# HR is max



## Catmandoo (Dec 20, 2018)

I recently acquired a Garmin Instinct watch, love it, a good investment. Once thing I've been seeing is that my mt, bike rides, which is all I'm doing in the colder temperatures in the NE US, is seeing me max out my HR a few times during the ride. I am riding on generally flat Long Island, on single track, usually in a park that isn't completely flat but has a lot of short hills that the trails go up and over. My HR goes up to 160. 

I did a HR Max test about 30 years ago when I was a Cat4 road racer, developed that my theoretical max at age 34 was 192. If you use the rule of 1 beat less per year, that puts my theoretical max now at around 162. I find it remarkable that I can get my heart to that. Also tells me what I've also known, that mt. biking is a very anaerobic sport, with a lot of shorter extreme efforts required. Unlike road biking where it's easier to control your effort levels, big hills the exception !.


----------



## jiggerjake (Sep 25, 2007)

Thanks for sharing.Was thinking about getting one.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

The theoretical hr formula sometimes works out about right but more often probably not. I'm 60 and max around 175bpm, sometimes 180 depending on the day.

Also the garmin watches are good (I use one) but heart rate data from them is generally not so accurate on bouncy trails. For better accuracy get a chest strap and pair it to your watch.

Have fun!


----------



## Fairbanks007 (Sep 5, 2009)

Catmandoo said:


> I recently acquired a Garmin Instinct watch, love it, a good investment. Once thing I've been seeing is that my mt, bike rides, which is all I'm doing in the colder temperatures in the NE US, is seeing me max out my HR a few times during the ride. I am riding on generally flat Long Island, on single track, usually in a park that isn't completely flat but has a lot of short hills that the trails go up and over. My HR goes up to 160.
> 
> I did a HR Max test about 30 years ago when I was a Cat4 road racer, developed that my theoretical max at age 34 was 192. If you use the rule of 1 beat less per year, that puts my theoretical max now at around 162. I find it remarkable that I can get my heart to that. Also tells me what I've also known, that mt. biking is a very anaerobic sport, with a lot of shorter extreme efforts required. Unlike road biking where it's easier to control your effort levels, big hills the exception !.


I'm a Clinical Exercise Physiologist with over 20 years of experience in conducting maximal cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET). The *only* way to know what *your *maximum HR is *now* is to have another stress test. The one beat per year reduction in max HR is (at best) a rule of thumb, and probably pretty useless in your case given your physical activity history.


----------



## Fairbanks007 (Sep 5, 2009)

J.B. Weld said:


> Also the garmin watches are good (I use one) but heart rate data from them is generally not so accurate on bouncy trails. For better accuracy get a chest strap and pair it to your watch.


I agree 100%. The HR monitors worn on the wrist (e.g., Apple, FitBit, Garmin, etc.) use an optical sensor to detect blood flow under the skin. They work well at HRs most people are likely to see during the course of a normal day. I don't have to tell you that mountain bikers aren't like most people and our days aren't necessarily normal. The optical sensor's accuracy falls off at higher HRs. About 4 or 5 years ago, they could be off by as much as 30% compared to an ECG. They have improved a lot since then, and we're in the middle of a study to determine how accurate they are now. 

By comparison, the chest strap type monitors are essentially a single lead ECG detecting the electrical activity associated with cardiac activity. They are +/- 1% of the accuracy of a 12 lead ECG.


----------



## Catmandoo (Dec 20, 2018)

When I generated my theoretical max 30 years ago, I did a semi-stress like test on a bike on a trainer, I think this was a method developed by Sally Edwards who wrote a very good book (Heart Rate Monitor Book of 1992) about exercise and heart rate. It involved 3 sessions of 15 minutes all out holding whatever HR you could maintain for the 15 minutes, then a 10 minute spin, followed by 2 more 15 minute sessions with a 10 minute break between. You then averaged the 3 sessions to get a max. 

I used an actual HR strap and reader (Polar in my case). Note that this was before power meters had become available for the average cyclist, and HR was the only method to determine effort on training rides. Also important to note that everybody's max. HR is different and if rider X has a max of 190 and rider Y has 175, that doesn't mean Rider X is fitter or stronger then Rider Y, it only means rider X needs to use a different HR for training purposes. 

I'm aware that wrist-based HR's can be somewhat inaccurate, but I have been getting the same readings over 4 rides at the same trail system, so suspect the readings are accurate. 

My point was I had never used an HR while mt. biking and was surprised that it seems to indicate how HARD mt. biking can be.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

Fairbanks007 said:


> The *only* way to know what *your *maximum HR is *now* is to have another stress test.


Yes, but close enough is good enough if you wan't a close number. Just do a max effort test on the bike and if done well enough it's likely to get you to what you can produce on the bike as a max. There are a lot of variables that can change the number you can produce like rest and conditioning, but it will be close enough. I'm 45 and saw 201 earlier this year. I saw 199 just yesterday on what I thought was an easy ride, but I've been off the bike for a long time.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Getting your heart rate up to max is no joke. I usually can't do it unless I am in a fast paced group ride where we are essentially racing at max effort for a couple laps. And this is after warming up for 15-20 minutes. And use a chest strap for accuracy. What might even be more important than max hr is your lactate threshold heart rate which is the most accurate way of setting your training zones.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

As others have said the formula is just a rough approximation based on a typical bell curve. I am 48 and have seen as high as 186 in the last year, which is what I use as my max. I typically average about 150-152 over a course of a ride, but some days if tired, my HR runs about 10 beats lower.


----------



## Harold (Dec 23, 2003)

due to medical history, I had some testing done after my Garmin chest strap HRM showed me blowing well past my theoretical max HR.

I'm just at the high end of the bell curve, so the formula means a whole lot of **** for me. thankfully no medical issues popped up through the testing I did.


----------



## DennisT (Dec 29, 2019)

Catmandoo said:


> I recently acquired a Garmin Instinct watch, love it, a good investment. Once thing I've been seeing is that my mt, bike rides, which is all I'm doing in the colder temperatures in the NE US, is seeing me max out my HR a few times during the ride. I am riding on generally flat Long Island, on single track, usually in a park that isn't completely flat but has a lot of short hills that the trails go up and over. My HR goes up to 160.
> 
> I did a HR Max test about 30 years ago when I was a Cat4 road racer, developed that my theoretical max at age 34 was 192. If you use the rule of 1 beat less per year, that puts my theoretical max now at around 162. I find it remarkable that I can get my heart to that. Also tells me what I've also known, that mt. biking is a very anaerobic sport, with a lot of shorter extreme efforts required. Unlike road biking where it's easier to control your effort levels, big hills the exception !.


My Garmin was doing that to me for a while, then it abruptly recalculated my percentages and max, and the splits made a lot more sense after that. I didn't do anything specific to cause the recalc. But I think you can also manually adjust your HR percentages in the app.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

This stuff always gets bounced around on every one of these HR threads. How is it that so many people have been convinced that formulas will give them their max heart rate? That's about as logical as assuming there is some formula out there that will accurately illustrate a man's penis length.

You get what fate gave you. You haven't done anything better or worse than the next guy to get you what you got. It's up to you to capitalize on your full potential, and if you let somebody else tell you how much you can push it based on some numbers, you might be missing out on a whole world of possibility.

Rev that thing up and see what it will do. The most you see it going through is very, very close to the best you can expect from it, assuming you gave it the right stimulus. Well, performance enhancing drugs can show you different results, and some situations, environments, moods, and a person's general sense of desire can be more or less arousing which will give you different outcomes. Still, giving whatever you were blessed with all you've got, or letting a special someone, or maybe even a group of people pull it out of you, will often be the best method of seeing how big it can be.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

KobayashiMaru said:


> You get what fate gave you.


True to a point, but also max heart rate has nothing to do with potential power. Just a guideline to let yourself know when you're about ready to blow up.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

J.B. Weld said:


> Just a guideline to let yourself know when you're about ready to blow up.


Yep. Sort of like a tach on a motor. A Corvette vs a Honda Civic, or a huge logging truck... They all do different things with their motors, but if somebody told the owner of each of those vehicles there was a formula that predicted the limit of their motors, and they never got out and pushed them to see what they could really do but instead operated the engines inside the formula prediction, well, that would be sad.

Ugh. Conventional wisdom.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

DennisT said:


> My Garmin was doing that to me for a while, then it abruptly recalculated my percentages and max, and the splits made a lot more sense after that. I didn't do anything specific to cause the recalc. But I think you can also manually adjust your HR percentages in the app.


Garmin will use the default formula, but if your HR exceeds the calculated max, it will automatically adjust the max to the max rate recorded and use its default zones off that max.


----------



## Cary (Dec 29, 2003)

KobayashiMaru said:


> Yep. Sort of like a tach on a motor. A Corvette vs a Honda Civic, or a huge logging truck... They all do different things with their motors, but if somebody told the owner of each of those vehicles there was a formula that predicted the limit of their motors, and they never got out and pushed them to see what they could really do but instead operated the engines inside the formula prediction, well, that would be sad.
> 
> Ugh. Conventional wisdom.


I ride like I got an old GM 6.2 V8 diesel from the 80's but rev like a Civic, what does that tell you? 

I find HR useful for two things:

1) On climbs it tells me to back off before I run out of lungs and blow up. 
2) It gives me an idea of if I am fitter or less fit than normal. If over a period of time I am doing the same climb faster at the same HR, I am getting fitter. You really have to look over time though, one day is just one day and results can vary a lot on a daily basis.


----------



## Notthatbryan (Aug 7, 2021)

Theoretical hr Max is just what it says, theoretical. 
I've always had a high max HR. I'll be 41 in a few weeks and my current max HR using a Garmin chest strap to record is 205.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

Assuming you have enough math to know what average means, the equations to map age to max heart rate are actually just age to AVERAGE max heart rate for that age.

the equations let you see population trends and it makes no sense that you’d try to determine your personal max from them. Makes as much sense as determining your annual income from your country’s average.

unfortunately there are a bajillion websites that will pretend to do exactly that. Max hr calculators, etc, so it’s easy to get the wrong idea.

you can’t even use the equations as a safe lower bound guess when starting a routine because you might be in the 50% that has a lower than average max.

I think best approach is to set zones using breathing rate.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Notthatbryan said:


> Theoretical hr Max is just what it says, theoretical.
> I've always had a high max HR. I'll be 41 in a few weeks and my current max HR using a Garmin chest strap to record is 205.



Not saying this is the case with your 205 number but "max" heart rate isn't necessarily the highest number you record. I was advised to throw away any anomalies. 





eri said:


> I think best approach is to set zones using breathing rate.



Whatever works is good but I think power is the gold standard for zones.


----------



## Notthatbryan (Aug 7, 2021)

J.B. Weld said:


> Not saying this is the case with your 205 number but "max" heart rate isn't necessarily the highest number you record. I was advised to throw away any anomalies.
> 
> 
> Whatever works is good but I think power is the gold standard for zones.


I can hit 205 consistently at max effort, not just a one time anomaly.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

Notthatbryan said:


> I can hit 205 consistently at max effort, not just a one time anomaly.



Of course, I just quoted your post as an example. Personally I'm not exactly sure what my max heart rate is because it's so variable and I haven't done a Vo2 max test in a lab. One day I might hit 160bpm during a max effort and on another I might reach 185.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

Notthatbryan said:


> I can hit 205 consistently at max effort, not just a one time anomaly.


Your max is probably several beats above that then. If you can reach a number many times, you have more gas in the tank. It's that number you see once that will be closest to your max, and even then there's no way of knowing just how much more you could have given or how much more your tank had left. Rest, stimulation, focus, nutrition, hydration... it's too dependent on a multitude of variables.

I saw 205 once 20-25 years ago. I've seen 200 a few times in recent years. I saw 201 once, last year. I've seen 198 a ton of times.

I'm guessing my max is somewhere between 205 and 210, but that's probably not a "true" max. MSU Alum chimed into one of these threads once and said his heart hit something crazy like 240 in a centrifuge test they put fighter pilots in to test g-force tolerance.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

KobayashiMaru said:


> Your max is probably several beats above that then. If you can reach a number many times, you have more gas in the tank. It's that number you see once that will be closest to your max, and even then there's no way of knowing just how much more you could have given or how much more your tank had left. Rest, stimulation, focus, nutrition, hydration... it's too dependent on a multitude of variables.
> 
> I saw 205 once 20-25 years ago. I've seen 200 a few times in recent years. I saw 201 once, last year. I've seen 198 a ton of times.
> 
> I'm guessing my max is somewhere between 205 and 210, but that's probably not a "true" max. MSU Alum chimed into one of these threads once and said his heart hit something crazy like 240 in a centrifuge test they put fighter pilots in to test g-force tolerance.




That may be true but as far as setting training zones max hr is determined from what you can perform in the field (or lab) At least that's how I understand it.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Honestly I don't think know your max heart rate is all that important. Your aerobic threshold and lactate threshold heart rates are way more important for knowing what zones to ride in if you are into any sort of training. If you do polarized training or pyramid training, these values are crucial. If you are just out riding for fun, none of this (including max HR) matters.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> Whatever works is good but I think power is the gold standard for zones.


Zones are based on physiological state, how exactly you are producing your power. Power in zone depends on your mood, how hungover you are, heat adaptation, etc. you having a bad day you’ll adjust power down to train in correct zones.

hr and breath are physiological state and are directly involved in the energy process, still not perfect.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

eri said:


> Zones are based on physiological state, how exactly you are producing your power. Power in zone depends on your mood, how hungover you are, heat adaptation, etc. you having a bad day you’ll adjust power down to train in correct zones.
> 
> hr and breath are physiological state and are directly involved in the energy process, still not perfect.



Interesting theory and for all I know maybe it's best. I follow what seems to be the more conventional wisdom which is zones based purely on power, and mood, bad days, hungover-ness etc be damned. Kind of the opposite of your philosophy.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

A combo of HR and power probably makes the most sense to prevent over training. I have moved on to mainly relying on HR because I also run and don't have a power meter for that. I'd rather just have one consistent measure across my activities.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> Interesting theory and for all I know maybe it's best. I follow what seems to be the more conventional wisdom which is zones based purely on power, and mood, bad days, hungover-ness etc be damned. Kind of the opposite of your philosophy.


Thats really strange. What do you think zones are if they don’t correspond to physiological energy path? It’s not theory it’s literally the definition, it’s what they are. We can’t send a crew in a tiny submarine to see whats happening inside, we use hr and breath to try and determine zone.

power in zone is how fit you are, its a derived unit and depends on lots of stuff.

using power to determine current zone is like using speed to judge engine rpm.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

eri said:


> Thats really strange.



Why you think that, my former coach and every cycling coach I know of uses power exclusively to establish training zones and only use perceived effort to help gauge progress. Some coaches I follow think that heart rate is barely relevant data.

I'm not sure there's a literal definition for training zones, or at least there are several.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

J.B. Weld said:


> Why you think that, my former coach and every cycling coach I know of uses power exclusively to establish training zones and only use perceived effort to help gauge progress. Some coaches I follow think that heart rate is barely relevant data.
> 
> I'm not sure there's a literal definition for training zones, or at least there are several.


Power is very measurable and easy to specify.

Works great as long as youre healthy and you periodically test to readjust the power levels. If you travel, miss a meal, get a cold then you need to adjust down or youll be in the wrong zone and get more fatigue than intended. Is why you need to listen to your body, hr and breath are easy clues but still not whole picture.

your coaches power zones are for you right now and come from the physiological fundamentals.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

I have no idea what you guys are talking about when you talk about breath.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

eri said:


> your coaches power zones are for you right now and come from the physiological fundamentals.



Yep, the physiological fundamentals I use are periodic ftp tests.


----------



## eri (Sep 4, 2012)

KobayashiMaru said:


> I have no idea what you guys are talking about when you talk about breath.


I think its really cool, not sure why it isnt advertised more, probably because it doesnt involve you buying a gadget like an absurdly sized wristwatch.






How to do a Talk Test in an Indoor Cycling Setting | Indoor Cycling Association







www.indoorcyclingassociation.com













What Is Ventilatory Threshold and How Can You Use It to Monitor Exercise Intensity?


Find out what ventilatory threshold is, how it relates to lactate threshold and how you can use it to monitor your intensity.




cathe.com





Increase in Power, hr and breath are all symptoms of increasing effort. The thing you should do is get on an indoor trainer and slowly ramp power, whatever rate you like but give yourself a minute or so to stabilize at wach step. Youll find that hr and breath rise with each step in power, thats you consuming and expelling more byproducts of aerobic combustion. But at some point you take a tiny step and you cross vt2 the hr will rise and just rising until you pop. Thats also lt, and its the boundary of z3/z4.

similarly breath increase changes between z2/z3, the range of z3 is being less able to speak comfortably.

z2 is complete sentences.

edit: ooh found this is great description:









ACE-SPONSORED RESEARCH: Validating the Talk Test as a Measure of Exercise Intensity







www.acefitness.org


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

Oh. I was aware of that. I thought you guys were talking about something more technical.

I''ve noticed my breathing as it relates to HR, but I'd rather stick to HR. Talking while riding to gauge my effort is an extra step vs just looking at a number on a device, and there's probably a lot more room for subjective error. Talking while riding alone on the trail would seem a little odd to an observer, and talking on the trainer in the garage would seem even more odd. Plus, while no longer being able to speak comfortably might indicate a ventilatory threshold, there are still zones above that point where simply answering "no" to the question of "can you speak" wouldn't indicate those distinct zones.

A lot of people think HR is obsolete, but you can get a very accurate chest strap HR monitor for 40 bucks, and power meters start around 200-250 dollars. If you ride road and mountain bikes, you'll likely need two power meters since pedal and crank arm options don't cross over from bike to bike. Then, a lot of people say power meters on a mountain bike make no sense because of the constant change in effort. I might jump back and forth 400-500 watts on a trail, but my HR is going to show a more smoothed out response to that erratic riding.

It's very hard to stay in certain zones on a trail because of the constant elevation changes, so in a way, zone training is sort of pointless there, but in a time trial or race scenario, looking at that HR number on your handlebar sure can let you know how long you can push an effort or tell you when you're going to blow up.

But I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about.


----------



## Ailuropoda (Dec 15, 2010)

My Apple watch always tracks exactly with heart rate monitors on the grips of gym equipment like ellipticals so I have to believe it's accurate. I rarely get my heart rate above 150 even on difficult climbs. I'm not sure if this means I'm in good shape or old and weak. 

I also find that respiratory rate and effort are more meaningful to me than heart rate. I generally just glance at my watch and notice a heart rate in the 150s which corresponds nicely with busting a lung. I will generally stop and hike the bike at that point. No sense having a heart attack for a hobby. I'm 58. Actually in reasonable shape. 

I also notice that I can "cruise" in the 130s fairly comfortably.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

KobayashiMaru said:


> Oh. I was aware of that. I thought you guys were talking about something more technical.
> 
> I''ve noticed my breathing as it relates to HR, but I'd rather stick to HR. Talking while riding to gauge my effort is an extra step vs just looking at a number on a device, and there's probably a lot more room for subjective error. Talking while riding alone on the trail would seem a little odd to an observer, and talking on the trainer in the garage would seem even more odd. Plus, while no longer being able to speak comfortably might indicate a ventilatory threshold, there are still zones above that point where simply answering "no" to the question of "can you speak" wouldn't indicate those distinct zones.
> 
> ...


I think you missed the point of his post. He is not saying ditch HR. He is saying that using the breath test can help you identify your ventilatory (aerobic) threshold HR. Once you know that, then you know the heart rate you need to stay below for your aerobic/base training vs higher intensity efforts. Without knowing this threshold, you would have no idea what your HR means because the ventilatory threshold can vary between 70% to 85% of max heart across individuals and fitness levels. Even for you, it will be a moving target because it depends on your current fitness level.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

Ailuropoda said:


> My Apple watch always tracks exactly with heart rate monitors on the grips of gym equipment like ellipticals so I have to believe it's accurate. I rarely get my heart rate above 150 even on difficult climbs. I'm not sure if this means I'm in good shape or old and weak.
> 
> I also find that respiratory rate and effort are more meaningful to me than heart rate. I generally just glance at my watch and notice a heart rate in the 150s which corresponds nicely with busting a lung. I will generally stop and hike the bike at that point. No sense having a heart attack for a hobby. I'm 58. Actually in reasonable shape.
> 
> I also notice that I can "cruise" in the 130s fairly comfortably.


Hard to know without knowing your aerobic threshold. Eri's links are useful, practical ways of identifying your threshold heart rate. Once you know that, then you know what 150 and 130s mean.

Another way to identify your aerobic threshold is to do a lactate threshold hold test which is to do a 30-40 minute ride at the hardest effort you can hold for that entire duration. Track your average heart rate for the last 20-30 minutes and that is your lactate threshold HR. Then you can backout the aerobic threshold using a number on online calculators that work off of lactate threshold heart rate. But the LT test is stressful and demanding and it sounds like you want to avoid that.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

tick_magnet said:


> Once you know that, then you know the heart rate you need to stay below for your aerobic/base training vs higher intensity efforts.


Isn't lactate threshold the same concept? I know, at least in a well trained state, mine is around 181. Stay below that and I can keep it up.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

KobayashiMaru said:


> Isn't lactate threshold the same concept? I know, at least in a well trained state, mine is around 181. Stay below that and I can keep it up.


They are often confused by slightly different. Here is a video by Steven Seiler who is the Godfather of polarized training who explains the difference: 




Aerobic=VT1. Lactate=VT2 in the video. With polarized training, your easy efforts should be less than VT1 and hard efforts above VT2 and you try to avoid the area between VT1 and VT2.

The only thing I would caution is that the 80% and 87% numbers in the chart in the video are just representative numbers not YOUR numbers. You would have to find your unique percentages through the breath test or the lactate threshold test. And then periodically retest.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

I track heart rate and power on every ride, also I'm pretty aware of my breathing rates but I've never really thought about that much or used it as a training metric.

If I used heart rate to determine zones they would be different from day to day, sometimes by a lot. For me z-2 can vary anywhere between 105-130bpm. Sometimes I can be running z-4 @130bpm (7 zone system)

Power however seems very dialed, I know exactly how much I can produce for 1 hour, 10 minutes, 5 minutes, 1 minute, 10 seconds, etc, etc. I know to within a few watts what my lactate threshold is for a given time period. If I relied only on hr I'd be guessing.


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

tick_magnet said:


> Here is a video


Funny that zone 1 ended at 72 percent of HR max. I've found, what works best for me, is keeping most of my days below 70 percent of max, sort of that whole long slow distance concept, and then once or twice a week just giving the trail whatever kind of Hell I want. I know I'm going to peg certain numbers and ride in certain zones over an hour or two. I don't even use a display anymore, I just check it out after the ride. It lets me have fun on the bike and not worry about what I'm doing.

I use the trainer (with power) during the off season, but mostly I'm letting HR dictate what I'm doing. The power numbers are just cool indications I'm getting stronger or more conditioned as I see bigger wattages for longer periods at certain heart rate values. I do train at power ignoring heart rate sometimes, but those are days that replace my whatever Hell I want to throw at the trail days when the weather sucks.

I'm not anyone that knows what they're doing, so I'm probably talking out of my arse, but it works for me.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> I track heart rate and power on every ride, also I'm pretty aware of my breathing rates but I've never really thought about that much or used it as a training metric.
> 
> If I used heart rate to determine zones they would be different from day to day, sometimes by a lot. For me z-2 can vary anywhere between 105-130bpm. Sometimes I can be running z-4 @130bpm (7 zone system)
> 
> Power however seems very dialed, I know exactly how much I can produce for 1 hour, 10 minutes, 5 minutes, 1 minute, 10 seconds, etc, etc. I know to within a few watts what my lactate threshold is for a given time period. If I relied only on hr I'd be guessing.


Are you saying your z-2 max HR can vary between 105-130? I have certainly noticed that my Z2 max can vary between 140 to about 146 but probably not the range you are talking about.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

KobayashiMaru said:


> Funny that zone 1 ended at 72 percent of HR max. I've found, what works best for me, is keeping most of my days below 70 percent of max, sort of that whole long slow distance concept, and then once or twice a week just giving the trail whatever kind of Hell I want. I know I'm going to peg certain numbers and ride in certain zones over an hour or two. I don't even use a display anymore, I just check it out after the ride. It lets me have fun on the bike and not worry about what I'm doing.
> 
> I use the trainer (with power) during the off season, but mostly I'm letting HR dictate what I'm doing. The power numbers are just cool indications I'm getting stronger or more conditioned as I see bigger wattages for longer periods at certain heart rate values. I do train at power ignoring heart rate sometimes, but those are days that replace my whatever Hell I want to throw at the trail days when the weather sucks.
> 
> I'm not anyone that knows what they're doing, so I'm probably talking out of my arse, but it works for me.


How did you figure out 72% and 70%?


----------



## KobayashiMaru (Apr 25, 2020)

tick_magnet said:


> did you figure out 72% and 70%?


Yeah... I've been using the same numbers for so long I forgot what they were actually percentages of. My rest/recovery/light day/long slow distance limit is actually 70 percent of my lactate threshold. I've been saying it was 70 percent of my max heart rate. My lactate threshold is taken from 20 minute or hour long max effort data I've seen using the heart strap... The lactate threshold number doesn't seem to move that much in trained vs. untrained... maybe 5-10 beats a minute, so keeping below a low number on easy days and letting it rip on hard days makes it easy for me.


----------



## J.B. Weld (Aug 13, 2012)

tick_magnet said:


> Are you saying your z-2 max HR can vary between 105-130? I have certainly noticed that my Z2 max can vary between 140 to about 146 but probably not the range you are talking about.



Yep, 105 has happened but admittedly that is super unusual for me, probably due to a combination of fatigue, weather, or who knows what.

115- 130 bpm is a more normal variance for me when riding steady in the middle of z-2. Again, I attribute the discrepancies to weather and whether I'm fatigued or on form. Also how I slept, etc.

Also my perceived effort generally matches power, not heart rate.


----------



## tick_magnet (Dec 15, 2016)

J.B. Weld said:


> Yep, 105 has happened but admittedly that is super unusual for me, probably due to a combination of fatigue, weather, or who knows what.
> 
> 115- 130 bpm is a more normal variance for me when riding steady in the middle of z-2. Again, I attribute the discrepancies to weather and whether I'm fatigued or on form. Also how I slept, etc.
> 
> Also my perceived effort generally matches power, not heart rate.


That's interesting. I agree with you that on the bike, the weather and other factors really can mess with heart rate zones. I calibrate my zones now while running on a flat high school track where elevation, terrain, etc don't interfere as much. For cycling, I always do it on an indoor trainer. When I am unsure, I just ride or run doing the breath test for about 10 minutes near the beginning of my workout to get my aerobic HR for that day.


----------

