Hi! I am a new user still in the trial phase. Fairly new runner too of 3 years. I have taken 12 weeks off running (focusing on strength training) and feel aerobically quite unfit. My heart rate is at low to mid 130s with the easiest jog pace possible. I can feel I’m past my VT 1 at this HR, and a metabolic treadmill test from last year, when I was training regularly, had my VT1 at HR 125 and an estimated Z2 HR of 119-128.
My question is about Athletica’s Z2 for me - for my runs it is 128-142, but this definitely feels like Z3 for me. However, on my recovery days it has me doing bike at Z2, with a HR of up to 126 (i.e. more like what it feels like it should be for Z2 running). Why is Athletica placing my Z2 HR range so high? My gut instinct tells me if I train at this HR for all my easy runs, I will overtrain/under-recover. As context, I am 48 with an emotionally demanding job, and I recently tested my serum AM cortisol and found it to be above range (I was not running at the time). Thank you in advance for your insights.
(Oh! One more thing! I am in my testing week and did my 5km all-out yesterday, but have not yet done my MAF test - scheduled to do that in 2 days. So…maybe once I have done my MAF 5km, Athletica will adjust my zone 2 to a more accurate level?)
Hi Alyssa,
It sounds like Athletica hasn’t learned your running HRs yet. I would focus on your breathing and the Talk Test for your aerobic work until you get a little more aerobically fit. That means making sure you can easily breathe. You should be able to feel like you can breathe through your nose - unless you have allergies or a cold! Also, you should be able to feel like you can have an easy conversation with someone else about anything except maybe religion or politics.
This means you may have to do some run/walks until you’re able to sustain a run in the easy aerobic endurance zone. That’s okay as well! It takes some time to build up your aerobic base but you’re on the right path.
What other questions do you have?
Thanks so much! Hopefully it will modify my Z2 HR after the MAF test, or after a few more easy runs!
One of ny other questions is: why are there only 3 weeks of base training? After that it goes to “Build”, and seems to include both tempo runs and 30/30 HIIT. I had thought that the base phase would be easy runs until my MAF improved (maybe a few strides once a week). I have been listening to the Athlete’s Compass but haven’t been able to get a handle on the Athletica approach for runners, especially relatively inexperienced ones. I am wary of excess fatigue relative to benefits in the early weeks of training. Thanks in advance for helping clarify this for me.
Also, is there anywhere you can add subjective data the day after, once the AI interpretation of your workout has already been done? I suspect it will be helpful for the AI to know every part of my body feels broken the day aftermy all-out 5k test, ha ha. (I’m shocked how many different muscles are in pain). Or is DOMS extent not considered an informative measure?
Thanks!
We actually talk about the Base and Build periods in Athletica in one of the recent podcasts. Essentially, what I learned is that Athletica works backward from your A event date and starts the Build process at the right time. That “shorts” the base period, in a way. What I do with my athletes, as well as my own training, is take out one of the tempo kind of workout and do that as an endurance workout. You can always reduce the workouts to match how you’re feeling.
As for subjective data, you should be able to click on the workout three dots in the upper right hand corner, click on Add Detail, and add your information there. DOMS is a great subjective response.
PS: It does sound like you’re going pretty hard and you may need to reduce the intensity of your workouts!
I’m seeing a Zone mismatch for running too. My Garmin on the left, Athletica on the right:
They’ve been corrected once, but Athletica moved the numbers back higher. Why?
Hello there,
I am not sure if you have seen this blog post but it’s a good review of how the zones are calculated in Athletica.
The discrepancy in Garmin vs. Athletica might be due to how the zones are calculated in Garmin Connect. Looking at my GC profile for sport specific zones (i.e. running), I can see that the zones can be calculated by BPM, % Max HR, %HRR, %LTHR. I have mine set for LTHR and I set the same value into this as what Athletica has calculated for me.
Depending on how this is setup for your sport, there could very well be discrepancies with Garmin and Athletica.
I hope this helps.
Hey @starcracker,
as @amn2099 kindly points out, discrepancies between the platforms are due to how they are calculated. Athletica’s zones change automatically when your training data suggest a change is needed either up or down, while Garmin is static.
To make these two match, please go to your Garmin Connect in your watch’s user settings and match with Athletica’s.
Also make sure you always use chest strap to measure HR.
Best, MJ
Thanks @amn2099 & @Marjaana . The blog post helped me understand the differences.
In this case I think there might be a bug in the beta Athletica though. The Garmin zones have been calculated from a couple years of my running, and feel about right. The Athletica running zones are 20 bpm higher, no way that I could be “conversational” in Zone 2. Interestingly, my bike & swim zones are right in line with Garmin.
Anyway, I ended up adjusting my Critical HR down so that it matched my Garmin numbers.
We are glad that this helps. You also know yourself the best too.
I am not an exercise scientist, so my thoughts on nasal only breathing is from experience. I believe the ability to nasal breathe at a certain effort/HR response relates to how strong the interaction is between the three processes: immediate (ATP), Glycotic, Aerobic. I think this is where experts talk about what percent of the critical HR is to the max HR for the activity.