Advertisement
Have your say on the future of the 'Save Draft' feature in this poll
MODs please see this information notice in the mod's forum. Thanks!
How to add spoiler tags, edit posts, add images etc. How to - a user's guide to the new version of Boards

Heart Rate Training - beginners guide

145791013

Comments



  • Murph_D wrote: »
    Sounds OK so. I've always used the HRR method, just never associated it with Karvonen. I think I was mixing it up with the Maffetone method, which I'd glanced at recently. Happy to admit my error.

    Yeah the MAF method is very hit and miss. Doesn't take into account a person's max HR or their resting Hr for that matter. Will work for some but not for everyone.




  • I've been reading the 80/20 book by Matt Fitzgerald and I'm interested in trying out some of his plans, no better time than now I thought with no races for a while. I probably already follow a 80/20 split in training but after reading the book I thought I'd try one of his plans just to keep myself occupied while I've nothing to really train for at the moment.
    As mentioned I use the %HRR methods for calculating my zones. Fitzgerald uses %LT for his zones.
    I'm trying to apply my zones to his zones but I'm getting confused. In his book there are only 5 zones but when I look online he now has 7 zones, an x zone between Zone 2/3 and a y zone between Zone 3/4. I don't see any mention of these x and y zones in the book.
    I don't really want to start training by %LT as I like the %HRR method and I'm used to it.
    Has anyone any thoughts on converting the Fitzgeralds zones into a more traditional way of calculating zones?




  • FinnC wrote: »
    I've been reading the 80/20 book by Matt Fitzgerald and I'm interested in trying out some of his plans, no better time than now I thought with no races for a while. I probably already follow a 80/20 split in training but after reading the book I thought I'd try one of his plans just to keep myself occupied while I've nothing to really train for at the moment.
    As mentioned I use the %HRR methods for calculating my zones. Fitzgerald uses %LT for his zones.
    I'm trying to apply my zones to his zones but I'm getting confused. In his book there are only 5 zones but when I look online he now has 7 zones, an x zone between Zone 2/3 and a y zone between Zone 3/4. I don't see any mention of these x and y zones in the book.
    I don't really want to start training by %LT as I like the %HRR method and I'm used to it.
    Has anyone any thoughts on converting the Fitzgeralds zones into a more traditional way of calculating zones?

    I'm on exactly the same track as yourself at the moment. I think zone x and y are quite narrow at the bottom of zone 3 and 4 in the 5 zone system.

    If you run at the top half of the zones as I'd imagine most people would you will avoid x and y.

    I'm using hrr method too as I'm pretty sure I know my max hr and resting . I did try a a lt talk test the other day as describe in the book but It didnt really work out for me.




  • The X and Y zones are the 'in between' zones that the book does not use, and in fact Fitzgerald wants you to try to avoid them (to keep your zones 3 and 4 runs in specific areas). X is the bottom half of Zone 3, Y is the bottom part of Zone 4. LTHR is the top of zone 3.

    I know my LTHR from a formal LT test. For me it equates to 85% of HRR at last test (2019). I'd imagine that number is different for every individual, but it might put you in the general area. You could also do the field test that Fitzgerald recommends, to get a better idea of your own LTHR.

    Good luck!




  • Murph_D wrote:
    The X and Y zones are the 'in between' zones that the book does not use, and in fact Fitzgerald wants you to try to avoid them (to keep your zones 3 and 4 runs in specific areas). X is the bottom half of Zone 3, Y is the bottom part of Zone 4. LTHR is the top of zone 3.I know my LTHR from a formal LT test. For me it equates to 85% of HRR at last test (2019). I'd imagine that number is different for every individual, but it might put you in the general area. You could also do the field test that Fitzgerald recommends, to get a better idea of your own LTHR.


    So Zone 1 and Zone 2 I'm thinking are similar enough in both methods. (Easy/Recovery, the zone for the 80% part of the plan)

    Zone X then is basically my Zone 3,or more specifically low to mid Zone 3. (Marathon Pace)

    Zone 3 is my mid to high Zone 3 into low Zone 4. (Tempo pace)

    Zone Y is my mid Zone 4.

    Zone 4 is my high Zone 4 to low Zone 5 (Vo2Max)

    Zone 5 is mid to high Zone 5.(Pain in chest and burning lungs Zone!)

    Does that sound reasonable?


  • Advertisement


  • FinnC wrote: »
    So Zone 1 and Zone 2 I'm thinking are similar enough in both methods. (Easy/Recovery, the zone for the 80% part of the plan)

    Zone X then is basically my Zone 3,or more specifically low to mid Zone 3. (Marathon Pace)

    Zone 3 is my mid to high Zone 3 into low Zone 4. (Tempo pace)

    Zone Y is my mid Zone 4.

    Zone 4 is my high Zone 4 to low Zone 5 (Vo2Max)

    Zone 5 is mid to high Zone 5.(Pain in chest and burning lungs Zone!)

    Does that sound reasonable?

    You just need to avoid zones x and y. The book is pretty clear about why it avoids these areas - mostly to keep the 'hard' runs hard. x in particular is a zone you want to avoid in the 'easy' portion of the plan - as MF suggests most runners tend to drift into this low zone 3 area during so-called 'easy' runs.

    The plan recommends you do the faster zone 4 (VO2) and 5 (Speed) workouts by pace, not HR.




  • I think "beginners guide" could be removed from the thread title at this stage. It's a great overall HR training discussion IMO.

    I think the more that people interpret heart rate zones the more likely they will use it as a central governor to regulate the pace of easy runs. Maybe just a coincidence but when training with hr I've rarely been injured. Perhaps because I tend to "listen" to my body more.

    Chasing paces or hitting paces of workouts at all costs is where the danger lies, personally at least.




  • I've seen people saying zone 2 run and when you look at what zone 2 is I'd be in the middle of zone 4 level.




  • From what I can see on strava most average joes do easy and recovery runs as fast as the pros that I follow. People hate running slow. Plenty of strava warriors no doubt as well.




  • SeeMoreBut wrote: »
    I've seen people saying zone 2 run and when you look at what zone 2 is I'd be in the middle of zone 4 level.

    Well unless you know the individual’s max HR the number you see on their strava feed is meaningless.


  • Advertisement


  • I think "beginners guide" could be removed from the thread title at this stage. It's a great overall HR training discussion IMO.

    I think the more that people interpret heart rate zones the more likely they will use it as a central governor to regulate the pace of easy runs. Maybe just a coincidence but when training with hr I've rarely been injured. Perhaps because I tend to "listen" to my body more.

    Chasing paces or hitting paces of workouts at all costs is where the danger lies, personally at least.


    This 100%.

    Using pace as a guide for general aerobic running is deeply flawed imo.

    Good point re the title change, I'm not able to do it at this stage, maybe a mod can edit it.




  • I've been thinking about trying HR training for a while and have found this thread invaluable. I've been running for a few years but have never managed to fully complete a training cycle, mostly because I get injured/burnt out, and end up dropping mileage. I thought my easy pace was truly easy - we're talking 11 minute miles - but have since realised that almost all my 'slow' runs were probably smack bang in the middle of zone 3, and I never really ran at an easy pace. I was also finding it harder and harder to achieve fast paces in 5ks, that would have been manageable a couple of years ago.
    So I've been experimenting for the past few weeks, have bought the 80/20 book, and am starting the Level 3 half marathon plan today. I set up the HR zones using a couple of different methods (Kavroenen among others), mostly using 187 as my max HR (have seen this a few times in races and hard sessions), so I've set up my zones based on this.
    I've run every day for the past three weeks using HR training, between 35 and 40 miles a week, and feeling good. I've realised that I now feel completely different to how I finishing an easy run before. The hard stuff is still hard, but I'm recovering quicker. My zone 2 miles are generally between 12 and 13 minutes miles, which before would have horrified me, but because I'm feeling good and running more I don't mind as much. I'm trying to incorporate a lot of hills into my easy runs as I'm planning on trail running over the summer - this means I've to slow down further and sometimes walk, and that's fine too.
    I'm exploring more random trails in the Phoenix Park as I'm not worried about paces. So far it's been working well.
    I'm aware I'm still in the middle of novelty territory but looking forward to seeing how this goes. Thanks for all the great tips in here!




  • Hey pansophelia

    My max hr is 187 too. I hit 190 in my 20s but that is long gone :o I'd be interested to know what zones you have established from 80/20? I have the book but its on a list waiting to be read.

    I have mentioned in the thread at points that I've used HR in training for years. Even back into my early 20s with competitive rowing we had zones to work from set by HR and test data. I've always used it but never truly trusted it as I thought heart rate was affected by so many other factors that training. However my first penny drop was that was exactly the whole point of it! It was a number for your whole body, not just the performance at a given time. Your heart never stops, training does. So it makes sense that understanding your heart, your circadian rhythm and training within it, ought to impact your training right?

    The thing is the heart rate monitors are not always perfect. Garmin takes a few weeks to "get to know you" but still struggles to find your pulse for the first few minutes of exercise, despite tracking it 24/7 these days. As a result of the inaccurate or spiked reading, it is less reliable as a training metric. I've learned differently...

    While a single session might show weird hr readings (and a hrm will usually be better than wrist based), over time you will learn about general trends. Your heart rate max and average in workouts, races. Its good to keep a diary to track it. Do I use it as a reliable metric now? Yes! Not as my primary metric always. During winter training, base training or off season when I tend to only use it. I tend to get a feel for what each zone feels like but chiefly easy zones. Like what is recovery vs easy vs steasy (easy but not easy, kinda steady, a harder sort of easy).

    At first I I used to write down <130hr (70% hrmax) or 9min miles. At first I'd struggle to keep my heart rate under 130. I just found it difficult to run that slow. I ended up walking on hills to keep it capped. It was frustrating and not enjoyable at all. This was supposed to be running, not walking! Id run right at the limit of the hr zone to get the best pace I could for that heart rate. I'd only do one run like that per week and it was my least favourite. But I stuck to the cap. What happened was the pace started to improve as I got fitter. I began to find it more comfortable to hold the heart rate cap and run, even slowly run over hills that I had to walk (that in itself felt fantastic!)

    I applied the same principle to the next zone 75%, easy. Same thing. By the time I started adding workouts, I was looking forward to the 130hr runs and had no issue running very easy. I found I could build the mileage beyond where I previously broke down (doing it all at zone 3!)

    In a long winded way, what I am saying is with heart rate training I learned how to run slow and easy. Its the most popular advise I've received form lots of speedsters but its actually hard to do. It takes discipline and a willingness to de-prioritise pace, for a while.

    Another benefit of heart rate training and knowing how to train by heart rate is having it as a default when things go pear shaped. Last year mid way through a marathon cycle I got Flu. I missed 2 weeks. I knew my target pace was out the door and it took some discipline not to chase the plan. I went back to heart rate for a week to establish where I was and what a realistic marathon target was. Whats more, I accepted it (10 secs slower). The net result was by not chasing the plan, I actually caught up with it naturally again within weeks and ended up executing the original target pace with a few weeks to go, and on the day. Proving that a couple of weeks off coupled with a smart approach, governed by hr training need not derail your plan.

    The thing about training by heart rate is you will always be training for where you are now, not where you want to be :)




  • Hey pansophelia

    My max hr is 187 too. I hit 190 in my 20s but that is long gone :o I'd be interested to know what zones you have established from 80/20? I have the book but its on a list waiting to be read.

    I have mentioned in the thread at points that I've used HR in training for years. Even back into my early 20s with competitive rowing we had zones to work from set by HR and test data. I've always used it but never truly trusted it as I thought heart rate was affected by so many other factors that training. However my first penny drop was that was exactly the whole point of it! It was a number for your whole body, not just the performance at a given time. Your heart never stops, training does. So it makes sense that understanding your heart, your circadian rhythm and training within it, ought to impact your training right?

    The thing is the heart rate monitors are not always perfect. Garmin takes a few weeks to "get to know you" but still struggles to find your pulse for the first few minutes of exercise, despite tracking it 24/7 these days. As a result of the inaccurate or spiked reading, it is less reliable as a training metric. I've learned differently...

    While a single session might show weird hr readings (and a hrm will usually be better than wrist based), over time you will learn about general trends. Your heart rate max and average in workouts, races. Its good to keep a diary to track it. Do I use it as a reliable metric now? Yes! Not as my primary metric always. During winter training, base training or off season when I tend to only use it. I tend to get a feel for what each zone feels like but chiefly easy zones. Like what is recovery vs easy vs steasy (easy but not easy, kinda steady, a harder sort of easy).

    At first I I used to write down <130hr (70% hrmax) or 9min miles. At first I'd struggle to keep my heart rate under 130. I just found it difficult to run that slow. I ended up walking on hills to keep it capped. It was frustrating and not enjoyable at all. This was supposed to be running, not walking! Id run right at the limit of the hr zone to get the best pace I could for that heart rate. I'd only do one run like that per week and it was my least favourite. But I stuck to the cap. What happened was the pace started to improve as I got fitter. I began to find it more comfortable to hold the heart rate cap and run, even slowly run over hills that I had to walk (that in itself felt fantastic!)

    I applied the same principle to the next zone 75%, easy. Same thing. By the time I started adding workouts, I was looking forward to the 130hr runs and had no issue running very easy. I found I could build the mileage beyond where I previously broke down (doing it all at zone 3!)

    In a long winded way, what I am saying is with heart rate training I learned how to run slow and easy. Its the most popular advise I've received form lots of speedsters but its actually hard to do. It takes discipline and a willingness to de-prioritise pace, for a while.

    Another benefit of heart rate training and knowing how to train by heart rate is having it as a default when things go pear shaped. Last year mid way through a marathon cycle I got Flu. I missed 2 weeks. I knew my target pace was out the door and it took some discipline not to chase the plan. I went back to heart rate for a week to establish where I was and what a realistic marathon target was. Whats more, I accepted it (10 secs slower). The net result was by not chasing the plan, I actually caught up with it naturally again within weeks and ended up executing the original target pace with a few weeks to go, and on the day. Proving that a couple of weeks off coupled with a smart approach, governed by hr training need not derail your plan.

    The thing about training by heart rate is you will always be training for where you are now, not where you want to be :)

    Thanks so much for the detailed reply! Tbh, I haven't strictly used the 80/20 method of calculating hr but instead trialed a few different methods including Maffetone and Kavroenen. I also noted your posts about not over-complicating it so been keeping that in mind. I'm thinking about the 80/20 method of averaging the last 20 minutes of a 30 minute TT to get an approximate LT, but want to wait a couple of weeks. At the moment, effort wise, these feel right.
    My zones are
    Zone 1: 123-136
    Zone 2: 136 - 149
    Zone 3: 146 - 161
    Zone 4: 162 - 173
    Zone 5: 174 - 187
    I'm aiming to keep my easy runs nearer 140 and avoiding the 150s as much as possible.
    The ironic thing is I've always been a big advocate for slow running - just clearly not slow enough.
    I've resurrected my chest strap from an old Garmin, that I haven't used before. It's mostly working well, just occasionally glitchy that is usually solved by wetting the sensors again.
    This year felt like the perfect time to try something different - without the usual low lying stress about racing/achieving times.
    One thing I've noticed is that if I HAVE to stay in zone 1 for five minutes at the beginning (as per the plan) it makes it easier to stay in zone 2 for the rest of the run.
    Anyway, I'll update here every so often how it's going and welcome feedback!




  • Murph_D wrote: »
    Well unless you know the individual’s max HR the number you see on their strava feed is meaningless.

    Level 2 up to close to 170 bpm. I’d seriously doubt that anyone has hr is that high for level 2.




  • I'm another advocate of Hr Training . I fell out of love with running two years ago and struggled to get back to it . In april I had yet another comeback but this time I read the 80 20 book and followed its recommendations.

    At first like others have said I was running between 13 and even 14 minute miles and still having to walk at times. It's difficult to keep the motivation and discipline to do that.

    After a month I noticed I wasnt really having to walk except on the odd incline .

    Now I'm running 11.30 minute miles in the zone and can stay in the zone on those same hills. I have not done any of the faster 20 stuff yet but I do have the level 2 5k plan printer and on the fridge so once i have a target race/run I'm going to do that. I'm really looking forward to that.

    I'm using the hrr method as I know my max hr to be 173 and resting is 54. I'm using the default garmin zones . My zone 2 is 124 to 138 bpm.




  • The Muppet wrote: »
    I'm another advocate of Hr Training . I fell out of love with running two years ago and struggled to get back to it . In april I had yet another comeback but this time I read the 80 20 book and followed its recommendations.

    At first like others have said I was running between 13 and even 14 minute miles and still having to walk at times. It's difficult to keep the motivation and discipline to do that.

    After a month I noticed I wasnt really having to walk except on the odd incline .

    Now I'm running 11.30 minute miles in the zone and can stay in the zone on those same hills. I have not done any of the faster 20 stuff yet but I do have the level 2 5k plan printer and on the fridge so once i have a target race/run I'm going to do that. I'm really looking forward to that.

    I'm using the hrr method as I know my max hr to be 173 and resting is 154. I'm using the default garmin zones . My zone 2 is 124 to 138 bpm.
    You need to go see a doctor if your resting HR is 154!! ;)




  • I don't train specifically by HR but i keep a close eye on it for my recovery & easy runs. However "zones" can vary a lot depending on the method used to calculate them.

    I've calculated Zones using Matt Fitzgerald (80/20, Stephen Seiler) which uses LTHR which i've had tested in a lab and verified in a field test and i've compared those Zones to the Zones given to me using the Karvonean Method calculator which uses HRR. And basically my 80/20 Zone 1 = Karvonean Zone 2 and 80/20 Zone 2 = Karvonean Zone 3 etc.

    I have an 80/20 app on my watch which tells me what 80/20 zone i'm in at any time. For easy runs i keep it at the middle-upper end of Zone 1 which is Karvonean Zone 2. This way i hope i'm covering the bases of being an aerobic run. But if i relied/trusted 80/20 completely this would mean all my 'easy/foundation' runs are actually recovery runs - so am I running my easy runs too easy? When i evaluate pace and RPE as well I don't think so.

    Great thread by the way, i haven't contributed much but i love following it :)




  • ewc78 wrote: »
    You need to go see a doctor if your resting HR is 154!! ;)

    Lol thanks . Changed that now.




  • my personal 3 tips for starting on this would be

    1. avoid any hills whatsoever for the first few months if possible as it will be very frustrating / hill walk

    2. leave your ego at the door on the way out - you will have to go slower than you are used to and stop and walk at times to get your HR down

    3. don't go too high above your zone 2 max HR / 70% HR (with whatever formula you use Karvonen or other) for longer than 30 seconds or you may struggle to get it back under control

    www.buymeacoffee.com/glassopy



  • Advertisement


  • ariana` wrote: »
    I don't train specifically by HR but i keep a close eye on it for my recovery & easy runs. However "zones" can vary a lot depending on the method used to calculate them.

    I've calculated Zones using Matt Fitzgerald (80/20, Stephen Seiler) which uses LTHR which i've had tested in a lab and verified in a field test and i've compared those Zones to the Zones given to me using the Karvonean Method calculator which uses HRR. And basically my 80/20 Zone 1 = Karvonean Zone 2 and 80/20 Zone 2 = Karvonean Zone 3 etc.

    I have an 80/20 app on my watch which tells me what 80/20 zone i'm in at any time. For easy runs i keep it at the middle-upper end of Zone 1 which is Karvonean Zone 2. This way i hope i'm covering the bases of being an aerobic run. But if i relied/trusted 80/20 completely this would mean all my 'easy/foundation' runs are actually recovery runs - so am I running my easy runs too easy? When i evaluate pace and RPE as well I don't think so.

    Great thread by the way, i haven't contributed much but i love following it :)

    I think if you are setting up the zones via the 80/20 (LT) method, yes, you should use the resulting numbers and trust that zone 2 is easy - especially if you are confident in the results of the LT tests. So to me, yes, your easy runs should be zone 2, not the zone 1 (recovery) you are using.

    Are you sure you've set it all up correctly? I put my own numbers into the links you listed above and my 'Karvonen' zone 2 is pretty much the same as Fitzgerald's. (The Zone 3, however, is different, but that's another argument!)




  • Murph_D wrote: »
    I think if you are setting up the zones via the 80/20 (LT) method, yes, you should use the resulting numbers and trust that zone 2 is easy - especially if you are confident in the results of the LT tests. So to me, yes, your easy runs should be zone 2, not the zone 1 (recovery) you are using.

    Are you sure you've set it all up correctly? I put my own numbers into the links you listed above and my 'Karvonen' zone 2 is pretty much the same as Fitzgerald's. (The Zone 3, however, is different, but that's another argument!)

    I don't have a lab test done but based on a couple of field tests my Karvonen zones are actually ever so slightly (2/3bpm) lower than the 80/20 zones...




  • Well either way it's probably a good rule of thumb to favour the numbers/zones prescribed by the method you're using at the time!




  • glasso wrote: »
    my personal 3 tips for starting on this would be

    1. avoid any hills whatsoever for the first few months if possible as it will be very frustrating / hill walk

    2. leave your ego at the door on the way out - you will have to go slower than you are used to and stop and walk at times to get your HR down

    3. don't go too high above your zone 2 max HR / 70% HR (with whatever formula you use Karvonen or other) for longer than 30 seconds or you may struggle to get it back under control

    Ego is a big thing.

    Yes people can run faster and will get through the session without much problem but that's not idea with HR training.

    Also if running and yapping away your hr will go up a few beats as you talk away and without alerts set you will be into zone 3 without knowing it. Lucky for me a person who I would run with when permissible as we live 10kms apart does his easy runs at same HR level as me and we would be around the same pace for that HR.

    HR is great for easy and threshold runs. Easy to turn a threshold run in to a to hard session.




  • Murph_D wrote: »
    I think if you are setting up the zones via the 80/20 (LT) method, yes, you should use the resulting numbers and trust that zone 2 is easy - especially if you are confident in the results of the LT tests. So to me, yes, your easy runs should be zone 2, not the zone 1 (recovery) you are using.

    Are you sure you've set it all up correctly? I put my own numbers into the links you listed above and my 'Karvonen' zone 2 is pretty much the same as Fitzgerald's. (The Zone 3, however, is different, but that's another argument!)

    That's interesting that yours were close to matching. I'm fairly sure i've set them correctly although now i am doubting myself, my math isn't too bad normally and I've double checked both with online calculators! My RHR could be out a couple of beats as it's the only HR metric which is measured solely with the watch - i use the chest strap running. If i was going to train solely by HR i'd repeat the 80/20 LTHR bench mark test. For now it's not an issue as the plan i'm following is based on pace ranges. However, I'd still like the reassuring that HR is the right zone for those important easy runs :cool:




  • ariana` wrote: »
    That's interesting that yours were close to matching. I'm fairly sure i've set them correctly although now i am doubting myself, my math isn't too bad normally and I've double checked both with online calculators! My RHR could be out a couple of beats as it's the only HR metric which is measured solely with the watch - i use the chest strap running. If i was going to train solely by HR i'd repeat the 80/20 LTHR bench mark test. For now it's not an issue as the plan i'm following is based on pace ranges. However, I'd still like the reassuring that HR is the right zone for those important easy runs :cool:

    Don’t think you need to factor resting HR at all into 80/20 zones as they are based on % of LTHR. Why don’t you throw up the numbers and we can check your maths!




  • Murph_D wrote: »
    I think if you are setting up the zones via the 80/20 (LT) method, yes, you should use the resulting numbers and trust that zone 2 is easy - especially if you are confident in the results of the LT tests. So to me, yes, your easy runs should be zone 2, not the zone 1 (recovery) you are using.

    Are you sure you've set it all up correctly? I put my own numbers into the links you listed above and my 'Karvonen' zone 2 is pretty much the same as Fitzgerald's. (The Zone 3, however, is different, but that's another argument!)

    Interesting
    I plugged my RHR (and a +3 RHR for interest) and my MaxHR. It roughly put my easy Z2 and LT Z4, 4-5 beats higher.

    In terms of easy and Z2. I'd agree with 145hr but this easily spilled to 150hr when running easy and 150hr is the start of MP zone! I brought easy back to 75% max and that was 140. So now I run the majority of easy miles in the 130s.

    In terms of LT. It put my LTHR or Z4 cap at 173. I know from feel that is too high. My own 90% max is 168.

    So I wouldn't use Karvonen personally as both easy and threshold are just a little on the high side for me.

    I'd suggest run most easy miles at 70% max
    Run threshold at 85-90% max




  • ariana` wrote: »
    That's interesting that yours were close to matching. I'm fairly sure i've set them correctly although now i am doubting myself, my math isn't too bad normally and I've double checked both with online calculators! My RHR could be out a couple of beats as it's the only HR metric which is measured solely with the watch - i use the chest strap running. If i was going to train solely by HR i'd repeat the 80/20 LTHR bench mark test. For now it's not an issue as the plan i'm following is based on pace ranges. However, I'd still like the reassuring that HR is the right zone for those important easy runs :cool:
    Murph_D wrote: »
    Don’t think you need to factor resting HR at all into 80/20 zones as they are based on % of LTHR. Why don’t you throw up the numbers and we can check your maths!

    I mentioned RHR in relation to the Karvonean calculation. I figured out since that my LTHR must be wrong as it's currently 94% of my Max (Shotgun's post above may have helped highlight the discrepancy) :o Strange as the lab and field test were within 1bpm of each other. I'll repeat the bench mark test sometime when i have a session planned that isn't too dissimilar.




  • ariana` wrote: »
    I mentioned RHR in relation to the Karvonean calculation. I figured out since that my LTHR must be wrong as it's currently 94% of my Max (Shotgun's post above may have helped highlight the discrepancy) :o Strange as the lab and field test were within 1bpm of each other. I'll repeat the bench mark test sometime when i have a session planned that isn't too dissimilar.

    I reckon my LT is around 89-90% of max HR. Sounds like your numbers are off somewhere alright. Maybe it’s your max that’s higher than you think?


  • Advertisement


  • Murph_D wrote: »
    I reckon my LT is around 89-90% of max HR. Sounds like your numbers are off somewhere alright. Maybe it’s your max that’s higher than you think?

    Interesting topic. Im basing my LT off a recent TT as outlined in 80/20. When I check its about 91/ 92% of max heart rate.


Advertisement