UKC

I'm finding the heart rate zones for me don't seem to make much sense, and I'm not sure why. I'd like to try the Zone 2 training thing, but I can't get the zones to work for me.

• My resting heart rate is 52 bpm.
• My max heart rate is, well, I struggle to get to 172, so let's call it 175.

If I use one of the simple zone calculators like this: https://runningversity.com/heart-rate-zone-calculator/ I get the following:

• Running ZONE 1 calculator / Z1   < 126
• Running ZONE 2 calculator / Z2   127 - 138
• Running ZONE 3 calculator / Z3   139 - 150
• Running ZONE 4 calculator / Z4   151 - 163
• Running ZONE 5 calculator / Z5   164 - 175

If I do a slow 15km jog in two hours, my average heart rate is about 155 (with long periods on slight uphill's at 160). This is easy breathing, I can hold simple conversations. But according to the zones, that puts me in Z4.

Zone 4 for 2 hours? I'm not sure if these means I'm seriously unfit, or if I'm superman? Or both?

Now, if I do some hill interval training, I can probably average 170 on the uphill's. So it's only  15bpm higher than my relaxed jog which doesn't sounds like it would be much more effort.

But the perceived effort is widely different.  I can tell my heart stroke volume massively increases, as does breathing.

What the above tells me, is light exercise makes my heart rate increase quickly, but vigorous exercise mainly causes my heart to alter the stroke volume, with the rate not changing that much. Literature I've read about heart rate training zones don't mention stroke volume so not sure what to make of my findings.

I don't know if the above is a good thing, bad thing, or just a thing. As far as I am aware, I have a healthy heart. But what it does mean is it's almost impossible to train within zones.

Anybody else experienced this? Should I just ignore my heart rate and base it on perceived effort?

In reply to montyjohn:

Are you using wrist based or chest strap? One is much more accurate!

BB

In reply to montyjohn:

i had a similar experience. my heartrate is generally very high. the equations online are for the average person, but he spread of average people is very wide. I did a load of training a couple of years ago, trying to do zone 2 stuff, and just ended up relying on breathing to judge it. I'd say it worked very well, my endurance got super good, even though my HR was like 155

In reply to bouldery bits:

Initially I was using a chest strap, until it died on me. I now use a Garmin watch and I get similar results.

In reply to wjcdean:

It was always my understanding that by using a calculator that used your resting and max heart rate, that was measured removed that personal variability.

Of course if you're using typical zones based on age etc, then it's highly likely to be incorrect.

This is good to know.

In reply to montyjohn:

I would recommend doing the heart rate drift test found here: https://uphillathlete.com/aerobic-training/aerobic-anaerobic-threshold-self...

This should give you a good starting point for your heart rate zones and you can take it from there. Perceived rate of exertion is always a better indicator IMO so as long as you keep most of your runs in the 'easy' range and do one or two harder runs every week you should be okay. Try not to do all of your runs at a 'hard' exertion rate otherwise it has a host of knock on side-effects that are bad. 

Edit - Also any form of wrist based HR is just janky at best and completely wrong at worst.. get another chest strap!

In reply to montyjohn: I don't believe your max.  Also, if you race 5K, what's your pulse in that?

In reply to Garethza:

ah yes I also meant to say, i did a HR drift test as described here, and was indeed below AeT @155bpm. So the 'standard' values were indeed well off for me. Everyone's different i suppose.

In reply to montyjohn:

I determine my max hr by doing a balls out parkrun with all out sprint at end and then add 5 to it. That gives me 189 as max , my resting hr is 48. I generally train at c 135 with hard intervals once a week. My suspicion is that either your hr monitor is wrong or your true hr max is way higher than 170 or your not very fit.

In reply to JimR:

This certainly can't be discounted.

In reply to wbo2:

Not had the monitors that long I mostly just do intervals and long run so I don't have the data. But based on the closest data I have, with a little interpolation I would say about 165.

In reply to montyjohn:

Best bet for Z2 is the conversation test. 

In reply to montyjohn:

As has been said above, get a chest strap or don't do HR-based training...the wrist based one isn't reliable enough.

My wrist based one sometimes goes wrong and picks up my cadence (which is very similar to a high HR!) when I don't use my chest strap.

And, when my old chest strap started to go wrong, it did the same thing.

If your HR starts reasonably ok but then jumps up suddenly near the start of your run that's probably what's going on.

In reply to montyjohn:

I've ordered the Garmin chest strap. It's 1/3 off on the Garmin website so a good time to buy. I'll report back on how it compares to my watch. Although I don't know if I watch with give me data for both at the same time, I guess I'll find out.

In reply to montyjohn:

Bit late now but i find the Wahoo ones are better than the Garmin ones, IMHO at least.

In reply to montyjohn:

If you're averaging 170 on uphill intervals your max will surely be higher than 175?

In reply to Ciro: Agree , especially as max isn't an average.  On the other hand he might not have enough leg power to reach max.... the usual reason people have different max's they can achieve running (higher than) cycling....  But what's the absolute max on the hill reps?  Try a longer rep, walk down and run the hill so hard you fail to finish on rep 3 or 4

However the fact that you're running 5K in what you think is your zone 5 when it's typically 4 or borderline 3/4 implies your zones in general are out.

In reply to Ciro:

It's an average peak of 170, not an average for the interval.

In reply to wbo2:

Possibly, I can try on flat ground when my new gadget arrives. 

In reply to montyjohn:

Yeah, you're not getting anywhere near your max HR. Once you get your new chest strap, warm up, find the steepest hill you can and go up it at a full sprint for at least 60 secs. If you want to throw up or you nearly pass out, then you've done it right. If not, you've not gone hard enough. Then take the highest number out of this entire run; that's your max HR.

In reply to montyjohn:

I've never looked at this very scientifically but:
- if I am not tired (less than 4 hrs of running) then uphill I go from 145 to 160 ish
- if I am knackered then uphill my HR drops all the way down to about 120; and of course I am slower
- but on downhill my HR consistently maxes out even though I feel my effort is much much lower; it's downhill after all! I can go past 200, regularly get to 185. 

I am not sure to what extent the existing knowledge base / literature covers mid-age people doing endurance stuff. Most of it geared towards people in their prime being athletes. 

In reply to montyjohn:

You haven’t found your max running heart rate.  Go do a proper test.

In reply to montyjohn:

It's still something that you can hit repeatedly, which should be nowhere near what you can get to if you go all out for a single max effort.

As Ian says you want to get your legs well warmed up and get the heart rate up once, drop back to a recovery pace until you feel fresh, then go all out till your vision is blurred and you feel like you're going to (or in fact do) puke.

In reply to dsiska:

Yes, if I'm really tired or over training, I struggle to get my HR up as the legs just can't do it!

Almost certainly your device is picking up your cadence rather than HR, which is more likely with downhill running due to the higher impact. Very common with wrist based monitoring (at least it is with me), and has also happened to me with a malfunctioning chest strap that was quite old and well used. Even changing the battery didn't help with that one, had to buy a new one.

In reply to mountainbagger:

In response to this, I have given up using the chest strap unless I want the extra information it gives, I have a Garmin Fenix 6 and as long as it is on tight there is virtually no difference. 

In reply to MontyJohn:
I would be interested to know what your 5 K time is and how often you run, but you may not want to say (I feel like a fraud sometimes with some of the runs and speeds quoted here).  I agree that 15k at 12:52 /mile should not for most people need a 155 bpm HR. That would be my lactate threshold at the moment (5K time 24 mins, 20-30 miles a week).

There seem to be lots of ways of getting the zones right for training. I am using one at the moment recommended by the current training plan. I wonder if picking one of the age-related plans would be best for you
https://www.runnersworld.com/uk/training/beginners/a760176/heart-rate-train...

In reply to montyjohn:

I got a lactate threshold test done which was excellent: gave me a personal zone heart rate break down which I have successfully used for training. Well worth getting one of these done I think- as you say, everyone is different and if the standard bindings don't align with your actual bindings then all your training will be off

I was also told that the curve of the results graph also gives an indication of base heart rate training, I.e. a text book curve means you already have a good level of heart training. Irregular patterns suggest that some additional base training work is required - also helpful info

Hope this helps

In reply to montyjohn:

Oh, and I was also advised that a chest strap is definitely more accurate than a watch. Unfortunately I can't wear a chest strap so I use a polar one on my upper arm and do get different readings from this vs my garmin fenix 6. 

In reply to SouthernSteve:

I try and run about three times a week. A long run, intervals and then whatever I feel like for the third run (usually about 6 or 7km at 9 min/mile).

None of them are a race pace, all pretty easy, apart form the intervals which are my weekly form of punishment.

Things worth noting:

I'm in my late 30's, and until a couple of years ago, I spent my entire adult life not running. Lots of hiking, but not running. That's a lot of years to undo. 

All my runs are on trails, so there's always ups and down to contend with. My 20km yesterday had an elevation gain of 380m as an example. 15km the weekend before had 285m of elevation gain. Not sure how much things would compare on smooth flat ground?

In reply to montyjohn:

You don't sound very unfit! We are fairly similar in terms of runs (although I don't do intervals so often) although I am a couple of decades older. My average heart rate for my easy runs is in the 130s and has been for a long time, but my mum and dad had low HRs, even when quite unfit, so may be genetic. It's really interesting that there is such a difference between people, generally you would not see such a difference in the dogs I treat as long as they were not very disparate sized breeds. I started running about 20 years ago to get fit for the Alps and like you had not run before - it's quite addictive and is my main thing now! Hope you get zones that make sense for you.