I’m currently training for Ironman Copenhagen in August and I’m using Athletica to structure my training (I have created the plan 2 days ago, but have been training for 3 months already).
I’m running into an issue with training zones that I can’t seem to resolve.
I’ve entered my threshold values in Athletica, but the zones that are calculated are completely off.
For example, Athletica sets my Zone 2 upper limit around 160 bpm, while based on clinical lab testing, my Z2 actually goes up to ~172 bpm, with a max HR of 207/208.
Because of this, it feels like most of my workouts are being misclassified, and I’m concerned that this will negatively impact the quality of my training. To be honest, this is currently the main reason I’m considering dropping the app, although it looks really powerful.
In parallel, I’m doing the testing week this week, but if I understand correctly, Athletica will again base the zones on my threshold values — so I expect the issue to remain.
A few questions:
Am I misunderstanding how Athletica calculates zones?
Is there a way to manually override or fine-tune zones to match lab-tested values?
Has anyone else experienced this and found a workaround? Because I really don’t get why they don’t have that option.
Worst case: how would you handle this situation?
And if you ended up switching, which alternative platform would you recommend for Ironman training?
Hello, i have exactly the same problem. The answer i got from the support is it’s normal.
You can of course manually increase your threshold HR which would also increase your Zone 2 limit.
RHR 54, max HR 198. Garmin zone 128-139, 140-156, 157-167, 168-181, 182+
Athletica zone : 87-125, 125-143, 143-160, 160-177, 177-187.
Application wants me to run in zone 1 way too much and it’ also a mess all the time.
I’m running slower than before, and now my zone 4 run is harder than before. To be honest i will just start ignoring the app for the running HR (or use the pace).
To be honest, I regret buying a one‑year subscription. I feel stuck with this app while the plan itself is shaky. The AI is useless and doesn’t adapt the plan at all.
Example from today: running uphill in Z2 — the AI says it’s normal to run slower. → zero adjustment to the pace, guess what ? coach not happy
It’s only Tuesday and I already have a warning saying I should adjust my sessions because I’m at risk of overtraining. Yet the plan doesn’t adapt anything (even though it’s the same plan that generated the warning).
It’s impossible to set up a training plan with a limited number of hours without going through support (apparently to train for a 70.3 you need between 12 and 18 hours a week, even if you just want to enjoy it and aren’t aiming for a podium).
On top of that, you absolutely can’t trust the paces/zones since the AI uses zones pulled out of nowhere. I’m really disappointed. Add the fact that we are beta testing the app since the last 2 months…
Hi @Dafftt and @maporcin, appreciate you both raising this (and yep, I hear the frustration).
1) On the zone mismatch (Garmin vs Athletica)
Garmin and Athletica are not always using the same zone model or the same inputs to set zones (and that can create big-looking differences even when your underlying fitness hasn’t changed). Garmin zones can be based on max HR, LTHR, HRR, and Garmin’s own smoothing/assumptions. Athletica zones are anchored to the threshold values we have on file in your Athletica profile (and the method chosen there). https://athletica.ai/from-lab-to-watch-athleticas-complete-field-testing-playbook
So the first thing we want to confirm is: When did you do your last test?
2) Should you “just manually raise threshold”?
verify the threshold input, or re-test / re-estimate it properly.
3) Subscription pause request
Please send us an email. We’ve offered a free months via email we sent earlier.
4) Next step so we can fix
@maporcin — if you’re open to it, send an email and I’ll have a look at your profile again.
I have the same issue. Did clinic testing two weeks ago and added the new threshold in Athletica, which caused the zones to be off by a lot. I then played around putting different number in the threshold until the zones where in line with the outcome of the clinic test. Not sure if I should prioritize the correct threshold or the correct zones though? Any suggestion?
Despite agreeing with everyone that the use of the app since the update is kind off buggy and annoying at times, I still really enjoy training with it and I also believe Im doing progress, just by sticking to the plan.
I have two friends that also train for their first ironman (70.3 & 140) and we all have plans from different sources. Seeing their workouts and comparing what they are doing compared to the Athletica plan gives me some assurance. If I didnt have that, I would probably stress a bit more, as this is will be my first ever ironman 70.3.
Other than that I really enjoy the app, talking to the AI Agent, reading the summaries or my recovery status in the morning, think thats so cool. I’d love to see some updates to the app in the future e.g. being able to see the star marked sessions on my mobile app and not just on desktop.
Athletica suggest zone 2 runs lower than 130 bpm, which is very hard to keep. Yes I can, but it is not very fun. Athletica considers my zone 2 ending at 130 while Coros at 141. Maybe is because i’m new here (first workout yesterday), but it seems concerning. At least for the fact that when i push my “easy runs” or aerobic runs to my watch, it will beep every time I overcome the 130 … So. I was considering a 6 months subscription, but starting to hesitate.
So, after the MAF test are your zones set correctly, or at least zone 2? The AI didn’t plan tests for me (maybe because I set as objective a race soon to be in 3 weeks).
