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.
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?
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.
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?
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.
shotgunmcos wrote: » 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.
shotgunmcos wrote: » Hey pansophelia My max hr is 187 too. I hit 190 in my 20s but that is long gone 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
Murph_D wrote: » Well unless you know the individual’s max HR the number you see on their strava feed is meaningless.
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.
ewc78 wrote: » You need to go see a doctor if your resting HR is 154!!
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
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!)
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
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!
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) 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.
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?
![Photo of [Deleted User]](https://w7.vanillicon.com/v2/75771797d68b15f0c5c6e631c7bb7ced.svg)
