Heart rate zones

sh-g
sh-g Posts: 30
edited March 2017 in Training, fitness and health
I thought I knew about training with Heart rate zones but the more I read the more confused I get. It seems that everybody has their own idea of % of each zone and what benefits are gained in each zone.
So I'm throwing this question out for general discussion.
Age: 69
My resting heart rate is 60
Max HR 183
Fitness: Above average (I think :oops: )

So what do you guys think are my zones and training benefits ie, endurance, tempo threshold.

Really love to hear your opinions

Comments

  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    There are many different ways of splitting zones, but (assuming your max is accurate) they all achieve the same or similar objectives. I used to train using just three zones, but I knew of others who trained using up to five. What are you training for?
  • robertpb
    robertpb Posts: 1,866
    This is what I use on my Polar m450, I'm 66 with a Max HR 186 and resting 60, so not dissimilar to you which is strange.
    Z1: 85-129
    Z2: 130-147
    Z3: 148-157
    Z4: 158-168
    Z5: 169-186
    Now where's that "Get Out of Crash Free Card"
  • fenix
    fenix Posts: 5,437
    What plans are you using - it's important to use the same ideas of levels as the plan mentions.
  • diy
    diy Posts: 6,473
    How have you calculated/tested the max? Are you also checking recovery rates? if you really do have a max of 186, I'd want to check recovery rate before pushing myself to hit upper zones.
    Guide to cheap bike lights Turbo Trainer Vids Play list
    Stretching & Workout Vids
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    diy wrote:
    How have you calculated/tested the max? Are you also checking recovery rates? if you really do have a max of 186, I'd want to check recovery rate before pushing myself to hit upper zones.

    What difference would it make?
  • diy
    diy Posts: 6,473
    having a heart attack/stroke or not having one.
    Guide to cheap bike lights Turbo Trainer Vids Play list
    Stretching & Workout Vids
  • sh-g
    sh-g Posts: 30
    Fenix wrote:
    What plans are you using - it's important to use the same ideas of levels as the plan mentions.

    Just doing a trial with TrainerRoad. They don't suggest zones but show those after the session. They never seem to be in the training goal zone. Eg. Sunday I did an endurance workout, followed the coaching instruction but results showed I was in Tempo 66,5% and endurance 22,4% of the time. Strava had me 52% Endurance and 36% Tempo, Connect Garmin 63% Endurance 3% Tempo. Confused? I am. :)
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    sh-g wrote:
    Confused? I am. :)
    So are we. You still haven't said what your objectives are.
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    diy wrote:
    having a heart attack/stroke or not having one.
    So how would someone's recovery hr influence that?
  • sh-g
    sh-g Posts: 30
    diy wrote:
    How have you calculated/tested the max? Are you also checking recovery rates? if you really do have a max of 186, I'd want to check recovery rate before pushing myself to hit upper zones.

    this is a good question. Yes, I have done a max HR test, albeit at a point I didn't have as much strength as I may have now. I calculated it at 186 max. I am a little stronger now so that could be a point or two higher. Will do a new test soon.
    Recovery, now that is very interesting. If you mean how quick my HR comes back down from one zone to a lower, that is quite quick. Is there a method of calculating this?
  • sh-g
    sh-g Posts: 30
    Imposter wrote:
    sh-g wrote:
    Confused? I am. :)
    So are we. You still haven't said what your objectives are.

    High.
    Ok, Lifelong runner, new to cycling. Sometimes ride with a group. Get dropped on hills and towards the end of longer rides.
    Therfor goals are hill climbing strength and endurance.
    But as I mention sometimes when I think I am training endurance different sites show me that I am in tempo or threshold etc. depending on their interpretation of HR zones.
  • mamba80
    mamba80 Posts: 5,032
    if i was 69 and embarking on a new form of exercise/training regime, i d have a full med first esp if you ve any concerns at all.

    then... dont get hung up on HR zones, read up on fast after 50 by friel and look at his hr zones, he uses 5 i think and they calc around threshold HR after a 20min test.
    once you get much over TH perceived exertion might be better for short efforts.

    Fair play though, most 69yo i know are getting ready for the grave.
  • diy
    diy Posts: 6,473
    Heart rate recovery (HRR) has been shown to predict cardiovascular disease mortality(1), therefore before embarking on a regime to train against certain zones, possibly pushing oneself to hit certain rates etc.. I'd want as best an idea as I could get that what I was doing was not going to contribute to a heart attack or stroke, particularly as I got older, where statistically the risks are higher.

    Recovery rate of less than 12 bpm (in 1 minute) after peak exercise is an indicator of poor cardiovascular health, with recovery rate of 20 to 30 being the "sweet spot", though very fit people might recover at 40bpm or more. Given your high peak HR and lifetime athletic activity, I'd be wanting to see a min of 20-30bpm recovery rate from max in the first minute.


    (1) http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... 0283411804

    FYI one of the spin instructors at my gym is in his 70s and did a vets TdF only a few years ago.
    Guide to cheap bike lights Turbo Trainer Vids Play list
    Stretching & Workout Vids
  • sh-g
    sh-g Posts: 30
    Imposter wrote:
    There are many different ways of splitting zones, but (assuming your max is accurate) they all achieve the same or similar objectives. I used to train using just three zones, but I knew of others who trained using up to five. What are you training for?

    Relatively new to cycling. I'm training so i dont get dropped on hills and towards the end of longer rides (70-90kms)
    And just for the pure fun of it. :D
  • sh-g
    sh-g Posts: 30
    Imposter wrote:
    sh-g wrote:
    Confused? I am. :)
    So are we. You still haven't said what your objectives are.

    Objectives: Not to get dropped on hills and towards the end of longer rides (70-100kms)
    What I am really trying to understand is why there are so many variations on what i would have thought was a fairly standard measurement. IE at what point do we trigger Endurance, Tempo and threshold. I know we are all different but why do some say XX% and others XY%. It's not logical.
  • sh-g
    sh-g Posts: 30
    mamba80 wrote:
    if i was 69 and embarking on a new form of exercise/training regime, i d have a full med first esp if you ve any concerns at all.

    then... dont get hung up on HR zones, read up on fast after 50 by Friel and look at his hr zones, he uses 5 i think and they calc around threshold HR after a 20min test.
    once you get much over TH perceived exertion might be better for short efforts.

    Fair play though, most 69yo i know are getting ready for the grave.

    Not over the hill yet mate. My health and fitness are A1. I've been a runner and cross country skier most of my life took up cycling 3 years ago when doc said my hip couldn't take any more pounding the tarmac but cycling was a good alternative and it has turned out to be just that. I'll read Friels fast over 50 and see what he says on the zones.
  • Alex_Simmons/RST
    Alex_Simmons/RST Posts: 4,161
    sh-g wrote:
    Imposter wrote:
    sh-g wrote:
    Confused? I am. :)
    So are we. You still haven't said what your objectives are.

    Objectives: Not to get dropped on hills and towards the end of longer rides (70-100kms)
    What I am really trying to understand is why there are so many variations on what i would have thought was a fairly standard measurement. IE at what point do we trigger Endurance, Tempo and threshold. I know we are all different but why do some say XX% and others XY%. It's not logical.
    The reality is that the body doesn't make such arbitrary distinctions about training levels - they are more for our convenience in conveying the primary training focus of an effort, a general level of effort to strive for.

    In reality physiological responses to exercise and exercise intensity is on a continuum and levels really blend into each other.

    Which means that it's ripe for many to come up with all sorts of schema and make it sound like the bees knees.

    Good training levels descriptions will have enough levels to convey an effort that primarily targets different elements of physiological development or energy system usage, but not so many level that they are confusing.

    Since HR is such a lagging and relatively imprecise indicator of effort, then you really don't need too many HR training levels, and those that are supra "threshold" are of not much value anyway due to the impacts of cardiac drift and the lagging response time of HR to exercise.

    So in general HR levels will include:
    recovery pace
    endurance
    heavy endurance/tempo
    threshold
    supra threshold

    There isn't much point defining various HR levels in the supra threshold area - such efforts would be done on pace or feel or are simply maximal in nature and not paced.

    With power measurement you can nail things down a bit better for near- and supra-threshold work.
    RST Sport : Coaching - Training Plans - Powermeters -- My blog -- AeroCoach Australia
  • sh-g
    sh-g Posts: 30
    diy wrote:
    Heart rate recovery (HRR) has been shown to predict cardiovascular disease mortality(1), therefore before embarking on a regime to train against certain zones, possibly pushing oneself to hit certain rates etc.. I'd want as best an idea as I could get that what I was doing was not going to contribute to a heart attack or stroke, particularly as I got older, where statistically the risks are higher.

    Recovery rate of less than 12 bpm (in 1 minute) after peak exercise is an indicator of poor cardiovascular health, with recovery rate of 20 to 30 being the "sweet spot", though very fit people might recover at 40bpm or more. Given your high peak HR and lifetime athletic activity, I'd be wanting to see a min of 20-30bpm recovery rate from max in the first minute.


    (1) http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NE ... 0283411804

    FYI one of the spin instructors at my gym is in his 70s and did a vets TdF only a few years ago.

    Never felt I have had a problem to bring my HR down after exertion but today I checked it out. About 25bpm. Don't think I could do a TdF though :wink:
  • fenix
    fenix Posts: 5,437
    mamba80 wrote:
    Fair play though, most 69yo i know are getting ready for the grave.

    Cheery ! It won't be long before we can't even retire until we're in our 70s !

    I have 80 year olds in my spin class - probably fitter than most 20 year olds. Use it or lose it !
  • sh-g
    sh-g Posts: 30
    sh-g wrote:
    I thought I knew about training with Heart rate zones but the more I read the more confused I get. It seems that everybody has their own idea of % of each zone and what benefits are gained in each zone.
    So I'm throwing this question out for general discussion.
    Age: 69
    My resting heart rate is 60
    Max HR 183
    Fitness: Above average (I think :oops: )

    So what do you guys think are my zones and training benefits ie, endurance, tempo threshold.

    Really love to hear your opinions

    Quite honestly It seems to me that there are as many HR zones or rather "Perceived Heart Zones" as there are websites!
    Let me explain.
    Today I did a TrainerRoad workout.
    TrainerRoad say I was in Tempo 52%
    Strava say I was in Z2 81%
    Connect Garmin say I was in Z3 52%
    TrainingPeaks say I was in Z2 35% & Z3 51%

    Any wonder I am confused? :cry:
  • imposter2.0
    imposter2.0 Posts: 12,028
    Those differing percentages suggest that you are not working to a consistent HR definition, like MHR or LTHR, or that each of those different sites has a different interpretation of what your numbers are.

    As people have already pointed out, it doesn't really matter if one site thinks you are in Z3 while another thinks you are in Z2. What matters is that you settle on one set of metrics aginst a MHR or LTHR that you know is accurate.
  • sh-g
    sh-g Posts: 30
    mamba80 wrote:
    if i was 69 and embarking on a new form of exercise/training regime, i d have a full med first esp if you ve any concerns at all.

    then... dont get hung up on HR zones, read up on fast after 50 by friel and look at his hr zones, he uses 5 i think and they calc around threshold HR after a 20min test.
    once you get much over TH perceived exertion might be better for short efforts.

    Fair play though, most 69yo i know are getting ready for the grave.

    Need to be fit if I'm off to cycling heaven :P

Categories