A Relative Approach to Interval Training

Published: May 26, 2022

Introduction to Interval Training

No matter the sport, athletes must be well conditioned if they intend to perform at their maximum potential. As such, interval training, which allows athletes to condition certain energy thresholds, is a very common approach used in fitness workouts. Targeting certain energy thresholds, or heart rates, allows athletes to improve and maintain both an aerobic and anaerobic base level of fitness.

For the most part, interval training focuses on Metric Sport exercises such as swimming, running, cycling, lifting, throwing, or jumping.  Additionally, for the purposes of this publication, interval training references exercises that utilize a clock to set fixed time intervals for repetitions incorporating various distances and/or weights.

Traditionally, interval training frameworks are structured around a group of athletes as opposed to an individual athlete.  Said differently, a group of athletes participate in a collection of exercises, and everyone starts or repeats the exercise on the same interval. So even though the exercise results may be different by athlete, the time allowed to finish the exercise does not change by athlete.

Furthermore, interval training historically measures effort on a subjective scale. Rarely is an athlete asked before the exercise to calculate the expected outcome based on a particular level of effort.  More often than not, the athlete is asked after the exercise is finished to count their heart beats.

Understandably so, from a coaching efficiency perspective it is easier to have all athletes participate in the same exercises at the same intervals, as well as subjectively measure their own effort levels.  In general for interval training, the athletes are targeting their thresholds and a good coach can subjectively gauge the progress of a group, and individuals, during a single workout or an entire season.

However, the results of Metric Sport exercises and performances are some of the most objective indicators available regarding an individual’s level of fitness. Therefore, this publication will attempt to expand upon the traditional interval training frameworks and incorporate a relative approach to scoring each exercise on an individual basis.

Practice does not make perfect.  Practice makes improvement.  It is under this premise that I believe there is room for improvement in the manner in which Metric Sports are analyzed on an individual athlete level, which means I believe there is room for improvement in an individual athlete’s potential. 

Existing Swimming Training Frameworks

The first workout scoring framework I remember using was the Energy Zone framework, with seven zones labeled: Recovery, EN1, EN2, EN3, SP1, SP2, SP3.  This framework was incorporated into Active Network’s swimming workout module, which my club and high school coach utilized to write workouts that were scored based on presumed difficulty of the energy zones.

The Energy Zone framework ascribes a subjective point value to the exercise line, based on the zone. Additionally, depending on the pool length (SCY, SCM, LCM) there could be an additional boost in point value ascribed to the distance.

I did not pay much attention to the math in high school, more just the final workout difficulty number. Workouts over 150 points were pretty tough due to either being an overall fast workout or an overall long-distance workout, and workouts over 200 points were rare, but always brutal.

But even though I did not focus on the math, I always wondered about why there was only one total difficulty score, even though most workouts were harder/easier for certain athletes. There was not an individual scale, just a universal scale.

When I went to the University of Florida to swim in college, Coach Gregg Troy did not use an interval training framework per workout, but rather he structured his season into weekly modules focused on energy threshold.  For example, early season focused on building an aerobic base and leg strength, so we did a lot of kicking and a lot of yardage at our T-3000 (i.e., aerobic threshold) pace.  For the collegiate season, yardage peaked in late December and early January, then tapered off towards conference championships in mid-February. 

Other swimming frameworks that I have heard about, but never trained with, are:

• Jon Urbanchek’s Color System (which is the most applicable relative framework I have seen)

• Anthony Nesty’s Heart-Rate Plus (“28+++” – Bobby Finke on Brett Hawke Live)

• Ultra-Short-Race-Pace-training (USRPT)

• SWOLF - an efficiency metric that compares strokes and time

• Specific Development Exercises (Herbie Behm tweet)

Before going further, it is important to note that I do not think anything is wrong with these existing frameworks. All have produced successful swimmers, and all understand the importance of targeting thresholds.

However, the one issue nobody (to my knowledge) is addressing is how to objectively measure the results of a workout on an individual basis.  Metric Sports provide the advantage of unbiased truths being told from the times, or the weights, or the distances being produced.  If collected and analyzed accurately, these truths could unlock the secrets toward significant improvement.

How to Add Relative Objectivity to Interval Training

To expand the existing interval training frameworks into a relative view, this publication outlines a calculator that incorporates the objective indicators necessary to assign an individual difficulty and individual score to an athlete’s workout.  For the most part, this calculator will focus on swimming as the Metric Sport exercise, unless otherwise stated.

Given the historical variability in swimming workouts, I understand how it would be difficult to tackle an individual scoring scale.  To do so, you would need the personal records for each workout activity a swimmer may incorporate into their training, including the use of equipment.

That is a lot of data to capture, so ideally a relative interval training approach would work well for a coach ascribing to the Dick Jochums mentality. That is, someone who recycles workouts as benchmarks and checkpoints throughout the season.

According to P.H. Mullen, author of Gold in the Water, Dick Jochums (Head Coach of the Santa Clara Swim Club from 1996-2006) had the following workout structure:

• Four Sets Total = (1) Warm-Up-Set + (2) Kick-Set + (3) Main-Set + (4) Pull-Set

• Within the structure, the same pattern of main sets would recycle with no variation

• He wanted you to constantly compare your best effort versus your previous best effort

Metric Sport performances are like equations.  Which means they can be solved.  With data like historical split breakdowns and tempo patterns, an athlete can calculate their maximum potential when it comes to a Metric Sport performance.  To do so, means an athlete must condition themselves with a tailored focus, which may lack variability but also eliminates waste.

The following example outlines an approach to scoring a Metric Sport exercise using an objective interval training framework. The scenario is two swimmers training at the same effort level and on the same interval.  And while one swimmer is technically faster, that does not mean that swimmer performed relatively better in this scenario.

It is easiest to think of this example in four parts:

1. Using Intensity to Calculate Handicaps and Time Expected

2. Using Actual and Expected Times to Calculate Points and Score

3. Scoring a Single 100 SCY Freestyle Repetition

4. Scoring Multiple 100 SCY Freestyle Repetitions

Part 1 - Using Intensity to Calculate Handicaps and Time Expected

The following words and phrases will be referenced throughout this section and publication, particularly regarding the collection of exercises and the expectations of the results.

• Pool Length: all swimming examples are Short-Course-Yards, “SCY” (i.e., a 25-yard pool)

• 100-Yard Pace: the Benchmark pace being referenced (e.g., T-3000 pace; see “Benchmark”)

• Point Basis: the value of the scale, typically 1.000 points, per repetition per exercise

• Set: a single group of exercises and repetitions intended to be finished in a pre-determined time frame equaling the sum of the Time Intervals; a collection of sets is referred to as a Workout

• Rounds: the number of times to cycle through the entire set of repetitions

• Repetitions: the number of times to repeat the ascribed distance; note, when capturing individual repetition data, it is cleaner to have a row for each repetition

• Distance: the distance, in SCY, of each repetition

• Time Interval: the amount of time assigned to each repetition 

• Intensity: the amount of relative effort expected for a given exercise; is also used to calculate the Handicap and Time Expected (this is akin to Rate of Perceived Exertion)

• Heart Rate: beats per minute estimate based on Intensity multiplied by maximum heart rate

• Benchmark: the reference time for calculating point values (see “100-Yard Pace”)

• Handicap: the amount of absolute time added to the benchmark based on the ascribed Intensity

  • Equation: Handicap = (100% - Intensity) x (Benchmark)

• Time Expected: the amount of absolute time it should take to finish a repetition at an ascribed Intensity effort

  • Equation: Time Expected = Benchmark + Handicap

• Actual Time: the amount of absolute time it does take to finish the repetition, presumably at the ascribed Intensity effort

  • Equation: Set Score = Actual Points / Expected Points

All the phrases above are intended to be straightforward, except for Intensity. Intensity is the amount of effort expected to be given in an exercise. When using a relative approach, the Intensity needs to be objectively referenced against a Benchmark.  For swimming, the Benchmark could be a T-3000 pace, which is the average split for a 100 from a 3,000 (30 x 100) yard swim.

Said differently, if an exercise requires an Intensity of 90% effort, there will be a calculated expectation of what time 90% effort should produce so an athlete can estimate and then measure their result.

To calculate the Time Expected for an exercise, first the Intensity is multiplied against the Benchmark to create a Handicap.  The Handicap is then added to the Benchmark to determine the Time Expected.

Part 2 - Using Actual and Expected Times to Calculate Points and Score

The following words and phrases will be referenced throughout this publication, particularly regarding the calculations of points and scores.

• Unadjusted Expected Points: no matter the exercise, for a single repetition the Expected Point value is equal to the Point Basis value

  • Equation: Expected Points = Point Basis value (typically 1.000 points)

• Unadjusted Actual Points: the point value of a single repetition scored by the relation of Time Expected and Actual Time

  • Equation: Actual Points = Point Basis - [(Actual Time – Time Expected) / Time Expected]

• Interval Degree of Difficulty (IDoD): the difficulty of the Interval relative to the Benchmark

  • Equation: Benchmark / Time Interval

• Adjusted Expected Points: the Expected Points value discounted for adjustments; in this case the Interval Degree of Difficulty is the adjustment

  • Equation: Adjusted Expected Points = Unadjusted Expected Points x IDoD

• Adjusted Actual Points: the Actual Point value discounted for adjustments; in this case, the Interval Degree of Difficulty is the adjustment

  • Equation: Adjusted Actual Points = Unadjusted Actual Points x IDoD

• Set Score: the relative result of comparing the Actual Points with the Expected Points; note that while the absolute value of the Unadjusted and Adjusted Points might vary, the relative value of the Actual and Expected points remains the same, whether adjusted or not adjusted for the Interval Degree of Difficulty

If a swimmer is instructed to swim 10 x 100 SCY Freestyle repetitions at 90% Intensity, using their T-3000 pace as the Benchmark, then for each repetition there could be different absolute and relative results.

Therefore, after a Time Expected has been calculated, and an Actual Time has been performed, the two times are used to calculate a performance point value. 

Unadjusted points compare the Actual Time against the Point Basis (of 1.000, in this case) for the Time Expected.  Adjusted points incorporate adjustments, such as the Interval Degree of Difficulty.

For unadjusted points:

• If the Actual Time is faster than the Time Expected, that effort will earn an Actual Point value greater than the Expected Point value (which is also equal to the Point Basis value)

  • For example, 1.020 points, compared to 1.000 points

• If the Actual Time is slower than the Time Expected, that effort will earn an Actual Point value less than the Expected Point value (which is also equal to the Point Basis value)

  • For example, 0.980 points, compared to 1.000 points

Up until this point, no pun intended, points are unadjusted because nothing other than the Intensity effort is factored into the equation.  However, additional factors can and could come into play, also no pun intended, and if that is the case those factors need to be calculated as adjustments.

An adjustment example is the Interval Degree of Difficulty.  Since no two swimmers are equal in speed but may be required to follow the same Time Interval, that means the Time Interval is technically easier to repeat for some swimmers.  Therefore, to incorporate this variance of ease for the Time Interval, an Interval Degree of Difficulty is calculated and discounted against the unadjusted point values to determine the adjusted point values:

• the Adjusted Expected Points = the Expected Points value discounted for the IDoD adjustment

• the Adjusted Actual Points = the Actual Point value discounted for the IDoD adjustments

Finally, the relative comparison of the Actual Points and Expected Points is how to determine the Set Score.  Whether using unadjusted or adjusted point values, the result is the same if the adjustments are applied evenly to each exercise.

Note: As a reminder, a scale is set by its Benchmarks, so this would be the T-3000 Pace Scale. Furthermore, Intensity is scale specific which means, for example, 90% Intensity to a T-3000 pace benchmark may not produce the same Time Expected when applied against a different Benchmark.

Another example of a scale could be the Personal Record scale.  For this scenario, the Benchmarks are the personal best times for the swimmer, and the Intensity is set against the best time. 

Part 3 - Scoring a Single 100 SCY Freestyle Repetition

The following table outlines the results of two swimmers with different Benchmarks.  The Benchmark being used is the swimmers T-3000 pace, which is the average split for a 100 from a 3,000 yard swim.

As outlined above, the chart below is separated into “Part 1 - Using Intensity to Calculate Handicaps and Time Expected” and “Part 2 - Using Actual and Expected Times to Calculate Points and Score”

As you will see, even though Swimmer 2 has a faster T-3000 pace, Swimmer 1 swam relatively better.

• Swimmer 1 earned 1.015 Unadjusted Actual Points and 0.870 Adjusted Actual Points

  • Score = 1.015 / 1.000 = 101.50%

• Swimmer 2 earned 0.989 Unadjusted Actual Points and 0.819 Adjusted Actual Points

  • Score = 0.989 / 1.000 = 98.90%

Part 4 - Scoring Multiple 100 SCY Freestyle Repetition

The following tables outlines the results of two swimmers with different Benchmarks swimming 10 x 100 SCY Freestyle repetitions at their T-3000 pace.

Again, even though Swimmer 2 is faster (based on their T-3000 pace), Swimmer 1 swam relatively better throughout the entire set of 10 x 100.  

• Swimmer 1 earned a total of 10.151 Unadjusted Actual Points with a score of 101.51%

• Swimmer 2 earned a total of 9.810 Unadjusted Actual Points with a score of 98.10%

Furthermore, not only did Swimmer 1 swim better (i.e., faster relative to the T-3000 pace Benchmark), the Interval was easier to repeat for Swimmer 2 than it was for Swimmer 1, so Swimmer 2 receives a large discount to adjust for the Interval Degree of Difficulty

• Swimmer 1 earned a total of 8.701 Adjusted Actual Points (still with a score of 101.51%)

• Swimmer 2 earned a total of 8.128 Adjusted Actual Points (still with a score of 98.10%)

Non-Interval Training Examples that Incorporate Time

While fixed Time Intervals are nice for structure, they are not required for all Metric Sport exercises. Some workout frameworks still incorporate time, but maybe on an overall or rhythmic level as opposed to a repetition level.

CrossFit & Weightlifting

For example, CrossFit, in general, focuses on the overall time it takes to complete a list of select exercises.  However, since Metric Sport exercises are typically used in a CrossFit workout, objective Performance Points can still be calculated based on the results of the exercise.

Note: is this case, the Performance Points are calculated using the MeenaMethod with the Max Weight / Second value as the benchmark. Also, note that historically weight classes are used to distinguish cohorts in weightlifting, but that distinction is not made in this example.

Song Rhythm Beats

Another example of time being used in a workout is on a rhythmic level.  This is commonly used when a beat needs to be matched, such as spinning or jump-roping, and therefore the exercise typically follows the beat of a song.

For a rhythm beat based workout, scores can still be calculated but subjectively since objective benchmarks are not available.

Some songs with various beats-per-minute (BPM) are:

• Wilson Pickett: Land of 1000 Dances (~2.5 minutes long @ 172 BPM)

• Mumford & Sons: Little Lion Man (~4 minutes long @ 140 BPM)

• Fatboy Slim: Right Here, Right Now (~5.5 minutes long @ 120 BPM)

Each of these songs has various “get up and go” moments, and during those various moments the intensity of the beat can change (e.g., increasing the steps per beat, or the increasing the power per beat) from a workout perspective.

The table below attempts to outline a framework for scoring rhythm beat based workouts using the above listed three different song examples.  Via a subjective approach, a value of 1, 2, or 3 is ascribed to each beat depending on the “get up and go” moment of the song. If the value is 1, the intensity is low; if the value is 2, the intensity is moderate; and if the value is 3, the intensity is high.

Footnotes

Author: Elliot Meena

Published: May 26, 2022

Sources:

• What Does Your "Threshold" Really Mean? By Alex Hutchinson

  • www.outsideonline.com/health/training-performance/what-does-your-threshold-really-mean/

• Swimming World Coaches Guide to Energy Systems 

  • www.swimmingworldmagazine.com/news/swimming-world-july-2021-issue-presents-a-coachs-guide-to-energy-systems-part-2/

• Energy Zones in Swimming (Dr. Genadijus Sokolovas, Director of Physiology, USA Swimming)

  • www.teamunify.com/akwwsc/UserFiles/File/Energy%20Zones%20in%20Swimming.pdf 

• Jon Urbanchek's Color System (from “Swim Like a Fish”)

  • https://swimlikeafish.org/jon-urbancheks-workouts-learning-the-color-system 

• Anthony Nesty's Heart Rate Plus ("28+++" - Bobby Finke on Brett Hawke Live)

  • https://youtu.be/lXEincBbGE4 

• Specific Development Exercises (Herbie Behm tweet)

  • https://twitter.com/SirHerb_the3rd/status/1480604778111459333/photo/1

• CrossFit: March 11, 2018 and March 21, 2018

  • https://www.crossfit.com/workout/2018/03/11#/comments 

  • https://www.crossfit.com/workout/2018/03/21#/comments 

• GetSongBPM

  • https://getsongbpm.com/ 

• “The Water Is My Sky”, inspired by "Gold in The Water" by P.H. Mullen (~24-minute mark)

Notes:

• SCY: Short-Course-Yards (i.e., a 25-yard pool)

• SCM: Short-Course-Meters (i.e., a 25-meter pool)

• LCM: Long-Course-Meters (i.e., a 50-meter pool)

• "Yardage" is slang for distance

• Download PDF

• Copyright 2022, all rights reserved