Yeah, to a point this leads me to what I used in my own personal 3-point “effort” rating system that I used for years before AT.
1 - Low: This was a rating for many Endurance workouts under 2 hours, and any workout that felt easier than expected. In some cases, I might have adjusted my planned workouts to be a tad harder if I was expecting a 2 - Medium.
2 - Med: This was my typical rating for a challenging workout, but one I completed fully with no “cheats”. This usually meant a “hard” workout (like Thresh, VO2, Anaerobic) went as planned, so no change in planning.
3 - High: In my system, I used this for super hard workouts or “fails”. This likely lead me to consider adjusting my plan.
- TR’s system uses it (5-All Out) in the Pass survey, and has a separate “Struggle” one.
- So when I use “5 All Out” now, it is because the workout smashed me and left me in a heap afterwards.
In a way, a simpler system with 3 basic outcomes:
- No change in planning, or a slight increase in difficulty if a “hard” workout was “too easy”.
- No changes, steady as she goes.
- Likely changes to decrease difficulty in the near term.
What TR seems to have now is a lopsided bias (2 as the middle in their scale), that may well be leading to limited or slowed adaptations for people that are judging workouts based on “feel” given the rather short words/definitions we were given (and a potential 3 middle). The additional “gray areas” that the 5 point system added from my 3 point version only muddy the waters IMO.