Heart Rate Training - beginners guide

Murph_D · 28-02-2020 7:42pm

Ceepo wrote: »

The vo2 is basic you 3k TT all out effort.
You can adjust to your own pace. Session can then be based of % of this time from 80%to 115% and are based on 400m reps.
Hr zones are based of the same 3k TT.

Performance indicators : donig the precrided session will give you a guide to see what is achievable for 5k and 10k.

Incremental field test : is a ramp test. So 1200m at a pace (15k) (17) (18) with 60 rest..

You just need to fill in your pace and calculate your own specific training pace.. ..

The marathon one is similar. Do a 3k TT and work out you training % from there.

Right but in relation to HR? Is there anything here that hasn’t been discussed above in relation to the zones etc.?

Lazare · 16-04-2020 11:05am

Wanted to give an update on my experience so far with HR training having run exclusively by HR since the beginning of January.

Hopefully will help others who are thinking of making the switch.

I found it daunting at first, before switching, felt there was so much information out there making it seem quite complicated.

I've found it to be the total opposite. Incredibly simple. While some people use Max HR values to construct zones, I've been using my HR at anaerobic threshold.

Obv, getting this value requires a test, I did mine at the sports clinic in The Beacon.

I haven't really bothered with 'zones' as such. My HR @ AnT is 145, so I'll run my easy runs just below 130, steady runs around 135-138, recovery around 125 and tempo at 145. Very rarely go above 145, other than sessions or strides.

A slight downside to this is that AnT value will change, necessitating another test, possibly twice a year. Open to advice on that.

I'm in total control of the effort at all times, getting full value out of every run. An aerobic run is 100% aerobic, a threshold run is 100% on the nose. I don't think that's possible using pace as a guide unless you are incredibly in tune with your effort levels.

Using pace as a guide, in hindsight, my effort levels were all over the shop. I was running hills too hard on easy days, a tempo run, based off race times was little more than a guess.

I've an injury that over the last three years has cropped up every 6 - 8 months. It's well overdue right now and there's no sign of it, and I'm running about 40% more volume compared to those years. I'm 100% putting that down to being in control of effort levels.

I've also discovered I was running my general aerobic runs a little too easy, again by previously using race times and charts. The HRM has allowed me be a lot more confident in that regard, running at paces I was afraid to run at before.

I'm feeling fitter and stronger than I've ever felt before, a recent 5x 1k session was a 20 sec per km improvement over the time I last did it in October.

That's all down to HR training. It has allowed me safely increase mileage but most importantly it has made all those miles quality miles.

I could not recommend it highly enough, especially to beginner runners.

I'm a happy convert, and will never go back to using pace as a guide.

Murph_D · 16-04-2020 12:21pm

Lazare wrote: »

Wanted to give an update on my experience so far with HR training having run exclusively by HR since the beginning of January.

Hopefully will help others who are thinking of making the switch.

I found it daunting at first, before switching, felt there was so much information out there making it seem quite complicated.

I've found it to be the total opposite. Incredibly simple. While some people use Max HR values to construct zones, I've been using my HR at anaerobic threshold.

Obv, getting this value requires a test, I did mine at the sports clinic in The Beacon.

I haven't really bothered with 'zones' as such. My HR @ AnT is 145, so I'll run my easy runs just below 130, steady runs around 135-138, recovery around 125 and tempo at 145. Very rarely go above 145, other than sessions or strides.

A slight downside to this is that AnT value will change, necessitating another test, possibly twice a year. Open to advice on that.

I'm in total control of the effort at all times, getting full value out of every run. An aerobic run is 100% aerobic, a threshold run is 100% on the nose. I don't think that's possible using pace as a guide unless you are incredibly in tune with your effort levels.

Using pace as a guide, in hindsight, my effort levels were all over the shop. I was running hills too hard on easy days, a tempo run, based off race times was little more than a guess.

I've an injury that over the last three years has cropped up every 6 - 8 months. It's well overdue right now and there's no sign of it, and I'm running about 40% more volume compared to those years. I'm 100% putting that down to being in control of effort levels.

I've also discovered I was running my general aerobic runs a little too easy, again by previously using race times and charts. The HRM has allowed me be a lot more confident in that regard, running at paces I was afraid to run at before.

I'm feeling fitter and stronger than I've ever felt before, a recent 5x 1k session was a 20 sec per km improvement over the time I last did it in October.

That's all down to HR training. It has allowed me safely increase mileage but most importantly it has made all those miles quality miles.

I could not recommend it highly enough, especially to beginner runners.

I'm a happy convert, and will never go back to using pace as a guide.

Good stuff!! What about speedwork though? Can’t really do that by HR. I’m talking about shortish reps, say up to 600-800m (presuming you sometimes do these).

Lazare · 16-04-2020 12:45pm

Murph_D wrote: »

Good stuff!! What about speedwork though? Can’t really do that by HR. I’m talking about shortish reps, say up to 600-800m (presuming you sometimes do these).

Been base building up until recently, then started a half plan, so had not much call for speedwork in the period. That Vo2max session I ran last week (5x1k) was done off pace though, mostly as I'd no real idea of the HR range for it. I have that data now, may experiment with it for the next session.

Found it very useful for strides, for recovery. As soon as my HR drops below 100 I go again. Beforehand I was probably going again either too early or too late, although that's probably marginal with strides in fairness.

Murph_D · 16-04-2020 1:09pm

Yeah, wouldn't worry too much about the strides. Fitzgerald recommends using the McMillan calculator to get paces for speed reps up to 1k, as HR 'lag' means you can't do these sessions reliably by HR alone (or at all). You can base these off hour LT data, as you presumably have an approximate or average LT pace by now based off your HR experience. But that's all for another day perhaps.

Lazare · 16-04-2020 1:19pm

Very good point about lag actually, hadn't considered that.

Have no issue with using pace for speed workouts, does seem optimal.

breadmonkey · 29-04-2020 7:33pm

Interesting read. I started running back in December with low frequency and light volume for fear of injury. Been ramping up both since using a HR monitor, keeping everything at <80% max HR except for accidental drifts into higher zones which I generally notice and correct quickly. I generally run on random routes through gently rolling trails. Most runs are about 1/3 slightly uphill, 1/3 slightly downhill, 1/3 more or less flat.

I've found it quite disheartening. The pace is incredibly slow and shows no signs of improving. In fact, I didn't realise I had the auto-pause feature on in Strava so having turned that off I'm even worse than I thought. Last few runs have clocked in around 9.5-10 min/km. I inserted myself into the Hal Higdon Novice 1 programme when COVID-19 hit and got to week 6 before having to take a precautionary break due to an emerging injury.

I'm actually not concerned with pace in absolute terms, my goal is to get as fast as possible moving below my aerobic threshold. I can tell from a steep hike I did back in early March that my tendency in the past (before training, before HRM) has been to settle into the middle of my Z3. I can sustain that pace hiking uphill for a few hours. Right now it seems like fantasy that I will ever be able to achieve that pace in Z1/Z2. I'm not sure if I have put in enough volume yet to be expecting results of any sort. I think I just need something to help me keep the faith. Any thoughts or ideas?

P.S. I established max HR myself by field test. Co-incidentally it came out almost dead on the 220-age rule of thumb. I had planned to do a HR drift test literally the week the gyms closed.

Murph_D · 29-04-2020 9:18pm

breadmonkey wrote: »

Interesting read. I started running back in December with low frequency and light volume for fear of injury. Been ramping up both since using a HR monitor, keeping everything at <80% max HR except for accidental drifts into higher zones which I generally notice and correct quickly. I generally run on random routes through gently rolling trails. Most runs are about 1/3 slightly uphill, 1/3 slightly downhill, 1/3 more or less flat.

I've found it quite disheartening. The pace is incredibly slow and shows no signs of improving. In fact, I didn't realise I had the auto-pause feature on in Strava so having turned that off I'm even worse than I thought. Last few runs have clocked in around 9.5-10 min/km. I inserted myself into the Hal Higdon Novice 1 programme when COVID-19 hit and got to week 6 before having to take a precautionary break due to an emerging injury.

I'm actually not concerned with pace in absolute terms, my goal is to get as fast as possible moving below my aerobic threshold. I can tell from a steep hike I did back in early March that my tendency in the past (before training, before HRM) has been to settle into the middle of my Z3. I can sustain that pace hiking uphill for a few hours. Right now it seems like fantasy that I will ever be able to achieve that pace in Z1/Z2. I'm not sure if I have put in enough volume yet to be expecting results of any sort. I think I just need something to help me keep the faith. Any thoughts or ideas?

P.S. I established max HR myself by field test. Co-incidentally it came out almost dead on the 220-age rule of thumb. I had planned to do a HR drift test literally the week the gyms closed.

How sure of your max? What kind of field test did you do? And do you have a reliable HR monitor?

breadmonkey · 29-04-2020 10:58pm

Murph_D wrote: »

How sure of your max? What kind of field test did you do? And do you have a reliable HR monitor?

I can’t remember the specifics but if I recall correctly it was: warm up for around 15 mins then sprint as fast as possible up an incline for 30 seconds. I think this was it. I was conscious going into the test that I might make a bollocks of it by not going hard enough so I really made an effort to go all out. I was in bits after it.

I added 5bpm to that I took the aerobic threshold as 80% and this does seem to correspond fairly well to the point at which I can’t easily hold a conversation any more. Though I haven’t done a lot of talking to myself. It also corresponds to the point at which I can no longer sustain the effort breathing just through my nose which I understand is another measure.

I’m using a Polar H10 chest strap. I don’t have any reason to doubt its readings.

Sam the Sham · 29-04-2020 11:03pm

You need to go up that steep incline multiple times and then record the highest rate you see.

I'd say your base aerobic fitness is probably pretty good. If you add in some occasional interval training/tempo runs (like one per week), you should see more improvement.

breadmonkey · 29-04-2020 11:15pm

Sam the Sham wrote: »

You need to go up that steep incline multiple times and then record the highest rate you see.

I'd say your base aerobic fitness is probably pretty good. If you add in some occasional interval training/tempo runs (like one per week), you should see more improvement.

I was completely bollocksed after one sprint there’s no way I could have done another one at the same intensity. I was thinking of doing a repeat test but the thought of it is so unpleasant!

I started from a place where I never did any form of training but would spend the spring and summer doing a lot of hiking. Long days with large elevation gain. But from my initial work with the HRM it seemed like a lot of that was spent in Z3.

Are you suggesting incorporating some interval/temp Z3 stuff can improve my pace in Z1? That’s really what I’m after, faster in Z1.

Sam the Sham · 29-04-2020 11:21pm

breadmonkey wrote: »

I was completely bollocksed after one sprint there’s no way I could have done another one at the same intensity. I was thinking of doing a repeat test but the thought of it is so unpleasant!

Yes, it is very unpleasant. And you should be cleared by a doctor before attempting it. Modern GPS watches can estimate it for you. Or you can do a protocol that's slightly less torture that will give you your HR at anaerobic threshold, which can be used to set zones without necessarily knowing the max rate.

Are you suggesting incorporating some interval/temp Z3 stuff can improve my pace in Z1? That’s really what I’m after, faster in Z1.

You want to avoid zone 3 and incorporate limited Z4 and Z5 training. That will get you faster at a given Z1 or 2 heart rate.

breadmonkey · 29-04-2020 11:30pm

Sam the Sham wrote: »

Yes, it is very unpleasant. And you should be cleared by a doctor before attempting it. Modern GPS watches can estimate it for you. Or you can do a protocol that's slightly less torture that will give you your HR at anaerobic threshold, which can be used to set zones without necessarily knowing the max rate.

You want to avoid zone 3 and incorporate limited Z4 and Z5 training. That will get you faster at a given Z1 or 2 heart rate.

Thanks. What range of % of max HR is Z3, Z4 and Z5 for you? I understand it varies across the literature. For clarity, top of my Z1 is 75%, Z2 80% and top of Z2 considered aerobic threshold for someone with an underdeveloped aerobic system. Z3 is 80-90.

Why do you say to avoid Z3?

Sam the Sham · 30-04-2020 9:37am

breadmonkey wrote: »

Thanks. What range of % of max HR is Z3, Z4 and Z5 for you? I understand it varies across the literature. For clarity, top of my Z1 is 75%, Z2 80% and top of Z2 considered aerobic threshold for someone with an underdeveloped aerobic system. Z3 is 80-90.

Why do you say to avoid Z3?

The emerging consensus (not shared by all, however) is that you want to stress/work the different energy systems (aerobic, anaerobic, phosphagen) independently of one another to the extent possible. That's the reasoning behind running your aerobic runs at an easy pace: it doesn't take much intensity to exercise that system. Or to put it another way, upping the intensity isn't going to give further benefit to your aerobic system. Once you start to stray into Z3, you're increasingly bringing the anaerobic (lactate) system into play. But in doing so you're not really stressing it enough to get the performance benefits that would come from really stressing it while, at the same time, bringing it into play at all is going to make it harder to recover from your workout.

To work the anaerobic system, you want to do faster Z4 work: tempo runs for example at around your lactate threshold (the pace at which your body cannot fully evacuate the lactate that accumulates with anaerobic activity). This trains you in getting better at evacuating the lactate which allows you to run faster without encountering "the bear": the kind of leg pain you experience at the end of a race. You don't have to do much of this kind of training--maybe once a week--and any given session shouldn't be as long (in mileage) as your easy runs.

Strength/speed work will involve Z4/Z5 work where you really get the pulse up via intervals. Again, you don't need too much of this as it's hard to recover from.

Here's a good endurance zone calculator, which has the advantage of allowing you to calculate zones by HR or by pace.

Here's a page that explains the energy systems involved in running.

FWIW, my own zones are:

Top of Z1: about 72% of MHR
Top of Z2: about 79% of MHR
Top of Z3: about 85%
Top of Z4: about 89%

KSU · 30-04-2020 1:26pm

Sam the Sham wrote: »

The emerging consensus (not shared by all, however) is that you want to stress/work the different energy systems (aerobic, anaerobic, phosphagen) independently of one another to the extent possible. That's the reasoning behind running your aerobic runs at an easy pace: it doesn't take much intensity to exercise that system. Or to put it another way, upping the intensity isn't going to give further benefit to your aerobic system. Once you start to stray into Z3, you're increasingly bringing the anaerobic (lactate) system into play. But in doing so you're not really stressing it enough to get the performance benefits that would come from really stressing it while, at the same time, bringing it into play at all is going to make it harder to recover from your workout.

Gonna lob a grenade into this not to turn people off HR Zonal training but simply to give a broader sense of the discussion;

https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2012/06/physiological-model-of-training-why-i.html?v=47e5dceea252

Casey78 · 30-04-2020 1:48pm

KSU wrote: »

Gonna lob a grenade into this not to turn people off HR Zonal training but simply to give a broader sense of the discussion;

https://www.scienceofrunning.com/2012/06/physiological-model-of-training-why-i.html?v=47e5dceea252

HR training is certainly not for everyone, it's not the best or only way to train it's just another way.

I'm friends with a sub 2:20 Marathoner. He has no time for HR training at all and says RPE is a better way to go.
Though maybe HR will work better for us plodders than it will for sub elites? I dunno I have no evidence to back that up just a theory.

I like keeping an eye on HR for easy days as it is good way of keeping it easy,but I would never use it for faster stuff.

KSU · 30-04-2020 2:04pm

Casey78 wrote: »

HR training is certainly not for everyone, it's not the best or only way to train it's just another way.

I'm friends with a sub 2:20 Marathoner. He has no time for HR training at all and says RPE is a better way to go.
Though maybe HR will work better for us plodders than it will for sub elites? I dunno I have no evidence to back that up just a theory.

I like keeping an eye on HR for easy days as it is good way of keeping it easy,but I would never use it for faster stuff.

Personally my opinions that yes it works very well in short term as a teaching tool to get people to slow down but ultimately I feel recreational runners don't have the consistency in their lives to control the variables that make it any more reliable than any other form of metric (pace, etc). I know Professionals who use it quite effectively but again these are people who have more set routine (wake, train, nap, chill, train, sleep) that makes day to day chances quite obvious vs Joe Bloggs who missed lunch because of a meeting in work and stressing about having to work late, squeeze in a run and drop the kids to training.

Ideally though I feel everyone should be striving for RPE and having a good sense of that as you body will give you much more reliable and instant feedback (so long as you have the experience to interpret it)

Sam the Sham · 30-04-2020 2:25pm

That article looks interesting though it's not clear what is being advocated as a replacement. But there are two separate issues, it seems to me. On my cursory first look at the article, it seemed the very idea of zone training as a means of eliciting physiological responses was being questioned. Maybe I have that wrong. But if that is what's being advocated, it surely doesn't matter how those zones are determined (pace, HR, RPE) if the pertinence of zones themselves are being called into question.

KSU · 30-04-2020 2:40pm

Sam the Sham wrote: »

That article looks interesting though it's not clear what is being advocated as a replacement. But there are two separate issues, it seems to me. On my cursory first look at the article, it seemed the very idea of zone training as a means of eliciting physiological responses was being questioned. Maybe I have that wrong. But if that is what's being advocated, it surely doesn't matter how those zones are determined (pace, HR, RPE) if the pertinence of zones themselves are being called into question.

The point is that there is no replacement model.

Physiological outcomes are only one small part of the sport and a too narrow view stands in the way of true progression.

How many times has an athlete been "in shape to run X" only for it not to go right on the day. Athletes need to be developed physiologically, emotionally and mentally and the training has to be reflective of that and the persons needs outside of box ticking exercises.

Sam the Sham · 30-04-2020 3:55pm

OK, but then what is a runner to do in order to be 'developed physiologically, emotionally, and mentally'? Say I want to be faster at running a given distance. I'm going out for a run: what should I do? how fast should I go? what should I try to work on? Handwaving in the direction of some holistic approach doesn't help me answer these practical questions that arise for all serious runners.

KSU · 30-04-2020 4:19pm

Sam the Sham wrote: »

OK, but then what is a runner to do in order to be 'developed physiologically, emotionally, and mentally'? Say I want to be faster at running a given distance. I'm going out for a run: what should I do? how fast should I go? what should I try to work on? Handwaving in the direction of some holistic approach doesn't help me answer these practical questions that arise for all serious runners.

The principles of training still apply I am not trying to state otherwise. My point is that polarising aspects of training as right and wrong lets crucial nuances fall between the cracks. Avoiding certain area's (Z3 as an example) from a strictly physiological sense overlooks possible gains in other area's.

Once basic principles are adhered to then creativity in training and individualization occur and these is where true gains are eeked out

I'll take your point on aiming to get better at a specific distance though.

What is currently limiting you? is it strictly physiologically or can you mentally switch off, personality traits influencing how you race? What about biomechanical. These are all area's which would influence how you approach training and all would influence whether a particular run/session would fit into a plan for the individual.

Racing too frequently is a common error with many runners yet it might be the solution to a confidence issues in other athletes.

The thing is we are always looking for the "right" answer these days to a point where we don't fully understand the questions we are asking or even how to ask them because of the way alot of information is processed these days.

What you see as holistic I see as multi-factoral examination.

IvoryTower · 01-05-2020 11:35am

I have a few questions or just thoughts. My Garmin bases the zones off mhr of 190. I hit that at the end of last weeks 5k TT, even though tbh i dont think I felt THAT bad. I wasn't wearing the chest strap at the time.

Zone 1 - 95 -114
Zone 2 - 114 - 133
Zone 3 - 133 - 152
zone 4 152 - 171
Zone 5 171 - 190

Full disclosure I came from sprinting about 2-3 years ago so I had very little aerobic capacity and this has improved a lot since.

I run easy every second day about 9 min miles, sessions inbetween, but my hr is never below 133, its a struggle to keep it anywhere near that, a purposely slow jog might keep in the mid 130's eventually rising to 140's after a couple of miles. Form also goes out the window to some extent the slower i get. So I'm very rarely in the "easy" zone on my watch, almost always in the "aerobic" zone although I believe i'm supposed to be running easy on my off days. It does feel easy btw.

Do you think maybe my max hr could be higher than that? I have a hill session tomorrow should i murder myself to see if it goes higher? It seems weird to think I coul dbe running 50mpw and none of them are "easy" according to the numbers. Seems off.

IvoryTower · 01-05-2020 2:39pm

Okay I done 5m holding my harmin "easy" pace, 10.30 min miles on grass, seemed to be 10min miles when i was on road.

dang that is slow

Murph_D · 01-05-2020 10:42pm

IvoryTower wrote: »

I have a few questions or just thoughts. My Garmin bases the zones off mhr of 190. I hit that at the end of last weeks 5k TT, even though tbh i dont think I felt THAT bad. I wasn't wearing the chest strap at the time.

Zone 1 - 95 -114
Zone 2 - 114 - 133
Zone 3 - 133 - 152
zone 4 152 - 171
Zone 5 171 - 190

Full disclosure I came from sprinting about 2-3 years ago so I had very little aerobic capacity and this has improved a lot since.

I run easy every second day about 9 min miles, sessions inbetween, but my hr is never below 133, its a struggle to keep it anywhere near that, a purposely slow jog might keep in the mid 130's eventually rising to 140's after a couple of miles. Form also goes out the window to some extent the slower i get. So I'm very rarely in the "easy" zone on my watch, almost always in the "aerobic" zone although I believe i'm supposed to be running easy on my off days. It does feel easy btw.

Do you think maybe my max hr could be higher than that? I have a hill session tomorrow should i murder myself to see if it goes higher? It seems weird to think I coul dbe running 50mpw and none of them are "easy" according to the numbers. Seems off.

I doubt if you hit your max in your downhill TT, to be honest, although you wouldn't be far off if you really hammered it out for the final km. But I would do a specific test with a chest strap to be sure.

IvoryTower · 02-05-2020 8:07am

Murph_D wrote: »

I doubt if you hit your max in your downhill TT, to be honest, although you wouldn't be far off if you really hammered it out for the final km. But I would do a specific test with a chest strap to be sure.

Yes I think so. I'll actually get a proper test done when restrictions are lifted. 10.30 min miles likely overkill, I'll go with about 9.30 for now

rom · 05-05-2020 8:17pm

Prior to this I was doing most runs at 8:30. It was painful to do this. I went from 4:27 to 3:18 in DCM 2011 to 2012 when I did this properly. All my easy runs were at max - 50 beats.

If someone was to do this test monthly every month and compare with last month to see if they are progressing or staying the same. If they are not improving and coming from a low base then they are doing something wrong.

I am doing nothing crazy training at the moment but I am really starting to get fit and it's down to all the walking that I am doing daily with the kids that is building my endurance.

MrSkinny · 11-05-2020 9:25pm

IvoryTower wrote: »

I have a few questions or just thoughts. My Garmin bases the zones off mhr of 190. I hit that at the end of last weeks 5k TT, even though tbh i dont think I felt THAT bad. I wasn't wearing the chest strap at the time.

Zone 1 - 95 -114
Zone 2 - 114 - 133
Zone 3 - 133 - 152
zone 4 152 - 171
Zone 5 171 - 190

Full disclosure I came from sprinting about 2-3 years ago so I had very little aerobic capacity and this has improved a lot since.

I run easy every second day about 9 min miles, sessions inbetween, but my hr is never below 133, its a struggle to keep it anywhere near that, a purposely slow jog might keep in the mid 130's eventually rising to 140's after a couple of miles. Form also goes out the window to some extent the slower i get. So I'm very rarely in the "easy" zone on my watch, almost always in the "aerobic" zone although I believe i'm supposed to be running easy on my off days. It does feel easy btw.

Do you think maybe my max hr could be higher than that? I have a hill session tomorrow should i murder myself to see if it goes higher? It seems weird to think I could be running 50mpw and none of them are "easy" according to the numbers. Seems off.

Disclaimer: not an expert by any means but I recently picked up a strap and have started looking at HR a bit more closely as another parameter, and was curious about your findings.

If your Garmin is set up to base zones as a % of Max HR then, by default, it will be using the following bands:

Z1: 50-60%
Z2: 60-70%
Z3: 70-80%
Z4: 80-90%
Z5: 90-100%

Source: Forerunner 230/235 Manual - HR Zone Calculations

Compare this, for example, to the HR intensity zones given in the well-regarded "Faster Road Racing" book by Pftizinger and Latter:

Recovery: <76% of Max HR
General aerobic: 70-81%
Endurance: 74-84%
Lactate threshold: 80-91%
VO2max: 94-98%

Your easy runs should probably be in the General Aerobic range, which would be 133-154 (for a Max HR of 190) and roughly equates to the Garmin's default Zone 3. Even for slower recovery runs the HR range should be <141 according to the book, so well above the Garmin's default Zones 1 & 2.

The bottom line is I'm not sure how useful the Garmin's default zones are. Personally I'd be more inclined to follow the guidance in the FRR book, which incidentally also provides intensity zones based on Heart Rate Reserve (in case you know your resting HR).

Garmin Connect allows you to customise the percentages used to determine the zones (and also to choose between basing them on %Max HR, %HRR or %LTHR) but it doesn't let you define overlapping zones so it's not possible to replicate the FRR ranges exactly, as far as I can tell.

Hope I'm not talking nonsense!

IvoryTower · 11-05-2020 10:26pm

I did change the zones based on max hr of 195, I've hit 193 so it's probably even higher tbh. This would put zone 2 <136 which is tough but doable..9.30min miles...

There seems to be lots of websites that say run your easy days in zone 2, not 3. Is that what you guys do or just keep it between 2 & 3?

11-05-2020 10:52pm

increasingly what is gaining credence is polarised training.

you should only really care about zone 2 training until you have built up a very good aerobic base. this takes a long time. it's "slow down to get fast"

most people don't stick to it because you initially to start out at a very slow pace, basically avoid hills and walk for parts to bring your heart rate back down when you go above the maf heart rate

then you can look at speed work in zone 4 and 5

zone 3 is the "grey zone" and is to be avoided.

Dr. Phil Maffetone has converted a lot of people

his formula is based around the MAF (maximum aerobic function - not from his name)

you can read about it here and how to calculate your maf heart rate for zone 2 training - there are adjustments based on certain factors

https://philmaffetone.com/180-formula/

https://philmaffetone.com/want-speed-slow-down/

MrSkinny · 11-05-2020 11:19pm

Personally I ignore the Garmin zones and haven't even bothered trying to customise them. I go by the intensity zones in the FRR book, which tell me that my easy runs should be at HR < 139/140 so I just tend to try and stay below that level regardless of whether Garmin has decided to call that Zone 1, 2 or 3.

At the same time I try not to get too caught up on the actual figures. For a start, I'm calculating them based on an estimated Max HR and, as has been said earlier in the thread, our HR can fluctuate from one day to the next due to many factors so I'm consciously trying to avoid being too prescriptive.

My point was that those default Garmin zones seem to be very skewed towards the low end of the intensity spectrum.

Heart Rate Training - beginners guide

Comments