What Zone Do You Do Cardio In?
Replies
-
Human bodies have not changed and the basics of exercise physiology have not substantially changed in the past 30-40 years. Even the current love affair with HIIT has only moved the needle marginally.
So there is no fundamental "right" or "wrong" way to train. As others have (correctly) stated, all intensities have a valid place in a training routine--it depends on your goals. There is no moral hierarchy for exercise intensities.
One of the things that happens if you go "to the limit" all the time, is that certain metabolic systems become overdeveloped at the expense of others. Pushing hard every workout will develop your glycolytic system at the expense of your ability to burn fat. Instead of becoming more "carb-dominant" at 70%-75% of max, it can happen at 35% max. That won't affect the ability to lose weight, but it can affect the long-term quality of training and performance. But, again, there are no hard and fast rules. Depending on how you work out, you might not notice any difference.
If you like to push yourself hard (as I do), one of the toughest things is to force yourself to slow down. It took me over 30 years (and some metabolic testing) to fully realize that and to have confidence in my aerobic base.
But there is no one way of "doing it the right way", although including vigorous workouts over many years will tend to make a positive difference later in life.11 -
Human bodies have not changed and the basics of exercise physiology have not substantially changed in the past 30-40 years. Even the current love affair with HIIT has only moved the needle marginally.
So there is no fundamental "right" or "wrong" way to train. As others have (correctly) stated, all intensities have a valid place in a training routine--it depends on your goals. There is no moral hierarchy for exercise intensities.
One of the things that happens if you go "to the limit" all the time, is that certain metabolic systems become overdeveloped at the expense of others. Pushing hard every workout will develop your glycolytic system at the expense of your ability to burn fat. Instead of becoming more "carb-dominant" at 70%-75% of max, it can happen at 35% max. That won't affect the ability to lose weight, but it can affect the long-term quality of training and performance. But, again, there are no hard and fast rules. Depending on how you work out, you might not notice any difference.
If you like to push yourself hard (as I do), one of the toughest things is to force yourself to slow down. It took me over 30 years (and some metabolic testing) to fully realize that and to have confidence in my aerobic base.
But there is no one way of "doing it the right way", although including vigorous workouts over many years will tend to make a positive difference later in life.
I usually do the intense workouts a couple times per week. I also do less intense workouts a couple times per week, and recovery workouts in between. So I would imagine I am covering the spectrum fairly well.
I did read about what you are talking about with the aerobic base, and tried the 180 - age thing a few times because I do find it interesting and valid. I also do intervals pretty often and power walk on the rest parts so I can keep my heart rate at least in the cardio zone the whole time. My thinking is that I am getting the benefit of both the interval and steady state.
In a little over 2 years I have gone from barely being able to walk a mile at a slow pace to being able to power walk 10 miles and run 5 miles, and have lost over 50 lbs. I just followed the basic things I learned about fitness when I was in the army back in the 80's, so I guess a lot of that stuff still holds true.
I'm also open to new things, and if it seems valid to me, I'll give it a try.
I'll be 60 years old in august, and I don't want to wind up being the guy who's fallen and cant get up...LOL4 -
I don't have a HR monitor, nor do i know what zones 1-5 are.
So my answer is... I have no freakin clue " how i roll"
6 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I don't have a HR monitor, nor do i know what zones 1-5 are.
So my answer is... I have no freakin clue " how i roll"
Haha!
1 -
bcalvanese wrote: »I usually do the intense workouts a couple times per week. I also do less intense workouts a couple times per week, and recovery workouts in between. So I would imagine I am covering the spectrum fairly well.
I did read about what you are talking about with the aerobic base, and tried the 180 - age thing a few times because I do find it interesting and valid. I also do intervals pretty often and power walk on the rest parts so I can keep my heart rate at least in the cardio zone the whole time. My thinking is that I am getting the benefit of both the interval and steady state.bcalvanese wrote: »I have a motto...
If you ain't huffing and puffing and sweating... you ain't doing it right.
I like to stay in zone 4 (80 - 90 % of MHR) and zone 5 (90 - 100 % of MHR) on my intense workouts, and have been known to be in zone 5 for up to an hour total during these workouts.
So which is it? Do you think "if you ain't huffing and puffing and sweating...you ain't doing it right?" Or there is some benefit to the "Cardio zone?" I clipped the part about "wasting time."
If you straddle the fence too long, eventually your crotch will get sore.7 -
Christine_72 wrote: »I don't have a HR monitor, nor do i know what zones 1-5 are.
My ticker can go anywhere from about 50 to about 190 bpm. But 140 zones are too many. So people divide it up, usually into 5, but some folks are special and need 7. Anyway, 153 bpm and 155 bpm aren't really meaningfully different, so you lump them together. Zones are just a way to simplify heart rate.
Not trying to sell you an HRM, just a quick run down on what people are talking about.3 -
I don't roll. Or run. Or jump/skip/move very fast. Unless the light is turning red.3
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Christine_72 wrote: »I don't have a HR monitor, nor do i know what zones 1-5 are.
My ticker can go anywhere from about 50 to about 190 bpm. But 140 zones are too many. So people divide it up, usually into 5, but some folks are special and need 7. Anyway, 153 bpm and 155 bpm aren't really meaningfully different, so you lump them together. Zones are just a way to simplify heart rate.
Not trying to sell you an HRM, just a quick run down on what people are talking about.
Thank you
1 -
I disagree completely about the ability to stay in Zone5 for the time you suggest. Zone 5 is usually defined as 90-100% of maximum heart rate.scorpio516 wrote: »Its not a recommendation, it's a fact that you can't stay there for more than a few minutes at a time. Z5 is RPE 9.5 - 10. A mile flat out, 5 to 6 minutes is all you can hold z5 for. If you can stay there longer, your zones aren't right. Its anerobic.
Last week, I spent about 50% of the time in z3, 30% z4, 20% z2
I'm 51 years old with a true/known HRmax of 202bpm. (Yeah, I do NOT fit the 220-age formula). Today I did a 92 minute ride where once I'd warmed up (after 10 mins), I stayed at an average HR of 183bpm for the duration of the ride.
My maximum heart rate during the big climb (which starts at the 10 min mark) was 193bpm (I didn't want to push to max, so I kept it at 96%). My minimum during the ride was 175bpm and the average was quite steady/constant at about 183.
That is 90.6% average (Zone5) of HRmax sustained for nearly an hour and a half. Image for verification:
from https://www.strava.com/activities/1013708616
If you really break it down you'll see that roughly an hour of that ride was spent averaging 188bpm, not dropping below 183. That's 93% of my HRmax.
The point is you CAN increase your anaerobic and lactate thresholds, and not every athletes thresholds are the same. To suggest these thresholds are definitive and static percentages that affect everyone the same is akin to suggesting any of the existing formulas for maximum heart rate is accurate for everyone - ie: it's incorrect.2 -
I think some of the disagreement on ability to stay in different zones might be due to the fact that there is no one set standard that everyone uses. How many zones and how "wide" they are would greatly affect how many people could do longer workouts in the higher zones.
As for me, I usually hate the longer and slower workouts myself, and usually end up either doing some quick intervals or some sort of push. Similar to the OP, I just find it boring. Even though I know there is good cardio benefit, I made good progress not doing as much of the slower stuff as well. I did true Tabata protocol on the elliptical a few times just for kicks, so call me crazy.
On the bike, I can at times back off since I can enjoy the ride. And usually if I manage to do that and do some miles below a HR of 140-145, there is an added bonus of glycogen stores that let me pick an area on the way back and just kill it.
Though I don't currently have any devices that show my average HR, I'd say that 140 is probably a long slow one for me. I generally work out in the high 150's - mid 160's at least. It's probably rare that I don't hit at least 180 or so at some point in a workout, either through intervals or a sustained push towards the end.0 -
ronocnikral wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »I usually do the intense workouts a couple times per week. I also do less intense workouts a couple times per week, and recovery workouts in between. So I would imagine I am covering the spectrum fairly well.
I did read about what you are talking about with the aerobic base, and tried the 180 - age thing a few times because I do find it interesting and valid. I also do intervals pretty often and power walk on the rest parts so I can keep my heart rate at least in the cardio zone the whole time. My thinking is that I am getting the benefit of both the interval and steady state.bcalvanese wrote: »I have a motto...
If you ain't huffing and puffing and sweating... you ain't doing it right.
I like to stay in zone 4 (80 - 90 % of MHR) and zone 5 (90 - 100 % of MHR) on my intense workouts, and have been known to be in zone 5 for up to an hour total during these workouts.
So which is it? Do you think "if you ain't huffing and puffing and sweating...you ain't doing it right?" Or there is some benefit to the "Cardio zone?" I clipped the part about "wasting time."
If you straddle the fence too long, eventually your crotch will get sore.
funny how you did not post the part about recovery, or are you just posting clips in such a way to try and make me look bad?
if the 180 - age has merit, wouldn't that give the benefit of recovery and aerobic base at the same time?
and wouldn't being in the cardio zone still yield a little bit of huffing and puffing and sweating?
or do you just like harassing people on forums that don't agree with your ways of doing things?
I hope you can see that you trying to make other people look bad is just making yourself look bad.0 -
albertabeefy wrote: »
I disagree completely about the ability to stay in Zone5 for the time you suggest. Zone 5 is usually defined as 90-100% of maximum heart rate.scorpio516 wrote: »Its not a recommendation, it's a fact that you can't stay there for more than a few minutes at a time. Z5 is RPE 9.5 - 10. A mile flat out, 5 to 6 minutes is all you can hold z5 for. If you can stay there longer, your zones aren't right. Its anerobic.
Last week, I spent about 50% of the time in z3, 30% z4, 20% z2albertabeefy wrote: »I'm 51 years old with a true/known HRmax of 202bpm. (Yeah, I do NOT fit the 220-age formula). Today I did a 92 minute ride where once I'd warmed up (after 10 mins), I stayed at an average HR of 183bpm for the duration of the ride.
Accepting what you've said. You're doing some math wrong I had to assume your RHR(as 50), but that won't substantially change the calculations.albertabeefy wrote: »My maximum heart rate during the big climb (which starts at the 10 min mark) was 193bpm (I didn't want to push to max, so I kept it at 96%). My minimum during the ride was 175bpm and the average was quite steady/constant at about 183.
That is 90.6% average (Zone5) of HRmax sustained for nearly an hour and a half. Image for verification:
from https://www.strava.com/activities/1013708616
193 is 94%
175 is 82%
188 is 91%
183 is 87%
Just for reference
Z5 for you 186-202
Z4 171-186
Z3 156-171
Z2 141-156
Z1 126-156albertabeefy wrote: »If you really break it down you'll see that roughly an hour of that ride was spent averaging 188bpm, not dropping below 183. That's 93% of my HRmax.
The point is you CAN increase your anaerobic and lactate thresholds, and not every athletes thresholds are the same. To suggest these thresholds are definitive and static percentages that affect everyone the same is akin to suggesting any of the existing formulas for maximum heart rate is accurate for everyone - ie: it's incorrect.
2 -
storyjorie wrote: »I run mainly in Zone 4. When I do Orange Theory or spinning, I go back and forth between 3, 4 and 5 depending on what I'm doing.
I do orangetheory too! Sometimes I don't get that many splat points, as i think my heart rate is naturally very low, and my recovery time is short. How many splat points do you usually average? I think my highest was 14, but my lowest has been around 2
0 -
My cardio falls about 70% in zone 3, and 30% in zone 4. Even when I was trying to burn fat, I just couldn't slow myself down enough to operate in zone 2 for any significant amount of time.0
-
bcalvanese wrote: »ronocnikral wrote: »bcalvanese wrote: »I usually do the intense workouts a couple times per week. I also do less intense workouts a couple times per week, and recovery workouts in between. So I would imagine I am covering the spectrum fairly well.
I did read about what you are talking about with the aerobic base, and tried the 180 - age thing a few times because I do find it interesting and valid. I also do intervals pretty often and power walk on the rest parts so I can keep my heart rate at least in the cardio zone the whole time. My thinking is that I am getting the benefit of both the interval and steady state.bcalvanese wrote: »I have a motto...
If you ain't huffing and puffing and sweating... you ain't doing it right.
I like to stay in zone 4 (80 - 90 % of MHR) and zone 5 (90 - 100 % of MHR) on my intense workouts, and have been known to be in zone 5 for up to an hour total during these workouts.
So which is it? Do you think "if you ain't huffing and puffing and sweating...you ain't doing it right?" Or there is some benefit to the "Cardio zone?" I clipped the part about "wasting time."
If you straddle the fence too long, eventually your crotch will get sore.
funny how you did not post the part about recovery, or are you just posting clips in such a way to try and make me look bad?
if the 180 - age has merit, wouldn't that give the benefit of recovery and aerobic base at the same time?
and wouldn't being in the cardio zone still yield a little bit of huffing and puffing and sweating?
or do you just like harassing people on forums that don't agree with your ways of doing things?
I hope you can see that you trying to make other people look bad is just making yourself look bad.
It's not the fact that we disagree, it's that you're all over the place. I could care less what you do for exercise. Just at least pick something!
But yes, your reasoning is incorrect for your workout regimen. Which is fine, many people practice the same thing. In fact a majority of people do. It's no wonder many end up plateauing and or injuring themselves. But, they seem happy with the results, so it "works."1 -
The no flex zone0
-
bcalvanese wrote: »first of all zone 5 is not max heart rate. zone 5 starts at 90 % of MHR. sure max heart rate cannot be maintained for more than a few minutes, but the low end of zone 5 can be.
Also i never said i stayed in zone 5 for an hour straight. I said an hour total.
and yes, I was a fitness instructor in the Army back in the 80's (not the 70's), and I think the basic rules of fitness still apply here.
my my true max heart rate is within a few BPM of the 220 - age formula so not sure what all this talk is that I'm not really in zone 5, or I don't have my zones set up properly.
My cardiologist says I am doing it the right way, but I guess some of the experts here are better than doctors.
but that's fine with me. I'm getting results, and I only posted what I do and asked how other people roll, and its to be expected to get some folks who don't agree with older ways of doing things.
but who knows?
in another 20 or 30 years they may discover that the old ways where right the whole time...:)
I remember the fitness instructors from the military....eek. Only time I ever was sweating after swimming...0 -
bcalvanese wrote: »first of all zone 5 is not max heart rate. zone 5 starts at 90 % of MHR. sure max heart rate cannot be maintained for more than a few minutes, but the low end of zone 5 can be.
Also i never said i stayed in zone 5 for an hour straight. I said an hour total.
and yes, I was a fitness instructor in the Army back in the 80's (not the 70's), and I think the basic rules of fitness still apply here.
my my true max heart rate is within a few BPM of the 220 - age formula so not sure what all this talk is that I'm not really in zone 5, or I don't have my zones set up properly.
My cardiologist says I am doing it the right way, but I guess some of the experts here are better than doctors.
but that's fine with me. I'm getting results, and I only posted what I do and asked how other people roll, and its to be expected to get some folks who don't agree with older ways of doing things.
but who knows?
in another 20 or 30 years they may discover that the old ways where right the whole time...:)
I remember the fitness instructors from the military....eek. Only time I ever was sweating after swimming...
When I went through new entry training mumble years ago that thinking was still in vogue.
I was in a training role for a couple of years about five years ago and had sight of historic injury rates. Incidence of injury at the time was extremely high, including a reasonable proportion of withdrawal from training. It was choosing a fortune in wastage, given the cost to recruit and train.
New entry is now much more sophisticated in terms of approach.2 -
Any guess why Strava has your power so low? 125 watts is a recovery ride, but 183 bpm is an extreme effort. It's Strava, it's their best guess, not an actual measurement, so it's for sure wrong. But I'm curious how it could be so off, wonder if you have any insight?albertabeefy wrote: »
I disagree completely about the ability to stay in Zone5 for the time you suggest. Zone 5 is usually defined as 90-100% of maximum heart rate.scorpio516 wrote: »Its not a recommendation, it's a fact that you can't stay there for more than a few minutes at a time. Z5 is RPE 9.5 - 10. A mile flat out, 5 to 6 minutes is all you can hold z5 for. If you can stay there longer, your zones aren't right. Its anerobic.
Last week, I spent about 50% of the time in z3, 30% z4, 20% z2
I'm 51 years old with a true/known HRmax of 202bpm. (Yeah, I do NOT fit the 220-age formula). Today I did a 92 minute ride where once I'd warmed up (after 10 mins), I stayed at an average HR of 183bpm for the duration of the ride.
My maximum heart rate during the big climb (which starts at the 10 min mark) was 193bpm (I didn't want to push to max, so I kept it at 96%). My minimum during the ride was 175bpm and the average was quite steady/constant at about 183.
That is 90.6% average (Zone5) of HRmax sustained for nearly an hour and a half. Image for verification:
from https://www.strava.com/activities/1013708616
If you really break it down you'll see that roughly an hour of that ride was spent averaging 188bpm, not dropping below 183. That's 93% of my HRmax.
The point is you CAN increase your anaerobic and lactate thresholds, and not every athletes thresholds are the same. To suggest these thresholds are definitive and static percentages that affect everyone the same is akin to suggesting any of the existing formulas for maximum heart rate is accurate for everyone - ie: it's incorrect.
1 -
bcalvanese wrote: »I have a motto...
If you ain't huffing and puffing and sweating... you ain't doing it right.
Slow but steady endurance training carried the day. At the end of the six months, the men averaged only a modest 10-pound loss of their excess weight, but their resting heart rates, blood pressures, and their heart's maximum pumping abilities were back to their baseline level from age 20. All in all, exercise training reversed 100% of the 30-year age-related decline in aerobic power. Even so, exercise did not take the men back to their peak performance after 8 weeks of intense training at age 20. The clock does tick, after all, but exercise did slow the march of time.
www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/exercise-and-aging-can-you-walk-away-from-father-time2 -
Hmm... not sure exactly what formula you're using for zone calculation. For me I've always seen Z5 being 90-100% of max HR:stanmann571 wrote: »Accepting what you've said. You're doing some math wrong I had to assume your RHR(as 50), but that won't substantially change the calculations.
193 is 94%
175 is 82%
188 is 91%
183 is 87%
Just for reference
Z5 for you 186-202
Z4 171-186
Z3 156-171
Z2 141-156
Z1 126-156
As such, Z5 would start at 182, would it not? I'm not sure where RHR comes into your calculation. It appears we're using differing formulas/calcuations ... so let me know what you use, thanks.
If you look at the Strava overview for the ride, the overall average speed was only 21.9km/h - because of several stoppages (stop signs/lights, city buses, etc.) and dead-straight-on headwinds from Hell. So my best guess is that Strava uses overall avg. speed for its calculation with no way to measure headwind (and I don't use a power meter because I'm somewhat cheap) and thus the very low wattage estimate. I'm pretty sure Strava estimates wattage based on your profile information, route/elevation information and your overall speed. Because the average speed was so low, it thinks it was a walk-in-the-park ... which, with no wind, that would've been.NorthCascades wrote:Any guess why Strava has your power so low? 125 watts is a recovery ride, but 183 bpm is an extreme effort. It's Strava, it's their best guess, not an actual measurement, so it's for sure wrong. But I'm curious how it could be so off, wonder if you have any insight?
Strava doesn't have a way to throw headwinds into its calculation.1 -
@albertabeefy Strava's power estimates are for entertainment purposes only. The fact that it says your ride was easy doesn't mean it really was, I just find it interesting to see where Strava does well and does badly at this.1
-
I do 1 sprint interval or hill repeats per week. Usually 2-3 tempo rides (z3-4) and an endurance ride (all day pace z2-3) on Saturday or Sunday.0
-
albertabeefy wrote: »
Hmm... not sure exactly what formula you're using for zone calculation. For me I've always seen Z5 being 90-100% of max HR:stanmann571 wrote: »Accepting what you've said. You're doing some math wrong I had to assume your RHR(as 50), but that won't substantially change the calculations.
193 is 94%
175 is 82%
188 is 91%
183 is 87%
Just for reference
Z5 for you 186-202
Z4 171-186
Z3 156-171
Z2 141-156
Z1 126-156
As such, Z5 would start at 182, would it not? I'm not sure where RHR comes into your calculation. It appears we're using differing formulas/calcuations ... so let me know what you use, thanks.
If you look at the Strava overview for the ride, the overall average speed was only 21.9km/h - because of several stoppages (stop signs/lights, city buses, etc.) and dead-straight-on headwinds from Hell. So my best guess is that Strava uses overall avg. speed for its calculation with no way to measure headwind (and I don't use a power meter because I'm somewhat cheap) and thus the very low wattage estimate. I'm pretty sure Strava estimates wattage based on your profile information, route/elevation information and your overall speed. Because the average speed was so low, it thinks it was a walk-in-the-park ... which, with no wind, that would've been.NorthCascades wrote:Any guess why Strava has your power so low? 125 watts is a recovery ride, but 183 bpm is an extreme effort. It's Strava, it's their best guess, not an actual measurement, so it's for sure wrong. But I'm curious how it could be so off, wonder if you have any insight?
Strava doesn't have a way to throw headwinds into its calculation.
The link below has info on calculating cardio zones multiple ways - definitions are not consistent. Input 50bpm for RHR and 202 max RHR and submit. Look at the 2nd column, Karvonen modified. It matches what @stanmann571 calculated for you.
fitdigits.com/personalized-heart-rate-zones.html1 -
albertabeefy wrote: »
Hmm... not sure exactly what formula you're using for zone calculation. For me I've always seen Z5 being 90-100% of max HR:stanmann571 wrote: »Accepting what you've said. You're doing some math wrong I had to assume your RHR(as 50), but that won't substantially change the calculations.
193 is 94%
175 is 82%
188 is 91%
183 is 87%
Just for reference
Z5 for you 186-202
Z4 171-186
Z3 156-171
Z2 141-156
Z1 126-156
As such, Z5 would start at 182, would it not? I'm not sure where RHR comes into your calculation. It appears we're using differing formulas/calcuations ... so let me know what you use, thanks.
If you look at the Strava overview for the ride, the overall average speed was only 21.9km/h - because of several stoppages (stop signs/lights, city buses, etc.) and dead-straight-on headwinds from Hell. So my best guess is that Strava uses overall avg. speed for its calculation with no way to measure headwind (and I don't use a power meter because I'm somewhat cheap) and thus the very low wattage estimate. I'm pretty sure Strava estimates wattage based on your profile information, route/elevation information and your overall speed. Because the average speed was so low, it thinks it was a walk-in-the-park ... which, with no wind, that would've been.NorthCascades wrote:Any guess why Strava has your power so low? 125 watts is a recovery ride, but 183 bpm is an extreme effort. It's Strava, it's their best guess, not an actual measurement, so it's for sure wrong. But I'm curious how it could be so off, wonder if you have any insight?
Strava doesn't have a way to throw headwinds into its calculation.
Z5 is 90-100% of max HR.. Correct.. but your HR doesn't go from 0 to 202.. it goes from 50 or 60 to 202...Because if it gets into the 40s or 20s you're dying... So you have to drop off that bottom range... you're left with 150 as your range ... 10% of that range is 15.. Thus 202-15 is Z5 202-30 is Z4... etc..1 -
I'm not sure what my MXR is - but I do know that formula doesn't work for me. I'm sitting at my desk and my HR is currently 47. During my 5k tempo run yesterday my ave HR was 160 and my max was 176. 25:39 or 8:11/ mile.
I'm 55 - so 220 - age ........165 - 90% would be 148ish - never, ever.0 -
stanmann571 wrote: »albertabeefy wrote: »
Hmm... not sure exactly what formula you're using for zone calculation. For me I've always seen Z5 being 90-100% of max HR:stanmann571 wrote: »Accepting what you've said. You're doing some math wrong I had to assume your RHR(as 50), but that won't substantially change the calculations.
193 is 94%
175 is 82%
188 is 91%
183 is 87%
Just for reference
Z5 for you 186-202
Z4 171-186
Z3 156-171
Z2 141-156
Z1 126-156
As such, Z5 would start at 182, would it not? I'm not sure where RHR comes into your calculation. It appears we're using differing formulas/calcuations ... so let me know what you use, thanks.
If you look at the Strava overview for the ride, the overall average speed was only 21.9km/h - because of several stoppages (stop signs/lights, city buses, etc.) and dead-straight-on headwinds from Hell. So my best guess is that Strava uses overall avg. speed for its calculation with no way to measure headwind (and I don't use a power meter because I'm somewhat cheap) and thus the very low wattage estimate. I'm pretty sure Strava estimates wattage based on your profile information, route/elevation information and your overall speed. Because the average speed was so low, it thinks it was a walk-in-the-park ... which, with no wind, that would've been.NorthCascades wrote:Any guess why Strava has your power so low? 125 watts is a recovery ride, but 183 bpm is an extreme effort. It's Strava, it's their best guess, not an actual measurement, so it's for sure wrong. But I'm curious how it could be so off, wonder if you have any insight?
Strava doesn't have a way to throw headwinds into its calculation.
Z5 is 90-100% of max HR.. Correct.. but your HR doesn't go from 0 to 202.. it goes from 50 or 60 to 202...Because if it gets into the 40s or 20s you're dying... So you have to drop off that bottom range... you're left with 150 as your range ... 10% of that range is 15.. Thus 202-15 is Z5 202-30 is Z4... etc..
This is the "heart rate reserve" formula, aka Karvonen. The idea is that resting heart rate tends to decrease over time as fitness improves - so your zones move around to follow your fitness level. Many people consider this to be an improvement over %max.
Better still to base your zones on your LTHR. To find that on a bike, ride a 30 minute TT and take your average HR over the last 20 minutes. For running, take your average HR for a 10K. This has the advantages that your threshold is actually relevant to cardiovascular exercise, and that you don't need to know your max or resting HR.
Best of all - but only for some sports like cycling and rowing - is to stop using HR zones for training and use power instead. This is instantaneous and not affected by things like mood or caffeine intake.0 -
I think you guys are talking about using percentage of HRR (MHR - RHR).0
-
This is just math. If you're calculating percentage of a range. You have to know and use the range.
Call it whatever you want.0 -
Well I learned that back in the 80's, and back then it was used for more advanced athletes who could not get any more benefit from using MHR because the different zones using HRR yielded higher heart rates.
Not sure how it is used today, but that is what I learned back then.
I have been reading about this 180 - age thing and how training at lower heart rate (below lactate threshold) builds a good aerobic base. The thought is that it works a different muscle fiber than training above lactate threshold, but you're still in the cardio zone so you can still get a decent training effect.
I've tried this a few times, but not long enough to determine if it is working yet.
I do think mixing it up is probably a good thing.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions