Key result
Norwegian endurance practitioners have ~170% higher odds of using 5-zone intensity scales vs other regions.
Why the study?
This study investigated potential differences in the adoption and use of endurance intensity zone scales across geographic regions, sports disciplines, practitioner roles, and performance levels.
Cross-Sectional (n=778)
The standardized 5-zone intensity scale developed for Norwegian elite endurance athletes has been broadly adopted, though cyclists tend to self-select lower zone demarcations in the low-intensity domain compared to other sports.
Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Regional preferences shape intensity monitoring; leaves open whether 5-zone scales optimize endurance outcomes globally.
This study investigated potential differences in the adoption and use of endurance intensity zone scales across geographic regions, sports disciplines, practitioner roles, and performance levels. A total of 778 endurance practitioners completed a survey, with 710 responses analyzed for the number of intensity zones used, and 298 responses analyzed for lower percentage of maximum heart rate (%HR max ) demarcations within a 5-zone scale. A 5-zone scale (47%) was most frequently used. Norwegian respondents were 2.7 times more likely to use a 5-zone scale than all other regions combined. The lower limits of Zones 2–3 differed across regions, and Zones 1–3 across sports, particularly between running and cycling. Norwegian respondents reported the highest mean %HR max lower limits of Zones 2 and 3. Cyclists self-selected the lowest mean %HR max lower limits of Zones 1, 2, and 3. No differences were observed in zone demarcations across roles or performance levels. The results suggest that the standardized intensity scale developed for Norwegian elite endurance athletes has been broadly adopted across sports and performance levels. The widespread use of a single intensity scale is speculated to improve communication across sports. Cyclists may self-select lower zone demarcations in the low-intensity domain by virtue of longer session durations and lower mechanical stress, contributing to the popularity of “Zone 2 training” in cycling.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Seiler-Viken et al. (2025) conducted a cross-sectional in Endurance practitioners (n=778). Norwegian geographic region vs. Other geographic regions was evaluated on Use of a 5-zone intensity scale (OR 2.7, p=10^-6). Norwegian endurance practitioners were 2.7 times more likely to use a 5-zone intensity scale compared to practitioners from all other geographic regions combined.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: