heart rate zones

Hurricane151

If this has been covered then i apologise but i have a dilema about how best to calculate my HR Zones.

I have my max, 187bpm but there seems to be a couple of ways to do it that give different zones.

Based on using my max HR and my resting HR i can calculate a %age of HRR (heart Rate Reserve). I have been advised this is a better way of working out the zones and this gives

HR zones % Low HR High Hr
Z1 55-65% 120 134
Z2 65-75% 134 150
Z3 75-85% 150 164
Z4 85-95% 164 179
z5 95%+ 179 187

Using just the method of simply %age of max HR i get

HR zones % Low HR High Hr
1 55-65 103 122
2 65-75 122 140
3 75-85 140 159
4 85-95 159 178
5 95+ 178 187

as you can see it gives big differences in the lower zones where i intend to spend quite a bit of time in the coming months so I would like to get this right.

Any advice comments would be appreciated.

jgsi

Hurricane151 wrote:

If this has been covered then i apologise but i have a dilema about how best to calculate my HR Zones.

I have my max, 187bpm but there seems to be a couple of ways to do it that give different zones.

Based on using my max HR and my resting HR i can calculate a %age of HRR (heart Rate Reserve). I have been advised this is a better way of working out the zones and this gives

HR zones % Low HR High Hr
Z1 55-65% 120 134
Z2 65-75% 134 150
Z3 75-85% 150 164
Z4 85-95% 164 179
z5 95%+ 179 187

Using just the method of simply %age of max HR i get

HR zones % Low HR High Hr
1 55-65 103 122
2 65-75 122 140
3 75-85 140 159
4 85-95 159 178
5 95+ 178 187

as you can see it gives big differences in the lower zones where i intend to spend quite a bit of time in the coming months so I would like to get this right.

Any advice comments would be appreciated.

How did you calculate your MHR?

Hurricane151

I used a ramp test and observed HRs from a number of rides this year

jgsi

Hurricane151 wrote:

I used a ramp test and observed HRs from a number of rides this year

The issue I have with HR is that training with it, feels like training with boxing gloves on -- clumsy and too variable.
but sometimes I have to train with just HR though and for these occasions , I use a % of my LTHR.
If you intend to ride at lower intensities, I would nt get too hung up on really specific HR numbers... but thats just my own personal view.

Hurricane151

Yeah, I would love to train with power and I can really see the benefits but it's just not a feasible or affordable option for me at the moment

Alex_Simmons/RST

Hurricane151 wrote:

as you can see it gives big differences in the lower zones where i intend to spend quite a bit of time in the coming months so I would like to get this right.

Any advice comments would be appreciated.

Well the "zones" on their own aren't right or wrong, it's how then you design the training based on those intensity guidelines that matter.

If you attempted the very same training plan based on time spent at various levels using those guidelines, then you'll probably get a different fitness outcome.

However it might be that someone designing training would provide more or less times at various levels depending on which HR based system they were using, such that the end result on your training is roughly the same.

Pross

There is usually something in whatever document you get the HR zones from saying what the percentages are based on and therefore as an example the HR range for zone 1 might be 55 - 65% of MHR or 75 - 85% if the zones are based on HRR i.e. you are always training at the same actual HR range irrespective of the method used. As another example the Coggan levels (which are primarily intended for use with power but have been translated roughly to suit HR training) are based on your HR whilst riding at threshold level.

Trev The Rev

Pross wrote:

There is usually something in whatever document you get the HR zones from saying what the percentages are based on and therefore as an example the HR range for zone 1 might be 55 - 65% of MHR or 75 - 85% if the zones are based on HRR i.e. you are always training at the same actual HR range irrespective of the method used. As another example the Coggan levels (which are primarily intended for use with power but have been translated roughly to suit HR training) are based on your HR whilst riding at threshold level.

I think Coggan himself prefers perceived exertion to heart rate.

One problem with heart rate zones is they do not take account of 'feel' in the legs. For example a proper recovery ride needs to take into account feel in the legs. Feel in the legs is more important than heart rate.

Herbsman

With regards to what Trev says above. Remember you're training your legs, not just your heart.