Discussion: Not reading

until it’s in LaTeX

Yeah knew this was coming, and I really wanted to do it in LaTeX but decided time was an important factor and I'm still somewhat slower writing in LaTeX

Pedley that was a lovely read, please investigate something else now

You should maybe do some research into the validity of the Borg scale...

Yeah probably, but it's a useful comparison and couldn't find anything better in the time available. I think I'll leave further research til after exams

A very insightful investigation, a fine piece of work!

Appreciate the effort Pedley, but I do have a couple of querys. Aren't attackpoint intensity 100% hear rate/aerobically based? The number is out of 5 which corresponds to heart rate zones stated by Jack Daniels and not to this "Borg (bullshit) Scale." If it does relate to this scale then why is it only 0-5 not 6-20. Furthermore, there are many things in life that we could "perceive as excision" (Going for a big shit / mowing the lawn / eating some spicy food) and yet we do not log on attackpoint, why not? If the attackpoint scale used the Borg scale then in theory we should log this?. In addition to this, carrying out activities such as walking, shitting, eating spicy food, arguing, being stressed, watching a scary film etc the list goes on; we do not go on to log any of these activities on attackpoint despite the likelihood being that the heart rate data and perceived excision would be reminiscent of that when one is partaking in S&C. So I think the Borg scale of perceived exercion should be disregarded. Secondly, would you log walking or mowing the lawn etc on attackpoint, because your hear rate data would most likely show similar trends to that of S&C no? S&C is no more aerobic than mundane activities carried out day to day and therefore it should not be logged as an aeroboic intensity on attackpoint. Otherwise @attackpoint punters will be spoilt for choice.

*realise I probably repeated myself quite a lot.

Also the bottom end of Jack Daniels intensity 1 is 65% of max heart rate, which I am guessing for you would be 120-130? and that is the bottom end of the scale, with your heart rate only briefly breaching this bottom threshold.

Really appreciate the feedback. In response to your first question: Are they? This is one of the key questions. If you want to stick to Daniels then I = 5, T = 4, M = 3, E = 2 makes sense, and so Daniels' 65% would perhaps be the bottom end of zone 2? Nonetheless, if the intensity scale is used purely for aerobic training, and if this is deemed stop at 65% MHR, then you should log S+C as a 0. I do not know where Daniels got the number of 65% from, some science around this number would be great to see.

Some may suggest that training for orienteering encompasses other aspects, not just aerobic, but which also depend on intensity e.g. the lactate buffering/clearing system and muscular endurance type stuff. It is up to each person what they choose to stick to. This may boil down to the difference between training for orienteering vs pure running for some.

The Borg scale is not central to my report and you may have misunderstood; I never stated that it defines attackpoint intensities in any way. For 2 - 5 Daniels is clearly far and away the better system. Borg is merely used for comparison. Yes, you may consider it bullshit but some evidence would be appreciated. Reports on its (in)validity can be read here, here and here.
The guy has done significantly more research than any of us.

And thanks r.lil, that's made my day

At the end of the day Peds, why is there an intensity 0 if its not there for use? I guess you could argue stretching and rolling but in general I think if you’re not getting any aerobic benefit from it, then it should be logged as 0. That’s just my opinion though.

Yep fair enough, that's completely fine. In my opinion, it comes down to how much effort is put in e.g. last summer I logged my 10mins of daily core as a 0, but now am logging EUOC core as a 1 since lactate, sweat and fatigue etc are more significant.