Hi guys and girls,
I found it amazing that you have the option to choose your Heart Rate Training Zones, either manually or by using presets. But I’ll be honest… I’m a bit lost 
Which one do you use, and if possible, why?
I’ve tried different options, but in the end the outcome can be very different, and it changes a lot of other data. So I’d really like to find the best and most relevant one.
Hello Nathan, I’m using the following one: 5 Zones model which I believe is quite common. I’ve not adjusted the specific percentages to my physiology because I don’t use heart rate to guide my workouts it’s more a secondary metric that I look at post session in data analytics. In term of HR load I use the HRSS (normalized TRIMP) model which is recommended by Intervals when running is the prime activity. Of course important is to take into account HRR (Hear Rate Recovery) which will change on daily basis and is a really good indication not only for your micro cycle planning (and almost deciding if it’s green light for intensity day) but also long term endurance improvement. For my own case there is definitively a big change over years between before and after having started to run ! So back in the days if I would have done an activity, for the same output (pace) my HR would have been in a higher zone. Although I was younger then my theory Max Hear Rate would have been higher.
I hope people here would are more into physiology and can fine tune percentages and even perhaps using more granular zone model (7 or 8 zones?) could comment further.
Use the Coggan (5) settings as a starting point. It might (read: usually) over estimate the top of your Z2. You can change top of Z2 based on a noticeable change in your breathing, after it’s fully under control.
thanks for your answer. I also use a 5 zone model, but the question is which one 
I tried different one, re-analyse data and the output can be very very different. When checking online you also have a lot of different informations. So I found it hard to set it up properly. In my case I use HR a lot, especialy for long run when i want to be in zone2. But based in the model used my zone 2 can varies a lot…
Thanks for you answer. What do you mean by over estimate ? let’s say the top range is 150. You think it’s less in reality ?
My main issue is that sometimes for my long run, where i feel very confortable, can speak easily, breath only with the nose.. so felling easy .. it says I was in Z3, so a long tempo run. But I don’t realy agree with this. Maybe it’s because my max HR is not my real max HR, and it’s probably the case…
Only based on my feeling, it seems that Olympiatoppen Norway (5) model is the one which seems the clothest with my feeling. But with the model the Zone 2 is 81% - 91% (max HR), which is super hight compare to other model !!
Yes, in reality it is lower for less well train athletes.
Coggan zones are for cyclists, so I should’ve made that clear in my reply. As a cyclist, my experience is mostly on two wheels and not two feet.
That said, long runs should be easier than close to the top of zone 2. Running has the disadvantage of being a weight bearing activity, so “easy” for other activities is usually harder for running at the same intensity.
Ho ! If coggan zones are for cyclists then it makes more sense. but then it also depend if you set your max HR for cycing activity or you overall max HR.
I’m currently looking to set it up for runing as this is my main activity at the moment and the one i’m tring to improve.
ps: You may also know this, but is there a way to set up the max HR , Threshold HR and HRRc Min HR, automaticaly based on the results of your session. When I improve it or increase it, I have it highlighted in red in the session, but it doesn’t change it automatically in my setting.
The zone numbers in Coggan and Olympiatoppen do not mean the same thing, so they cannot be matched directly. For example, Coggan Zone 2 is closer to Olympiatoppen I-Zone 1, Coggan Zone 3 is closer to I-Zone 2, and Coggan Zone 4 is closer to I-Zone 3.
Watch out here! OLT model has z2 as 81-91% of LTHR, not max HR! It’s actually 72-82% of max HR.
Maybe you can try to give us a few extra details about you (your max HR and threshold HR, how you got your numbers and how reliable do you think you are, your level of performance, race times and training paces…) And with that context we may be able to help with a more detailed answer
There is no automatic way to set it up, currently. If your heart rate is clipped on an activity, it means your HRmax is too low. So there is a way to see if your max effort is indeed a max effort.
For HRRc minimum HR, I change it depending on the block of training being done, eg. it will be lowered when doing sub-threshold work, and raised when doing threshold or VO2 work. I’ll use it to see recovery from specific workouts, that wouldn’t be triggered it set too low or too high.
For me, I have the option to measure lactate, along with using the AlphaHRV data screen on every activity (which requires max efforts across the duration curve to keep updated; it’s a modelled estimation). So setting LT1/VT1 and LT2/VT2 is not based on anchoring everything to FTP, LTHR or maxHR.
Ha yes you are right . I checked again and between Olympiatoppen Norway (5) and CTS run i have almost similar value. I also didn’t know coggan zones was for cyclists . Maybe it’s something that could be added (something like : Andy coggan bike(5) )
Here this is based on my runing sessions. I never did a proper test in a lab.
Max HR: 195
threshold HR: 176
For sure they are both underestimated , as I never pushed a the max limit . But I think, and compare to what i see from other people. it seems that my HR is high and I can handle it .
I’m currently training for an ultra trail. So I try to do long run and try to stay in Z2.
To be honest i don’t really mind if it’s not perfectly set. If i’m feeling well when running it’s my best indicator. But on the other hand we have some amazing tools to look at data, use AI coach to improve… SO id like to have “nice” data. For exemple if all my run are detected as tempo and not in Z2, then all the data are very biaised…
