[FishMan473]

My knowledge of heart-rate-based training is about 20 years old. I'm used to zones being based off %Max HR, it seems now they are based on % of lactic threshold, which I presume is so that it better corresponds to power-based training zones. Is that right?

I am focused on endurance events. I typically pace based off trying to stay in a zone between 75% and 83% my max HR while racing (that's 140-154 BPM for me). This seems to work, though sometimes I feel like the top of the zone could be higher, up to 85% (159 BPM), especially earlier in events. That said, I'm not really contenting for the podium so the tortoise approach works.

I'm starting to look into threshold-based zones today, and its not clear how this would work for me. I'm stuck on 3 issues:

1. Z2, "Endurance" (119-143 BPM for me), seems too low for endurance racing, and Z3, "Tempo" (144-162 BPM), seems to high. However, I can see how these are valuable training zones.
2. From what I am reading, Z3 is not something one should be able to keep-up for 6-16 hours anyway... correct? My experience is that I tend to naturally fall between 140 to 150bpm, and I have to push myself a bit to try to average 151bpm. I definitely hit that 162bpm on climbs, and sometimes higher... but the low end of "Tempo" seems to high for endurance racing. Does that seem right?
3. Lastly, the threshold based zones are way-off from the stock zones on my Garmin. The Garmin zones are pretty generic for sure, but

Perhaps my next step should be doing a few sessions to try to determine what my actual lactic threshold HR is and go from there? rather than basing this all on 93% of my Max HR (which itself is a good estimate, but not recently measured)?

I'd be interested in people's thoughts or articles they'd suggest that could clear things up.

Before anyone suggests it: I don't see myself getting any power meters in the near future. Maybe someday, but not relevant right now.

Thanks for any input.

 

[tick_magnet]

There are others here (like LMN a few others) that are more knowledgeable than me, but my understanding is that your aerobic threshold heart rate (top of Zone 2) can range anywhere from 60% to 85% of max heart rate, which is a huge range. So you have to do some testing to find yours. Before I approximated mine, I was definitely under-training using fixed zones provided by Polar and some of the other "fixed forumulas" out there. I think those might be relevant for a newbie to the world of endurance sports, but for seasoned folks, they can miss by quite a bit. One rule of thumb and easy test is just to ride for 10-20 minutes (after a 15 minute warm-up) and use the "conversation test". Can you hold a normal conversation without straining too much? If so, you are still in Zone 2. Increase pace until you are at the "threshold." Another way is just to determine your lactate threshold and then use a lactate threshold zone calculator to get your aerobic threshold. I used both methods to try to pin down my aerobic threshold HR and they were consistent in showing that my aerobic HR threshold was about 83% of max HR.

 

[LMN]

The key thing is to find out what your threshold heart rate is. I generally use average heart rate for an average race as my estimates. But this just an estimate, you need to use feel, same is true if you are using power.

I am a big fan of a simple 3-zone system.
My threshold HR is about 170 nowadays. So my HR zones.


Zone 1: Recovery and Endurance (<145). This feels comfortable, in the short and medium term you don't really notice much load. It isn't until after that 2hr mark that you start to feel load.

Zone 2: Tempo/Sweet Spot/Threshold (145-170) : This is what I call fell good hard. You are going fast and hard but it feels good. Discomfort starts at 10-60 minutes depending on your fitness and where you are in the zone.

Zone 3: MAP+ (170+). This is just hard, there is no feel good. Really uncomfortable after minute or so.

 

[J.B. Weld]

I would consider using a 7 zone system and set them using a lactate threshold test like this-

Joe Friel's Quick Guide to Setting Zones | TrainingPeaks

Make sure you're hitting the right intensity for every workout.

www.trainingpeaks.com

 

[FJSnoozer]

Are you doing this for the purpose of pacing an effort and racing or doing interval training in those zones?

Either way your quoted pacing zones are off. For the effort unless you are defining “endurance” as 8+ hour efforts.


My XC races ending average HR are 92-96% of Max depending upon terrain, heat, and descending where my HR falls dramatically and lowers my average.

Marathon XC races are 88%-93%


For executing threshold intervals it’s a whole different ball game. Since the first interval will start at what looks like SS, as the body hasn’t reacted yet and the HR will climb 10-12 bps for a given wattage effort between the start of interval 1 and the end of interval 3.


For pacing events, I do try to govern HR a bit on climbs depending on the course and race flow. Example: don’t bang off the rev limiter throughout the race (maybe just the race start or a key hill.

Sometimes you have to just hide it and let her rip. You may just be slowing yourself down and not achieving what you are capable of. The inverse, is true. On some courses with longer climbs I may use HR to make sure I am going as hard as I have budgeted. Then it’s an aid in allowing myself to push deeper. Example: on a 3 minute climb I better not be sitting at 93% of max and if I see that on my wrist, I dig deeper.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Sidewalk]

After many years of racing, I learned that the HR and power data is nice, but RPE works best for a race. Sometimes I look at the data on my Garmin to see if it matches how I feel, usually it motivates me to push a little harder, but then I just settle right back to the RPE I wanted to begin with.

For training, I use power. BUT, you can use LMN's referenced 3 zone for training efforts pretty well. Doing threshold workouts with power I end up right around my threshold HR at the end of each set of intervals. Sweet spot power workouts are usually around high low Z2 on 3 zone, or about 10-15 BPM below my threshold. RPE is right in the uncomfortable, not painful. VO2 Max intervals are going to get you past your threshold by the end of the set.

I do race for podiums, even if I can't get them. One of my best races that I use for self reference I averaged tempo HR, but that had 9000' of climbing and descending, lots of spiking the HR and recovery. But the first climb is 40 minutes long (KOM) and I was at my threshold HR (probably threshold power with elevation).

 

[FJSnoozer]

To Sidewalks experience and my earlier point. pan Flat twisty races I would expect some of the highest HR averages of any of my races. Likely 95% of Max.

I also need more recovery for my HEart in the following 2 days.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[tick_magnet]

OP it looks like you have your Z2 between 64-77% of max HR and your tempo between 77-87% of max. The fact that you naturally fall between 140-150 (75-80%) tells me your Z2 is probably too low so you are somewhat caught in the middle. If you have been doing this for a while, chances are that your endurance zone threshold is above 77%. I also like LMN's three zone model. It's simple and based on actuall physiological lactate turn points. (first turnpoint or top of Z1 is the aerobic threshold and second turnpoint or bottom of Z3 is the lactate threshold). The five zone and seven zone models aren't really based on physiological turn points so I wouldn't know how to interpret the boundaries. Once you get your lactate threshold and aerobic theshold, then you've pinned down your three zone boundaries. Keep it simple.

 

[xcskier66]

My knowledge of heart-rate-based training is about 20 years old. I'm used to zones being based off %Max HR, it seems now they are based on % of lactic threshold, which I presume is so that it better corresponds to power-based training zones. Is that right?

I am focused on endurance events. I typically pace based off trying to stay in a zone between 75% and 83% my max HR while racing (that's 140-154 BPM for me). This seems to work, though sometimes I feel like the top of the zone could be higher, up to 85% (159 BPM), especially earlier in events. That said, I'm not really contenting for the podium so the tortoise approach works.

I'm starting to look into threshold-based zones today, and its not clear how this would work for me. I'm stuck on 3 issues:

1. Z2, "Endurance" (119-143 BPM for me), seems too low for endurance racing, and Z3, "Tempo" (144-162 BPM), seems to high. However, I can see how these are valuable training zones.
2. From what I am reading, Z3 is not something one should be able to keep-up for 6-16 hours anyway... correct? My experience is that I tend to naturally fall between 140 to 150bpm, and I have to push myself a bit to try to average 151bpm. I definitely hit that 162bpm on climbs, and sometimes higher... but the low end of "Tempo" seems to high for endurance racing. Does that seem right?
3. Lastly, the threshold based zones are way-off from the stock zones on my Garmin. The Garmin zones are pretty generic for sure, but

Perhaps my next step should be doing a few sessions to try to determine what my actual lactic threshold HR is and go from there? rather than basing this all on 93% of my Max HR (which itself is a good estimate, but not recently measured)?

I'd be interested in people's thoughts or articles they'd suggest that could clear things up.

Before anyone suggests it: I don't see myself getting any power meters in the near future. Maybe someday, but not relevant right now.

Thanks for any input.

IMO: Your Z2 endurance upper bound is almost certainly too high.

I'm a big believer that it's a good idea to err conservatively low on your "easy" or Z2 heart rate. Setting it five beats to low isn't going to hurt you at all and in fact will almost certainly help you. There really isn't any advantage to grinding your HR up on your easy days to the upper zone of your easy.

The best XC skier ever, Marit Bjoergen (FYI: XC skiing is perhaps the most aerobically taxing endurance sport) set her easy HR at never to exceed 130 BPM and she had a max HR of around 180 BPM. That is really slow FYI, like walking up hills slow like shifting into your 52T cog on every uphill slow. And guess what? It worked! There is a big difference in effort between a distance session that averages 130 BPM and never exceeds 130 BPM too...the later is much much easier and likely to produce gains.

And there is where posters will chime in and say: This "polarized" HR approach only applies to athletes training >15 hours a week. And to that I would say...baloney. I think for low-volume athletes a "polarized" HR approach is even more important. Mostly because low-volume athletes have tons of other life stressors that can wear you out and reduce your ability to recover from your harder sessions.

There are no official laws of exercise science but if there were it would be this: Supercompensation. Training makes you slower because it breaks down your muscles and body; recovery from training makes you faster. A low easy HR makes it more likely that you will recover well from your hard sessions and benefit from the "law" of supercompensation.

 

[J.B. Weld]

The best XC skier ever, Marit Bjoergen (FYI: XC skiing is perhaps the most aerobically taxing endurance sport) set her easy HR at never to exceed 130 BPM and she had a max HR of around 180 BPM. That is really slow FYI, like walking up hills slow like shifting into your 52T cog on every uphill slow.

My max is also near 180 bpm and when in upper z-2 (according to power and 7 zone system) I'm usually around 120-125 and I wouldn't describe that effort as slow or easy. For me that's pushing the pedals and after riding that pace for 2 hours I definitely feel like I was working pretty good.

Not saying anything in your post is wrong and maybe I should be doing easier z-2 efforts, (or possibly even some z-1 rides which I never do) but this is one reason I prefer to set zones based on power. For me to be doing perceived efforts that are slow & easy I'd be around 100 bpm, at least on most days.

Guess I like hard numbers, my hr is wonky and I don't trust my own perceived effort 🙃

 

[tick_magnet]

The top of Z2 (or Z1 in the three zone model) is also going to vary by sport. I can literally run all day long (subject to foot and joint soreness) at 82% of max heart rate but doing that on the bike will tank me in 1 to 1.5 hours.

 

[J.B. Weld]

The top of Z2 (or Z1 in the three zone model) is also going to vary by sport. I can literally run all day long (subject to foot and joint soreness) at 82% of max heart rate but doing that on the bike will tank me in 1 to 1.5 hours.

That might be due to conditioning in each sport, I'm the exact opposite of you!


*correction, I can ride in z-2 all day but running @ z-2 will tank me in about 1.5 minutes

 

[tick_magnet]

Haha that's awesome.

I'm not sure it's all conditioning though. Lots of the triathlon/ cross training programs say, as a rule of thumb, to reduce cycling Z2 bpm by 5-10 beats. And for swimming, yet another adjustment has to be made.

The other issue is that there is a wide range even within Z2 and even a bigger range within Z1 in the three zone model. Riding at 65% isn't the same thing as 74%. It's interesting that elite runners who use the polarized model vary their aerobic run intensity and length by quite a bit in different days to made sure are no "gaps" that aren't filled.

 

[bikeranzin]

*correction, I can ride in z-2 all day but running @ z-2 will tank me in about 1.5 minutes

I'm not sure it's all conditioning though.

I think the joke here is that running is a truly awful experience for a pure cyclist. Riding a bike seems to very specifically make you good at riding bikes. The converse of having run fitness seems to translate fairly well to cycling, especially when comparing a fit cyclist doing running versus a fit runner doing cycling.

Lots of the triathlon/ cross training programs say, as a rule of thumb, to reduce cycling Z2 bpm by 5-10 beats.

That tends to be what people observe. You'll see myriad posts on forums about runners feeling totally gassed riding a bike near heart rates that are fairly comfortable on foot. A contributor to this effect seems to be that cycling is basically 3 leg muscles, and within that, heavily quad and glute dominated. Running requires more musculature, which will elevate your HR at the same RPE.

 

[D. Inoobinati]

Member has removed content due to fundamental disagreement with this site owner's views favoring expanded access for electric mountain bikes (eMtb) on multiuse singletrack in public lands.

 

[xcskier66]

Totally agreed!

Anyone who says that their lactate threshold heart rate is 164 BPM doesn't know what they are talking about.

I do all my "threshold" workouts based on feel. I've noticed that by threshold HR gets about 5 BPM higher as I get fitter throughout the season. This is totally normal.

Also1: threshold HR isn't constant over time. It will slowly creep up over a workout. For example, if you start a threshold workout you might average 158 BPM during the first ten minutes and 166 BPM during the last ten minutes at the same wattage or perceived effort. This is normal!

Also2: XC MTB isn't a steady state sport. Even during "steady state" threshold efforts you might "sprint" above your threshold for 10 seconds to clear a tech uphill and then rest for 20 seconds on the way down. Training these microbursts is a huge part of the sport. Trainer workouts where you hold a specific wattage for X percent of the time have their place, but aren't a perfect surrogate for trail riding.

 

[tick_magnet]

Good points. A seasoned runner that I run with often tells me that on my aerobic threshold runs (marathon pace), I need to, as a rule of thumb, increase my heart rate by 1 bpm per mile over the course of an hour to keep it at AT. He says otherwise, I am not doing an AT run for most of the run.

 

[J.B. Weld]

Good points. A seasoned runner that I run with often tells me that on my aerobic threshold runs (marathon pace), I need to, as a rule of thumb, increase my heart rate by 1 bpm per mile over the course of an hour to keep it at AT. He says otherwise, I am not doing an AT run for most of the run.

Exactly why I think power is a more reliable metric. I often notice heart rate changes during intervals while doing steady power. Also cardiac drift can happen @ steady power and is useful data to gauge aerobic fitness.

If I were doing a z-2 workout based on steady heart rate I might start out at 200w and end up at 170w.

I'm only referring to cycling though and admittedly know nothing about running. I'm guessing they don't make power meters for running shoes?

 

[xcskier66]

Exactly why I think power is a more reliable metric. I often notice heart rate changes during intervals while doing steady power. Also cardiac drift can happen @ steady power and is useful data to gauge aerobic fitness.

Power is not a more reliable metric...it is an easier to interpret metric than heart rate. Everyone always shits on heart rate because it is "variable" and yes heart rate is variable. But the stock market is variable and it is the people who are comfortable and understand variability that reap the benefits.

Heart rate is incredibly responsive to total body stress; if you are healthy your heart rate will not beat one single beat more than it needs to support total systemic stress. If its hot, you had coffee, you fought with your spouse or you are recovering from road rash your heart rate will be "variable" but it is telling you something important.

200 watts might feel like a dream if you got 11 hours of sleep, ate well and last did a hard workout four days ago. 200 watts can feel like a nightmare if you were up with a sick kid, slept poorly and are worried about work. This is why is why FEEL>>HR>>Power in terms of cycling metrics. Cyclists love the simplicity of just looking at the power meter because it never lies but somehow it still seems to lie the most of any training metric.

Also: here is a video where Evie Richards mentions she only trains off heart rate and only her coaches look at her power. If XC World Champ only uses HR....maybe HR is a good metric?

 

[LMN]

Exactly why I think power is a more reliable metric. I often notice heart rate changes during intervals while doing steady power. Also cardiac drift can happen @ steady power and is useful data to gauge aerobic fitness.

If I were doing a z-2 workout based on steady heart rate I might start out at 200w and end up at 170w.

I'm only referring to cycling though and admittedly know nothing about running. I'm guessing they don't make power meters for running shoes?

Power has similar issues. If you are doing a 30-40 minute climb, your threshold power drops 5-10 watts due to elevation change. As outside temperature rises threshold power drops. Power meters are also notoriously unreliable and the variance from power meter to power meter can be quite high. 200 watts on a Stages is a completely different workout then 200 watts on a Quark or on a Smart trainer.

I am a big fan of athletes using PE, HR, and Power to monitor their training intensity. All of them have issues and limitations but together I think they are pretty good.

One athlete I work with does a lot of XC skiing for her training. Last winter she was doing 70km skis in 4hrs and keeping her hr between 120-135bpm. For XC skiing that is really moving, particularly at those heart rates. She is a good skier and very strong on a bike but the numbers were off. She was super deep in a training block and seeing significant heart rate depression. When we put her on a trainer we saw similar things, low heart rates for any given power output and precieved effort. After a good rest period her heart rate came back up and was responding as expected.