jaana
7 Sept, 13:31 — Looking at the log, here's what's actually been completed and rated so far (13 sessions, Mon 31 Aug – Sat 12 Sept 2026):
**Completion/adherence**
Every completed session matched its planned duration exactly (e.g. Wed 9 Sept "Threshold intervals" bike, Sun 6 Sept "Long run", Sat 12 Sept "Long ride" — all actual = planned). So on the surface, session compliance looks solid — nothing cut short or extended.
**RPE tells a messier story**
The numbers don't track intensity labels the way you'd expect:
- Mon 7 Sept "Threshold intervals" (swim) — RPE 1
- Tue 8 Sept "Threshold run" — RPE 2
- Wed 9 Sept "Threshold intervals" (bike) — RPE 10
That's three sessions all labeled "threshold" within a 48-hour window, ranging from RPE 1 to RPE 10.
Meanwhile the supposedly easy days spike the other way:
- Fri 11 Sept "Z2 endurance run" — RPE 5
- Thu 10 Sept "Z2 endurance run" (same session type, two days earlier) — RPE 9
- Sun 6 Sept "Long run" — RPE 10
And Thu 10 Sept was a loaded day: Gym (RPE 7) + Z2 run (RPE 9) + Endurance swim (RPE 7) all same day.
**Why this matters**
This kind of pattern — same external load (identical planned/actual duration, same session label) producing wildly different perceived effort — is exactly the signal the triathlon review flags as worth watching. Triathletes sustain high training loads with various combinations of intensity and volume of training... The uncoupling of internal and external loads is used to assess the fatigue status of an athlete. The power output may be maintained for the same duration; however, depending on the fatigue state of the athlete, this may be achieved with a high or low heart rate or a high or low perception of effort. Here it's RPE rather than HR, but the same principle applies: a "threshold" session rated RPE 1-2 alongside a "Z2 easy" session rated RPE 9-10 is a mismatch worth a conversation with Jaana, not just a training-log curiosity.
The athlete-context RPE trend (recent avg 7.3 vs prior avg 6.5, rising) is consistent with this — effort is creeping up even though the plan hasn't changed structure.
**Worth flagging on risk**
Inappropriate loading may lead to excessive accumulated fatigue and maladaptive processes and increase injury risk by impairing factors, such as decision-making ability, coordination, and neuromuscular control. Excessive fatigue can contribute to increased risk of acute and overuse injuries. Beyond the papers: I can't tell you *why* the mismatches happened (illness, sleep, life stress, poor pacing on the threshold days) — RPE alone doesn't carry that detail, and there's no note field to check. But the pattern is a legitimate prompt to check in with her directly.
**A data oddity to check**
Mon 7 Sept shows two "Gym: Strength full body" entries logged as completed (RPE 8 and RPE 10), and Mon 31 Aug has a completed Gym entry plus a separate planned Gym entry for the same day. Worth confirming with Jaana whether she actually did two strength sessions that day or whether this is a duplicate log entry — it affects how you read her weekly strength load.
**What I can't assess**
No thresholds or lactate data are on file, so I can't check whether her "threshold" sessions were executed in the right physiological zone — athletes should report their subjective well-being on a regular basis (ideally daily), alongside other monitoring practices is the standard recommendation, but right now RPE is the only lens you have on this athlete, so treat these as flags to investigate, not diagnoses.