Old-School HR Zones vs New-School: can someone help convert?

barrybridges

I'm just getting back into the turbo and am using my trustworthy Garmin as my friend.

But clearly I've been out of the game for too long as I've become really confused about HR zones. The last time I used a HRM was about 8 years ago and I've drifted very casually in and out of cycling since then.

I always thought that there were 5 zones which crudely and inaccurately equate to the following perceived efforts (in brackets my values):

Z1 - gentle recovery (118 - 131)
Z2 - ticking along (131 - 145)
Z3 - getting out of breath (145 - 158)
Z4 - getting towards anaerobic and bloody hard (158 - 171)
Z5 - all out, anaerobic, can't sustain for more than a short sprint (171 - 185)

Looking at CoachMyRide and some of the books I'm now reading, they're using 7 zones:

Active recovery (<131)
Z1 (131 - 138)
Z2 (138 - 151)
Z3 (151 - 161)
Z4 (161 - 170)
Z5 (170 - 177)
Z6 (177 - 185)

My question is simple: what's the common system these days? How have we gone from 5 to 7 zones. Do most people use 5 zones? Or 7?

What's the logic behind the 7 zones? Am I just hopelessly out-of-date?

Trev The Rev

You have Coggan to thank for 7 zones. They are really power zones, but he has shown heart rate ranges alongside the power numbers. If you are using heart rate based on FTHR 6 and 7 Anaerobic Capacity and Neuromuscular Power are not really compatible with heart rate, so you need to go by feel.

1, Active recovery up to 68% FTHR
2, Endurance 69% to 83%
3, Tempo 84% to 94%
4, Lactate Threshold 95% to 105%
5, V02Max over 106%
6, Anaerobic Capacity N/A
7. Neuromuscular Power

The logic is that each zone brings about specific adaptations....if you look up Coggan on Google you can find more info.

If you are wanting to train using heart rate, Joe Friel has written a lot of stuff and his style is easy on the brain.

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2010/05/qu ... -pace.html

http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... oggan.aspx

Alex_Simmons/RST

Trev The Rev wrote:

The logic is that each zone brings about specific adaptations....if you look up Coggan on Google you can find more info.

I'd slightly modify/add to that statement to say that the levels are descriptive of the primary adaptation targeted and that the adaptations are not exclusive to level (e.g. VO2max level is not the only level that will help to induce a change in VO2max, but that is the adaptation most impacted by riding at that level). It's all a continuum really.

Training levels are just a convenient and practical way to help organise training.

As for HR - there are probably 2 dozen different versions of heart rate "zones" out there, but 5 levels is probably enough. Our calculator has more, but generally when I provide a training plan with HR as a guide, I reduce those to 5 levels.

Trev The Rev

Alex_Simmons/RST wrote:

Trev The Rev wrote:

The logic is that each zone brings about specific adaptations....if you look up Coggan on Google you can find more info.

I'd slightly modify/add to that statement to say that the levels are descriptive of the primary adaptation targeted and that the adaptations are not exclusive to level (e.g. VO2max level is not the only level that will help to induce a change in VO2max, but that is the adaptation most impacted by riding at that level). It's all a continuum really.

Training levels are just a convenient and practical way to help organise training.

As for HR - there are probably 2 dozen different versions of heart rate "zones" out there, but 5 levels is probably enough. Our calculator has more, but generally when I provide a training plan with HR as a guide, I reduce those to 5 levels.

The problem I always found with zones was finding it hard to remember which heart rate or which power the zones started and ended at. Now I have eyesight problems I can't read the display anyway so I have to use feel.