General Discussion Triathlon Talk » HR zone confusion Rss Feed  
Moderators: k9car363, alicefoeller Reply
2021-02-07 1:01 PM


7

Subject: HR zone confusion
Hello,

I'm a cyclist preparing to get into triathlon.
The first step in this preparation is to read a lot about triathlon.
For that reason I bought the "All new triathlete's training bible" from Joe Friel.
I really liked the book, but there's something that got me confused.

In the book as well as in other books like the 80/20 triathlon and other sources,
There's a lot of talk about the importance of zone 2 training.
The bulk of your training has to be in zone 2.
At the same time, and I suppose it has to be actually more or less the same thing,
It is said that bulk of training has to be at or below the aerobic (or first ventilatory) threshold.
it is also said that that threshold is about 20 to 40 bpm below your LTHR (or FTHR or second ventilatory threshold)
Joe friel says to take 30 bpm as a guideline.
But... If you look at my FTHR f.e. of 168, this means an aerobic threshold of 138.
If you look at the corrresponding zones however, the cap of zone 2 is at 89% or 150,
while the cap of zone 1 is at 81% or 136.
So the zone 1 cap seems a better approximation of aerobic threshold than the zone 2 cap.
So 80% of my training should be in zone 1 and zone 2 is actually the so called "no go" zone (usually called zone 3)

My head is spinning. Confused :D.
Hope someone can help me out.

Thanks for reading!





2021-02-09 4:30 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Official BT Coach
18500
50005000500020001000500
Indianapolis, Indiana
Gold member
Subject: RE: HR zone confusion

Originally posted by ggoysens

Hello,

I'm a cyclist preparing to get into triathlon. The first step in this preparation is to read a lot about triathlon. For that reason I bought the "All new triathlete's training bible" from Joe Friel. I really liked the book, but there's something that got me confused.

In the book as well as in other books like the 80/20 triathlon and other sources, There's a lot of talk about the importance of zone 2 training. The bulk of your training has to be in zone 2. At the same time, and I suppose it has to be actually more or less the same thing, It is said that bulk of training has to be at or below the aerobic (or first ventilatory) threshold. it is also said that that threshold is about 20 to 40 bpm below your LTHR (or FTHR or second ventilatory threshold) Joe friel says to take 30 bpm as a guideline. But... If you look at my FTHR f.e. of 168, this means an aerobic threshold of 138. If you look at the corrresponding zones however, the cap of zone 2 is at 89% or 150, while the cap of zone 1 is at 81% or 136. So the zone 1 cap seems a better approximation of aerobic threshold than the zone 2 cap. So 80% of my training should be in zone 1 and zone 2 is actually the so called "no go" zone (usually called zone 3)

My head is spinning. Confused :D. Hope someone can help me out.

Thanks for reading!

Part of the problem is that athletes, coaches, and scientists often use the same or similar terms to describe different things, or they use different terms to describe what they believe are the same thing - e.g. LTHR = Second Ventilory Threshold.  This is not true.  According to a number of studies (only citing one because of space limitations), the second ventilory threshold occurs above LTHR - https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphys.2018.01320/full.

One thing that's very important to recognize when you are talking about zones is that everything in the body occurrs on a continuum. For example, let's assume, for the sake of discussion, that we have an athlete who, through appropriate testing determined their LTHR is 160.  From that they determined that their Z2 heart rate zone is 136-142.  That does NOT mean that at 136 beats per minute the body throws a switch and is suddenly in zone 2.  Nor does it mean at a zone 1 heart rate of 135 beats per minute the body is not forcing adaptations generally associated with zone 2.

When you look at human energy pathways it's a bit easier to understand the idea of a continuum.  The body is primarily fueled by two sources - fat and carbohydrate.  Both of those sources are always being utilized.  When someone is lying in their bed, the body has low energy requirements so the predominant energy source is fat through what's called aerobic respiration.  However, creating energy from fat is a relatively slow process.  As a person becomes more active and exercise intensity begins to increase, the body's energy requirements go up.  At some point, the aerobic energy pathway is no longer able to keep up with the body's energy requirement.  At that point, the body begins to also use increasing amounts of carbohydrate through a process called anaerobic respiration.  The point at which that happens is commonly referred to as the aerobic threshold.  A by-product of anerobic respiration is lactate.  I'm not going to get into an in-depth discussion here about lactate.  Suffice to say lactate isn't a bad thing.  Although, when lactate breaks down in the body, it produces H+ ions.  If you recall from your high-school science class, H+ ions form acid in solution - thus lactate production leads to lactic acid in the muscles and bloodstream.  As exercise intensity continues to increase, energy requirements continue to rise, and your body uses more and more carbohydrate to provide fuel - you eventually reach a point where your body is producing more lactate than it can clear.  This is a point called "MLSS" or maximal lactate steady state.  MLSS closely correlates to lactate threshold as well as FTP.  MLSS is a "point of demarkation" in that, exercise slightly below this level is sustainable, while exercise above this point quickly becomes unsustainable for long periods of time.  MLSS is the point where an athlete would begin to feel "the burn" in their excercising muscles.  As a cyclist, you are undoubtedly familiar with this point.  Just below FTP you can sustain the effort for an extended period of time.  Increase your output by just a couple of watts, suddenly your legs begin to burn and you quickly fatigue and are unable to sustain the effort.

Earlier I presented the example of an athlete with a lactate threshold heart rate of 160 beats per minute.  Rather than look at 160 as the threshold, it's more accurate to understand as you approach 160 beats per minute you are approaching your threshold.  The same is true of the various zones. The zones are not set points, rather they occur as the heart rate begins to rise with increased exercise intensity.  We know through extensive research done over decades, that exercise at various intensities forces adaptations of different physiological processes - e.g. increased mitochondrial enzymes, increased muscle glycogen storage, increased lactate threshold, increased VO2 MAX, etc.

The ventilory thresholds are not very valuable to us as triathletes because testing requires equipment that the vast majority of athletes don't have.  However, we do have a relatively easy way to determine a reasonably accurate estimate of MLSS and thus lactate threshold.  You can perform a lactate threshold field test.   (Note:  If an athlete has just begun working out, they should delay performing a LTHR field test until they can run or ride for 30-minutes at a maximal effort and they have been cleared by a physician to do the test).

Here are specific instructions to perform the field test - http://bscmultisport.com/blog/2018/01/24/how-to-set-heart-rate-training-zones/

Hope that helps clear the confusion.

2021-02-09 6:33 AM
in reply to: k9car363


7

Subject: RE: HR zone confusion
Originally posted by k9car363

Hope that helps clear the confusion.




Thanks for the reply. It was clear and insightful. Still a few questions however.

That aerobic threshold, is that meant to coincide with the top of zone 2 (in the common 5 zone systems)? so the top of zone 2 is where you should spend roughly 80% of your time under?

Is that "89% of LTHR" on average the best approximation of it? or the LTHR - 30 ? Because the results are very different. (LTHR-30 puts the aerobic threshold at the very bottom of the 81%-89% zone 2 estimate)

And if zone 2 is not meant to have its cap at aerobic threshold? How should you approach zone 2, should you be careful spending to much time in higher zone 2 (let's say the second half of zone 2) and try to stay a low zone 2 an zone 1 for 80% of your time ?

One reason that i'm asking is that i'm rather injury prone. So when I start training for triathlon, and therefore running, I want to make sure I go slow enough on most of my days. Sometimes with cycling, i feel that my zone 2 might be a little high, not really sure, but i wan't to avoid that with running. Another reason is just that i'm very interested in understanding in general .

Thanks!
2021-02-09 1:55 PM
in reply to: glenn.goysens

User image


1508
1000500
Cypress, Texas
Subject: RE: HR zone confusion

Originally posted by ggoysens Hello, I'm a cyclist preparing to get into triathlon. The first step in this preparation is to read a lot about triathlon. For that reason I bought the "All new triathlete's training bible" from Joe Friel. I really liked the book, but there's something that got me confused. In the book as well as in other books like the 80/20 triathlon and other sources, There's a lot of talk about the importance of zone 2 training. The bulk of your training has to be in zone 2. At the same time, and I suppose it has to be actually more or less the same thing, It is said that bulk of training has to be at or below the aerobic (or first ventilatory) threshold. it is also said that that threshold is about 20 to 40 bpm below your LTHR (or FTHR or second ventilatory threshold) Joe friel says to take 30 bpm as a guideline. But... If you look at my FTHR f.e. of 168, this means an aerobic threshold of 138. If you look at the corrresponding zones however, the cap of zone 2 is at 89% or 150, while the cap of zone 1 is at 81% or 136. So the zone 1 cap seems a better approximation of aerobic threshold than the zone 2 cap. So 80% of my training should be in zone 1 and zone 2 is actually the so called "no go" zone (usually called zone 3) My head is spinning. Confused :D. Hope someone can help me out. Thanks for reading!

I use HR zones for my run training.  My Zone 2 range is 137-144 BPM.  I use the HR monitor, but I can usually dial into the Z2 without the HR monitor just based on my breathing.  As I warm up and start to pick up the pace my breathing is easy.  Right, when my breathing started to be labored I always glance down at my HR monitor and I am usually at 142-144 BPM.  Right at the top of Z2. So finding the upper limit of the Z2 zone is pretty straightforward.  When I go uphill I have to slow down almost to a walk or I will go above 145 BPM. Working on the hills is not as straight forward with the breathing and I have to watch the HP monitor really close or I will go over 145 BPM without knowing it.  Going downhill I have to really pick up the pace to keep the HR in the Z2.  I still often drop below 136 BPM going downhill even if I feel like I am going pretty fast.  Even when I am on flat ground the lower limit is not as easy to find at the upper limit because there is not physical tells that I am leaving one zone and entering another so I can drop from 137 to 133 BPM when I think I am keeping the effort about the same.  

I don't use HR to stay in zones on the bike as I do for running.  I use virtual watts on the bike trainer rather than HR. 

If your head is spinning take a break from the books and take a run to clear your head and test out the zones while focusing on your breathing and perceived effort.  I

2021-02-11 7:43 AM
in reply to: 0

User image

Extreme Veteran
5722
5000500100100
Subject: RE: HR zone confusion
If you choose to go 80/20 lookup videos from Stephen Seiler, the father of 80/20 which is what is known as polarized training.
Here is one video, there are several other good ones

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GXc474Hu5U

Originally posted by ggoysens
That aerobic threshold, is that meant to coincide with the top of zone 2 (in the common 5 zone systems)? so the top of zone 2 is where you should spend roughly 80% of your time under?



Kind of. Look at around 4min of the video or the screenshot I attached. They also provide a % of Max HR scale.



Is that "89% of LTHR" on average the best approximation of it? or the LTHR - 30 ? Because the results are very different. (LTHR-30 puts the aerobic threshold at the very bottom of the 81%-89% zone 2 estimate)


The LTHR protocols are estimates. Doing an estimate of an estimate will provide a lousier estimate.
What I did was zero in on a point through a few protocols. I have been lab tested and found it worked for me.

1) Take a running race result, plug them into the McMillan calculator and get an "easy pace" range. Run at that pace and look at your HR
2) While I am not a fan of age based calculators, there is something called the Maffetone method that says to do 185-age (can add 5 in your case) and use that as your MAF HR. I have hear Maffetone say, out loud, that after hundreds of lab tests, he found this to be a close approximation of Vt1/LT1...whatever you want to call it
See if those match the Z1/Z2 border.

A few beats high is no big deal. I find MAF is as low as I want to go.


And if zone 2 is not meant to have its cap at aerobic threshold? How should you approach zone 2, should you be careful spending to much time in higher zone 2 (let's say the second half of zone 2) and try to stay a low zone 2 an zone 1 for 80% of your time ?


Find a range, start at the bottom of the range, end the run maybe towards the top. BTW, if you are getting a lot of drift, your range is probably too high. You should be able to run for a while in the proper range without drift. This is another indictation


One reason that i'm asking is that i'm rather injury prone. So when I start training for triathlon, and therefore running, I want to make sure I go slow enough on most of my days. Sometimes with cycling, i feel that my zone 2 might be a little high, not really sure, but i wan't to avoid that with running. Another reason is just that i'm very interested in understanding in general .



80/20 is great but remember you do have to do some of that 20:-). I find easy running to get a lot of the 80 and some hard cycling to get most of the 20 works well for me AT THIS TIME OF THE YEAR.

Edited by marcag 2021-02-11 7:59 AM




(Screen Shot 2021-02-11 at 8.47.29 AM.png)



Attachments
----------------
Screen Shot 2021-02-11 at 8.47.29 AM.png (208KB - 11 downloads)
2021-02-12 6:18 AM
in reply to: BlueBoy26


7

Subject: RE: HR zone confusion
Originally posted by BlueBoy26

I don't use HR to stay in zones on the bike as I do for running.  I use virtual watts on the bike trainer rather than HR. 

If your head is spinning take a break from the books and take a run to clear your head and test out the zones while focusing on your breathing and perceived effort.  I




Thanks for the reply.
I probably should be more "zen" about it and just try to listen to my body, like with the breathing technique.

I also use virtual watts when riding indoors. But i still make sure I don't go over my zone 2 heart rate when i want to do a zone 2 ride. Because I notice that if i ride at upper zone 2 power (according to zwift, based on ftp tests) , my heart rate passes my estimated zone 2 heart rate rather quickly.



2021-02-12 6:40 AM
in reply to: marcag


7

Subject: RE: HR zone confusion
Originally posted by marcag
The LTHR protocols are estimates. Doing an estimate of an estimate will provide a lousier estimate.
What I did was zero in on a point through a few protocols. I have been lab tested and found it worked for me.


good point ... Think I'm gonna get myself lab tested as well. To get a piece of mind and to try to find my own "calibration".


80/20 is great but remember you do have to do some of that 20:-). I find easy running to get a lot of the 80 and some hard cycling to get most of the 20 works well for me AT THIS TIME OF THE YEAR.


Yes, I'm going to try to comply with the 80/20 rule, but swimming will be mainly technique focused probably the first year or so , and running will be mainly low intensity focused (cause i'm really new to both (well, actually, i did some running a very long time ago)). So running will be a very conservative 80/20, maybe even more like 90/10. Swimming will very much depend on technique progression, and cycling will be maybe a little bit more than 80/20.

Still working it all out :D.
2021-02-12 2:39 PM
in reply to: 0

User image


1508
1000500
Cypress, Texas
Subject: RE: HR zone confusion

Originally posted by ggoysens 

...I also use virtual watts when riding indoors. But i still make sure I don't go over my zone 2 heart rate when i want to do a zone 2 ride. Because I notice that if i ride at upper zone 2 power (according to zwift, based on ftp tests) , my heart rate passes my estimated zone 2 heart rate rather quickly.

Ya...I pretty much have to choose one system and stick to it. There isn't a good correlation between pace zones and HR zones or Power zones and HR zones for me.  So I use HR zones for all of my running unless I am doing a race specific pacing workout in the final weeks leading up to a race and I use Watts for everything on the bike unless I am outdoors.   

To show how out of sync things get for me, below are the results of a run that I did two weeks ago.  First is the HR graph, then the estimated zones that this particular program uses for pace, and finally the estimated zones from this program for HR.  I did a 1-mile warm-up, then a steady state Z2 run to 30 minutes, then 20 x 20-second strides with 20 seconds recovery, then a mile cool-down.  Looking at the planned minutes to actual minutes is pretty eye-opening.  I had 26 minutes of z2 by HR but only 16 minutes Z2 by pace.  I never went over Z3 by HR (even though I was doing 20" sprints) but by pace, I have 4 minutes in the Z6 range.  So if I am doing speedwork or intervals I am working on pace (I least i keep tract of each interval by time, but I am actually just pacing by feel to see how fast I can go without burning up).  If I am working on a steady-state run I am working on HR.    About the same is true for the bike.  If I am doing interval training on the indoor bike trainer it is watts.  If I am riding long steady-state rides I use HR (and I better be outdoors because 3-hour rides are so boring inside on a bike trainer).



Edited by BlueBoy26 2021-02-12 2:40 PM
New Thread
General Discussion Triathlon Talk » HR zone confusion Rss Feed  
RELATED POSTS

HR Training

Started by sport13
Views: 390 Posts: 3

2020-05-13 8:41 AM BlueBoy26