Zone 2 Heart Rate?

Judging by my last 2 runs, 1 is more of a zone 3 with a 1mi negative split at the end, I can’t stay in a zone 2. Zone 2 for me is anywhere between 118-130bpm and I just can’t keep my heart rate that low.

If I go any slower it will feel like I’m not gaining any benefit from the run at all.

In 5 years of running this is the first time I have ever used a heart rate monitor. I had no idea my heart rate was getting that high when I would do my zone 2 runs.

Should I really slow it down my pace to stay under 130bpm?

I’m in my mid 30’s and weigh around 170-175lbs.

Also, I should add I do live in South Florida. I guess heat would be a factor?

Thanks
http://s21.postimg.org/mkubzxfgn/Test_Garmin.jpg
http://s27.postimg.org/9h54kjlw3/Test2_Garmin.jpg

How did you arrive at those zones? Heart rate zone seems pretty low for zone 2.

After doing a lot of research I tested my max. heart rate and found it quite different from the 220-age equation. I also used a resting heart rate data point in the zone calculations I use. My easy runs are basically a jog which I breathe only out of my nose. Personally my HR usually stays between 138-142 (hills 150) and the pace basically mirrors my vdot pace chart’s easy/long pace.

Maybe your zones are wrong, or maybe you are going too hard?

Should I really slow it down my pace to stay under 130bpm?

I wouldn’t overthink it too much. If you’re going easy, you’re going easy.

You could also make a vdot pace chart and see what paces it tells you for easy, tempo, intervals and then have a second guideline/opinion about run pacing to look at.

How did you arrive at those zones? Heart rate zone seems pretty low for zone 2.

Basically, browsing random web sites.
http://www.digifit.com/heartratezones/training-zones.asp?MaxHR=186&Age=34&RHR=38

220 minus age 34= 186 max heart rate

Zone 2 (60%-70%)= 111-130bpm

How did you calculate your heart rate zones? Those numbers seem really low for Zone 2 and sound like based on your perceived level of effort they are too low.

There are a number of methods to calculate heart rate zones from the basic % of Max HR, Karvonen Formula or Zoladz Formula that take into account age and/or resting heart rate, and many other variations: http://www.digifit.com/heartratezones/training-zones.asp?MaxHR=175&Age=35&RHR=60

I few years ago I had a coach who developed my heart rate zones off a treadmill test I did and he had his own forumla that he had developed to calulate the zones. The numbers never sat well with me (my perceived level of effort was significantly misaligned with the numbers I was prescribed to follow). Short-term I saw a jump in my short distance tri performance but over the long-term training for half-distance races (after 8-9 months) I was having difficult completing my hard workouts and eventually even my “easy” workouts became a struggle and I bombed the run on my two half-tris. After the end of the season and parting with my coach I ended up playing around with various heart rate zone formulas and for me personally found that as I suspected the zones I had been using were way too high, which is why I became physically unable to maintain my performance over time. Turns out because of the misalignment I was doing the majority of my workouts in Zone 3-4 on both the bike and run.

I’ve found for me personally based on previous solid performances and trial and error my zones fell somewhere between the Karvonen modified and Zoladz modified formulas with the understanding that a variety of factors will affect your heart rate on a given day such as heat/humidity, quantity/quality of sleep, proper recovery, terrain, etc. I ended up switching to power on the bike and for the run using perceived level of effort and using heart rate as an additional metric to assist me but not using it as a strict “must stay within the lines” measure in training.

I certainly learned a lot training by heart rate and I think it’s certainly helped me learn more about myself as an athlete and is information that I’ll continue to use (I still keep HR on my 910xt during trainign & races). I’d recommend taking at look at the link I posted above and see if maybe you need to adjust your zones using a different method, everyone is different so what works for one person may not work for another but it sounds like to me that your zones are too low.

Figure out your threshold heart rate and use 80-86 percent.

I have some coaches that are pretty hot on this topic.

The theory (and by that I mean scientific theory not guesswork) is that zone 2 is where you build aerobic endurance. In this zone your body uses a large chunk of fat for fuel as opposed to sugar. When people talk about building a base they are primarily talking about this zone.

You do not have a single ‘fitness’. You have various fitness within your HR range (which is probably why sprinters and marathon runners can’t do the other discipline and win - they are fit for purpose not simply fit for everything). Your fitness in your Zone 2 sounds poor, as you are slow within that zone BUT running within that zone is absolutely correct and yes, you will be slow at first. Once you start to train with that HR as a limiter you will start to get faster within that zone. Being faster in zone 2 is great, because you are starting from a faster platform when you head into zones 3 and 4.

As an example, I used to run 5:15 per km within my Zone 2. Continued training over a couple of years in that zone puts me now at 4:35 per km within that zone. I now have a much better platform from which to push higher HR’s and pace during events. My body uses a lot more fat at higher speeds than it used to because I have trained my zone 2 speed to be a lot higher than it was before.

I coach a few people who all have the same issue. They say that Zone 2 is too slow. It’s not. They are just not trained very well at that zone. They limit their HR and after weeks or months they start to see a significant shift.

I would say … ensure your zones are right (get a proper lactate test) and then train slow if that is what you need to do to sty within that Zone 2. Obviously Zone 2 is just part of your training program and likely a large part in the off season.

" … If I go any slower it will feel like I’m not gaining any benefit from the run at all. …" Wait until that slower starts to get faster at the same HR. Having a consistent course to rain on helps to establish the improvements as you will see your pace and times start to come down.

There is also another benefit of training in Zone 2. You develop more slowtwitch muscles fibres. Fast muscles fibres are unable to deal with lactate, slow twitch muscles fibres are supposed to be able to use lactate as fuel. In a race, if you have developed your ST fibres, by running in Zone 2, more of the lactate all be a benefit than a hinderance compared to what you had before when it comes to race day.

I am not a scientist, this is just what I have ‘learned’ during my time being coached and reading articles by respected coaches and endurance bods. So … it’s second hand info but it has helped me tremendously and I have seen huge results from a lot of people who have used it.

Hope that helps.

Your zone 2 is too low (most likely).

I know everyone isn’t the same, but my zone 2 target (when I last used an HRM about a year ago) is 140 bpm. I’m 44 years old.

I arrived at this by doing a simple threshold test…

Warm up 10 minutes, run 30 minutes at as fast a pace you can hold for 30 minutes (if you almost puke at the end you did it right). Use your average HR for the last 20 minutes of the run as your threshold. Calculate zones from that.

Or use RPE.

How did you arrive at those zones? Heart rate zone seems pretty low for zone 2.

Basically, browsing random web sites.
http://www.digifit.com/...mp;Age=34&RHR=38

220 minus age 34= 186 max heart rate

Zone 2 (60%-70%)= 111-130bpm
See this site. It has a downloadable spreadsheet for the HR zone calculations for the field LT test method Duffy mentioned (also has a link to a test protocol article).

Some of those formulas can be so far off depending on your physiology. My “max” HR measured during a 5k was 189 when I was 41 YO, yet my running LT hasn’t changed but a +/- 2 BPM since test #1 which was around the same time 8 years ago. Which means my HR zones haven’t changed either as I age. Only thing that has changed is the pace I run at in those calculated zones depending on my fitness level at the time.

People who aren’t as in good aerobic shape as they think they are nearly always say they “can’t run that slow. I’d have to walk.” Keep getting more fit with lots more volume at an easy pace and you’ll see yourself get faster at a lower HR.

Thats dont work. :slight_smile:

HR zone two can very closely be compared to phill maffertones approach whis is so very simple. In general the MAF HR is 180 minus your age. For you, that would be 146. If you do a MAF test, tjis is the HR to keep.

When training by this philosofy, all your LSD should be between you MAF and ten beats below. For you that would be 136-146. Keep it simple and aim for 140.

Thy that out - even though you will go slow at first, you will improve your speed at this intensity and develop hi efficiancy and be a real fat burning machine for ultimate endurance.

Google Phill Maffertone - his webpage has some good stuff. I thought he was kinda a legend in triathlon. He was the coach of Mark Allen among others… :slight_smile:

Thats dont work. :slight_smile:

HR zone two can very closely be compared to phill maffertones approach whis is so very simple. In general the MAF HR is 180 minus your age. For you, that would be 146. If you do a MAF test, tjis is the HR to keep.

When training by this philosofy, all your LSD should be between you MAF and ten beats below. For you that would be 136-146. Keep it simple and aim for 140.

Thy that out - even though you will go slow at first, you will improve your speed at this intensity and develop hi efficiancy and be a real fat burning machine for ultimate endurance.

Google Phill Maffertone - his webpage has some good stuff. I thought he was kinda a legend in triathlon. He was the coach of Mark Allen among others… :-)I would be way undertraining with this approach. My Z2 would be 121-131, yet my field LT test Z2 is 148 to 158 and is not a problem to hold for my long runs. Hence the fallacy of any HR formula that involves using age.

Thats dont work. :slight_smile:

HR zone two can very closely be compared to phill maffertones approach whis is so very simple. In general the MAF HR is 180 minus your age. For you, that would be 146. If you do a MAF test, tjis is the HR to keep.

When training by this philosofy, all your LSD should be between you MAF and ten beats below. For you that would be 136-146. Keep it simple and aim for 140.

Thy that out - even though you will go slow at first, you will improve your speed at this intensity and develop hi efficiancy and be a real fat burning machine for ultimate endurance.

Google Phill Maffertone - his webpage has some good stuff. I thought he was kinda a legend in triathlon. He was the coach of Mark Allen among others… :-)I would be way undertraining with this approach. My Z2 would be 121-131, yet my field LT test Z2 is 148 to 158 and is not a problem to hold for my long runs. Hence the fallacy of any HR formula that involves using age.

Did you take the time to study til webpage rescource? There are variations for sure, and er personlised approach would always be preferred. Event though, a HR Zone 2 between 148 and 158 sounds excessive - how did you establish this if I might ask?

I’m not throwing cold water on any ideas here but I have used heart rate on and off over the years.

I have found that in recent years I get more and more trouble with heart rate monitors. Not sure if this is to do with more signals in the environment which interfere or the complexity of the new models but I have found the things more trouble than they are worth.

My heart rate is practically unchanged in 20 years. My sustainable heart rate / threshold heart rate has not changed and the maximum has only dropped 4 or 5 beats. So any age related formula is rubbish.

I only check heart rate on the bikes at the gym when I’m really bored. I find paying attention to breathing tells me more and the breathing responds to changes in power output or pace quicker than heart rate, and leg feel tells me even sooner than breathing.

I still do power / heart rate ratio tests indoors once or twice a year. But that is really a hang over from the past. I do it out of interest and like to compare over the years.

You get very interesting results when you have not done one sport for several years - you realise then how much of ‘fitness’ is muscular and how a fit cardio system is hardly stressed at all by muscles which have been doing say running for years and no cycling, or cycling for years but no running, or have not rowed for years. It really does prove to you how specific fitness is. No matter how well trained your cardio system if the specific muscles are not trained in the way that is specific to the event you will get very poor performance.

Here is my n=1 experience with training by HR for easy/long runs after getting an LT test done 11 weeks ago. The LT test showed that my top end was good, my recovery was great, but my base sucked. This was no surprise after how I did my run training over the last 2+ years dealing with different injuries.

From the LT test, my easy/long runs should be done at 119-129 bpm. Before, my “easy runs” were done at 7 to 7:30/mile. My first run trying to keep my heart rate within the prescribed zone? 9:17/mile. Now 11 weeks of forcing myself to stay within this zone, my pace will be anywhere from 8:30/mile (depending on how hard the swim or bike workout was) to this past saturday where I avg 7:45/mile for a 5 mile run after a two hour bike. If you look at the avg pace over those 11 weeks, it is trending down, I have better running form now, and I’m running more per week than I have been been able to do over the last 2+ years. My race times have also improved during this 11 week period, so I have no reason to change what is working for me at the moment.

Now, I only use HR for easy/long runs. Any interval/threshold workouts have set paces.

Geez like to know your secret in aging. I have been training for many many years. I wish my hear rate did not change in 20 years. Am not as fast in my 50’s now as I was in my early 30’s either

Geez like to know your secret in aging. I have been training for many many years. I wish my hear rate did not change in 20 years. Am not as fast in my 50’s now as I was in my early 30’s either

My sustainable heart rate, my heart rate range at FTP, is unchanged. But the power output and pace has declined.

I would concede that I’m less inclined to push as hard these days but if I do say a 20 min test, the heart rate over the 20 minutes isn’t different to over 20 years ago.

Yes. Do a little research on polarised Training and many Will Discovery that their long slow run are at too high intensity. Training at a Real oow zone 2 is demanding for the discipline but the tradeoff after 2-3 mo is quite astonishing. :slight_smile:

People who aren’t as in good aerobic shape as they think they are nearly always say they “can’t run that slow. I’d have to walk.” Keep getting more fit with lots more volume at an easy pace and you’ll see yourself get faster at a lower HR.

Truth. I was one of them. I started in January’ish training in the Norwegian 5 zone model, and primarily Z1 (55-75% MHR) work starting around February or March. The results have been pretty amazing. I haven’t added much speed work in yet, but I’m running at my old threshold paces fairly easily by comparison.

According to Mark Allen. 180 - Age = Z2 high end. Add 5 if you are active, Subtract 5 if you are not
Ex: 180-35= 145. Active = 150, Inactive 140.