Originally Posted by
bblair
Not an expert.
I have had my HR Zones calculated by many different methods and they vary so widely. VO2 Max test (seemed way to high), percentages of max HR (about right), RWGPS formula (maybe a little low). The VO2 Max zone 2 was the same as others zone 4.
So from a practical standpoint, I use what you describe as the "talk test." Most of my riding is there with an occasional high intensity spirt, which outside is usually a hill.
Paralysis by analysis.
Yeah, I hear you and understand the Analysis/Paralysis syndrome and try and guard against it. Personally I don't get into lactate nor VO2 Max stuff, because I don't ever plan to do a test in a lab and I don't trust other methods of estimating those things -- I don't even trust calories burned estimates.
However, since I have started tracking my H/R, years ago, I've read quite a bit about it and I was always bothered by the training zones where I seemed to be able to sing in zone 2 and talk perfectly good in zone 3, both standards a failure in the basic talk test. And that's when I came across the Karvonen method of determining one's training zones. I don't know how perfect it is, but it's a hell of a lot better than simply doing the math with just MAX H/R -- at least in my case.
I was just curious if others experienced the same thing. In my talking with runners, I've introduced them to this method, because many were disheartened by the fact that they had to do a lot of walking to stay in zone 2, which was also my experience until I learned about the Karvonen method.
P.S. Staying in Zone 2 is really important for me, because I do have a habit of operating in Zone 3 too much. Zone 3 is a good workout, but if you workout everyday, which I do, the fatigue really does accumulate. I am one of those people that did operate too much in the gray zone.
.