Originally Posted by
hamster
It's not using percentages of heart rate, it's using percentages of heart rate _reserve_ (max HR - resting HR) (I missed that myself when I wrote the post above), which makes zones skewed even worse.
Using Joe Friel's zones
http://www.trainingbible.com/joesblo...ing-zones.html and guessing LT = 85% MHR, zones should be: Z1 60..124, Z2 124..137, Z3 138..143, Z4 144..153, Z5 153..180.
Yeah, missed that 0% at 60. But that just shows how ridiculous the whole zone fiasco can be. 'Zone's are ways to fill up pages in a book.
SO if I had a resting HR of 42, my zones would be lower, looser, larger range than someone with a 60 HR? So, if there is anything to say about resting heart rate (beyond relative numbers to the same person) then their assumption is a rider with lower RHR somehow should use lower zones ???
kookage
Joe Friel's 'zones' are set from AT/LT or power numbers - so yes, what anyone calls Z4 or Z1 depends. The whole 'zone' idea really started because coaches had a hard time conveying their ideas to their charges. But zones, if not properly interpreted also can create non-existent artificial lines/boundaries and keep riders from being able to truly visualize 'effort' and result.
But that's a long conversation.
Really, if one interprets what Friel is working towards with HR readings/numbers, is developing a program around the AT/LT, his LTHR.