But maybe that is worth thinking about?
1 Like
Dr Seiler’s classifying of sessions is based on count, so you do understand it correctly. He has also stated that if it’s TIZ based, then it’s closer to 90/10.
Use the calendar (ACTIVITIES page) to plan your hard and easy workouts based on sessions and let the time in zone just fall into place.
All my short, medium and long term planning is all structured around basic principles of training. Adjustments (fine tuning) is then done based on how life happens. The planning always starts with the known requirements for the week/block coming up, and the balance is filled in to top up the volume/intensity.
3 Likes
Thanks again for your knowledgeable answer, @Gerald . I do not use the tool to plan my workouts but to monitor what I do on the bike. I use Wahoo SYSTM training plans most of the time and made good progress in the past. The overall training is categorized as “Pyramidal,” which seems to be what the Wahoo guys aim to do. So all good from my perspective.
Anyway, for the upcoming winter, I plan to give “Threshold” another shot, but that’s another topic.
1 Like
You will probabaly be intrested in this:
1 Like