What Was Your Work Out Today?

AnnPT77 wrote: »

swimmom_1 wrote: »

So @AnnPT77 I'm going to sound naive, which i am, I was always wondering about the zones you and others talk about. Is the pics off a fitbit or something? I now see the different heart rate zones.

Yes, heart rate zones. There are various common schemes, usually with 3-5 zones. Reporting here, I use the Garmin zones, because that's easy for me. That screen capture of heart rate data is from Garmin Connect, the app that my wrist/chest-belt feeds data to, data's stored in the cloud. As you can see, Garmin uses a 5-zone scheme. (The other photo - the top one - is an older model monitor from a Concept 2 rowing machine.)

There are two different . . . philosophies? . . . of heart rate zones, either raw percent of max heart rate, or heart rate reserve.

For either of those, one needs an estimate of maximum heart rate. There are various age-based ways of estimating HRmax, the easiest/most widely known being 220 minus age. So, at age 66, my estimated HRmax by that formula would be 154. But this formula is materially inaccurate for quite a large number of people, me among them. That's true of other age-based formulas, too, to varying degrees. This variation from age estimate is mostly a matter of genetics, not so much training.

(If I trained with the assumption that my maximum HR was 154, I'd undertrain. Also, exercise calorie estimates based on that heart rate would tend to be higher than reality, because it would look like I was working harder than I am. In practice, 154 is just under 80% of HR reserve, something I can sustain for a while. You can see in the screen cap that I was at/near 154 fairly often during that workout, in the middle piece with the intervals. It was mildly challenging, felt like working hard, but not brutal. No one sustains actual HRmax for long, during exercise. Feeling pretty good and being able to go on quite a while at/near age estimate HRmax is a hint that one might actually have a HRmax above age estimate.

There are also self-tests for HRmax, but I wouldn't recommend them for someone until they have good base fitness in place. For one, there are risks of high intensity effort in those new to fitness; for two, those relatively untrained may not be able to reach the needed intensities so end up underestimating. I have an estimate of my max heart rate from a test like that, from quite a few years back when I was training more seriously. (Usually HRmax declines with age, but believed to do so more slowly in people who continue to train. I think my estimate of around 180 is still fairly reasonable, because my rate of perceived exertion (RPE) at lower heart rates is consistent with that max.)

Percent of max heart rate is what it sounds like, just a percentage applied to the estimate of HRmax. Heart rate reserve zone calculations also use resting heart rate (first thing in the morning, natural awakening, before getting out of bed). The idea is that one subtracts resting from max to get working range, then takes a percentage of working range and adds it to resting rate to calculate zones.

So, when people are talking about zones, it's only comparable if using a scheme with the same number of zones, and the same percentage approach. When people are talking about HR percents, it's only comparable if all are talking either percent of max or heart rate reserve percent. IME, some zone schemes are more commonly used in particular sports. The cycle folks seem to tend to use FTP more than HR as a training guide, but someone else can explain that: I'm not a cyclist.

I hope that helps. If I got details wrong, I know someone will helpfully correct me. 😉

MikePfirrman wrote: »

Just 10K on the rower. I realize no one is going to feel sorry for me in Arizona, but it was actually cold for here today -- 50 with high wind and no sun! Probably a dream cardio temp for some but it felt brutal to me!