Last week I shared a tweet in which I was talking about the importance of considering total time spent training when looking at training intensity distribution (% in zones), therefore avoiding to look only at percentages in isolation. As an example, I used my data in the weeks preceding my recent half-marathon personal best. If we look only at percentages, it seems I'm only doing zone 1, but given the high volume, there are more than 80 minutes of Z3-5 per week. A decent dose of high-intensity training.
That's interesting because now your training zones (in %) are similar to the Norwegian Olympic Committee 5 zone model. This model tends to be the one better appropriate for well trained individuals. However, you mentionned using 75/78% % of MHR at the beginning for your top end zone 2. This is more similar to the 5 zone model we see everywhere with Zone 2 below 75% MHR. Your article makes this point pretty clear : 5 zones model is interesting, but the percentages are changing depending on your fitness level, training history...
Really appreciate to read your blog post ! Have you found some correlations between between bigger than usual improvements and new training interventions (examples could be doing more volume on the bike, adding strength training, adding hill reps, fueling more ...) ?
Hi Marco, thanks for sharing the plot of heart rate distribution!
Is this showing the average heart rate for each activity or does it take into account heart rate distribution within activities? (ex. a track workout with warmup + cooldown may have a 150bpm avg heart rate for the activity with spikes of high intensity that are not captured by looking at the average)
Hi Marco, your Substack is really very interesting, congratulations for your extensive in-depth work. I observe and study your data with great interest but I reflected on the fact that I personally mainly participate in trail races and certainly the heart rate zones and metabolic responses are different from road races. Thanks a lot again !
Hi Marco, very interesting article, thank you ! Do you include only running activites in your total amount of training or also lifestyle trainings (commuting by foot or bike, hiking, swimming...) ? Is it important to track this lifestyle activites with wareables ?
Hi Marco,
That's interesting because now your training zones (in %) are similar to the Norwegian Olympic Committee 5 zone model. This model tends to be the one better appropriate for well trained individuals. However, you mentionned using 75/78% % of MHR at the beginning for your top end zone 2. This is more similar to the 5 zone model we see everywhere with Zone 2 below 75% MHR. Your article makes this point pretty clear : 5 zones model is interesting, but the percentages are changing depending on your fitness level, training history...
Really appreciate to read your blog post ! Have you found some correlations between between bigger than usual improvements and new training interventions (examples could be doing more volume on the bike, adding strength training, adding hill reps, fueling more ...) ?
Hi Marco, thanks for sharing the plot of heart rate distribution!
Is this showing the average heart rate for each activity or does it take into account heart rate distribution within activities? (ex. a track workout with warmup + cooldown may have a 150bpm avg heart rate for the activity with spikes of high intensity that are not captured by looking at the average)
Hi Marco, your Substack is really very interesting, congratulations for your extensive in-depth work. I observe and study your data with great interest but I reflected on the fact that I personally mainly participate in trail races and certainly the heart rate zones and metabolic responses are different from road races. Thanks a lot again !
Hi Marco, very interesting article, thank you ! Do you include only running activites in your total amount of training or also lifestyle trainings (commuting by foot or bike, hiking, swimming...) ? Is it important to track this lifestyle activites with wareables ?