Overview of Intensity (in Diagram)

[ssaring]

Would it be possible to add a feature displaying the percentage of exercises made in low, normal, etc... intensity over the weeks? The idea is being able to monitor whether one had intensive, standard or recreational weeks acording to a training-plan (e.g. week1: standard, week2: hard, week3: recreation). Thanks for the nice work allready done!!!

Reported by: *anonymous

[ssaring]

Logged In: YES user_id=1118995 Originator: NO

Yes, sounds usefull. This would require user settings for heartrate ranges. Then it could be displayed in the weekly summery in the calendar view.

Bye, Stefan

Original comment by: ssaring

[ssaring]

Logged In: YES user_id=1430979 Originator: NO

Hi.

Why not use the intensity from the exercise?

Regards, Jacob

Original comment by: jacobilsoe

[ssaring]

Logged In: YES user_id=1118995 Originator: NO

Hi Jacob,

this would be a simple and elegant solution which is not very detailed, but I think it should be OK for most people. We'll see if anyone will contribute this feature. I'm porting PolarViewer to Java/Groovy right now, so I don't have the time to add many new features to the C# version anymore...

Bye, Stefan

Original comment by: ssaring

[ssaring]

Logged In: NO

Hi Stefan,

I had an idea today for a weekly overview. It would be good if one exercise could have serveral intensities (they can maybe be defined by a percentage input). So a detailed summary of the intensities would be possible without using heartrate ranges. So no update of the ranges is needed over the years.

What do you think of it?

Greetings, Tim

Original comment by: nobody

[ssaring]

Logged In: NO

Hi Stefan,

I had an idea today for a weekly overview. It would be good if one exercise could have serveral intensities (they can maybe be defined by a percentage input). So a detailed summary of the intensities would be possible without using heartrate ranges. So no update of the ranges is needed over the years.

What do you think of it?

Greetings, Tim

Original comment by: nobody

[ssaring]

Logged In: YES user_id=1118995 Originator: NO

Hi Tim,

do you also have an idea for simple input by the user? For me it sounds confusing and in most cases not very helpfull when one exercise has multiple intensities devided by percentage...

Bye, Stefan

Original comment by: ssaring

[ssaring]

Logged In: YES user_id=1704822 Originator: NO

Hi Stefan,

ich think of something like this:

intensity time/percent

max 0:05:00 hard 0:05:00 normal 1:05:00 low 0:55:00 easy 0:05:00

total time: x:xx:xx

These information could be placed at another tab as an optional input. For me its everytime a little bit confusing when entering a new exercise and choose only one intensity, because its often hard to define if an exercise is normal or hard. You can't really compare exercise in that way.

I know that this will not be done in 5 minutes ;-) But I think its a good compromise between (fixed) heartrate zones and nothing like this. Perhaps its even better because the heartrate zones will change over the years, the subjective feeling will be the same.

Bye, Tim

...btw... where is the sourcecode in the svn repo?

Original comment by: dertim

[ssaring]

Logged In: YES user_id=1118995 Originator: NO

Hi Tim,

I can understand that you could prefer this solution. But I'm sure that most people (me included :-) will prefer the simpler one. Users which need more detailed data mostly have recorded Polar exercise file, which contain all these informations. So it will be better to find a way to evaluate this data for statistic purposes and not to add another compromise. But this is even more work, I don't think it will happen in the near future. Or maybe someone starts on this topic ...

The SVN code is where it always is. In the last few weeks there are some problems with the SourceForge services, e.g. the statistic data is completely not available. They say this will be fixed in August, hopefully...

Bye, Stefan

Original comment by: ssaring

[ssaring]

Logged In: YES user_id=1704822 Originator: NO

Hi Stefan,

you're completely right :-) A compromise would be not good. A statictical calculation of course would be the clearest solution (although heartrate ranges will be needed for this issue)

For the moment I can live with ST the way it is ... very fine :-)

Bye, Tim

Original comment by: dertim