I don't think I understand PL's and alternates

I thought when looking for a shorter session due to time constraints, lets say from a 90min down to a 60min, all I needed to do was look for a session with a similar PL to the one I was going to do, but now I’m not so sure.

I had Shortoff +4 which is 90min 7.7PL 3sets of 3x3mins at 120% with 4min rests between efforts.

Looking at the 60min 7.7, I can see Spencer +2 which is 60min 7.7PL 1set of 6x3min at 120% with 4min rests between efforts.

To me this looks like the 60min is going to be much easier to complete than the 90 min. The only difference I can see is there is an extended 8 mins rest between sets on Shortoff +4, which you don’t get with Spencer +2 as this is just one set.

I was expecting the 60min efforts to be harder/longer to compensate for the shorter period, what am I missing here?

You get less warmup and less rest between intervals. It looks right to me.

2 Likes

Hey @DO-IT-ALL,

Although these workouts do have a lot in common, Spencer +2 does have a slightly higher IF (.92 vs .90) than Shortoff +4. This tells me that, in some ways, it is a more intense workout and should have a higher Workout Level for the given duration.

There are definitely some cases when comparing two of the 4,500+ workouts in our library that you’ll find that they have similar structures but slightly different WLs due to their calculated Intensity Factors. For some athletes, these similar workouts might not feel super different, but the data is how we make these calculations.

If you’re looking for a 60-minute replacement for Shortoff +4, we’d recommend Spencer +2. :grin:

1 Like

You get less recovery, it is comparable :slight_smile:

1 Like

Thanks, I did Shortoff +4 in the end anyway, as I wasn’t sure.

It was horrible.

Glad that how i thought it worked is correct and you just pick a similar PL on the new workout.

Still not convinced Spencer +2 would be as hard, but do know I’m not at all keen to find out.

1 Like