iron_mike wrote:
you've touched on one of my biggest pet peeves in this area of sport science, which is that there is a huge range of terms that get used in really sloppy ways. eventually i'm not sure everyone means the same thing when they use these terms, which defeats the whole purpose!
we have a bunch of different models of numbered 'zones.'
we have power, heart rate, and rpe models
we have a bunch of qualitative categories: recovery/easy/steady/solid/tempo/threshold/hard/max/etc
we have lactate as absolute measures or as a % of threshold
we also have, sometimes, paces and heart rates attached to those lactate values
we also have Vo2 max and % ranges thereof
there there are all the sloppy 'threshold' categories like 'aerobic, anaerobic, lactate, ventilatory, etc', and then %s, paces, or heart rates attached to each.
eventually i think the solution is to commit to really unambiguous tech that reliably measures a metric that you're invested in long term, OR, just decide to go with a really simple "easy/medium/hard"-type approach.
the same person can have different definitions ......
For 15km to marathon-distance runners, Pfitzinger prescribes tempo runs of four to six miles at 15km to half-marathon race pace.
For marathon runners, he recommends up to nine miles at between half-marathon and marathon race pace, or a 13-mile run followed by five miles at between half-marathon and marathon pace.
but he is giving a fair description what he means , ie the description is more important than the term.
which is why i dont really care what people say they are doing but care what they actually do and what method they use to define a certain amount of precision to what energy system they want to train ie having a robust calculation ie such as a lab test and for lt1 the talk test which is reliable race data and not using just one parameter such as power, hr or rpe but at least 2 or 3. and then still operate in a certain range depending on how you feel.
your zones are different pretty much everyday so even if you have everybody to speak the same language you need to have a system that can reliably calculate your stress in training , outside training and sleep quality and motivation, mood , weather , altitude , health status and your nutrition divided by general nutrition and fueling of the session. and we are just not there yet, and while its good that we are working on it the now overmarketed so called scientific methods as modern coaching is still nonsense. paolo sousa wrote a nice article on that a while ago what scientific coaching means atm.
and nothing wrong with easy, medium and hard as long to take into calculation your power profile, the distances you race and train and what level you are and the environment. so you do need to individualize what easy moderate and hard you need.