rbrides

Zwift and Strava have always provided different heartrate zones for me. I know of a different tool or technology to measure HR.

What is the most accurate way to set HR zones?

Calsun

This is going to be subjective as no two people are alike. The couch potatoe that is 30 lbs overweight is not the same as someone who is fit and does aerobic exercises on a regular basis.

There have been studies that show the maximum benefit for athletes is at 80% of their max heart rate (per the usual calculation). I use that to maintain a certain level of intensity on rides but nothing more.

Eric F 

1. Laboratory testing.
2. Know your body really well.

rsbob 

The online free calculators are pretty much garbage. This is based on using age based formulas that don’t reflect individual differences. Zwift at least knows your maximum, at least if you have done a FTP test or have really pushed yourself to the max, and can back calculate your zones from there. Still can’t figure out how to add the max to Strava but it seems to know from Zwift. Eric’s lab test might be the best measure of calculating zones.

Kai Winters

Most are reasonably accurate for the average person.
More important is tracking your max heart rate. Zone tracking is determined by the max heart rate a person inputs when using a zone method.
Your max heart rate will change as you become more or less "heart fit"...the fitter you become aerobically/anaerobically the higher your max heart rate will be and as you achieve new heights you have to adjust your zone tracking system to indicate the new max heart rate.
As an example my current max heart rate is 182bpm measured last year during a hill climb race with a friend during a training session. I use TrainingPeaks 5 zone system...they offer a wide variety of zone systems and I prefer the 5 zone for no particular reason. My zone 1 is 123-132bpm, zone 2 is 133-142bpm, etc. I can be just tooling along doing a zone 2 pace while someone less heart fit may be in zone 3 at that target heart rate...fitness rules.
I use the 5 zone system because I feel a 10bpm range between zones is very manageable and easy to use. More zones mean a more narrow range and imo becomes clumsy, less zones is too wide a range...again just my opinion.
I also view the tracking data on my Garmin edge device and Strava and find them similar enough to TP.
The old method of subtracting your age from 220bpm is an inaccurate method and imo is used for the average person who is barely fit. I'm 67 so subtracting my age from 220 means my max bpm is 153 lol. That is zone 3 for me lol. My time trial cruising pace is 165bpm for an hour or more thus blowing up that silly method.
How do you monitor your heart rate during a workout? Have you determined what your max heart rate is at this time? Have you tried?
Most important is to be aware of your system medically before pushing too hard. Are you heart healthy? Are you fit or just starting out? Do you use a journal to record, track and monitor your condition, changes, how you feel, etc?
Good luck and "Ride On"...

Iride01 

I set up my zones by lactate threshold hr. https://www.trainingpeaks.com/learn/...setting-zones/

However you should probably use the method that is suggested by the HR training program you are going to use. Though I'd also recommend you use one that goes by LTHR if you don't have a PM to use power based training.

Classtime 

Pay $ for a lab workout to find LT and stuff like that. And then pay $ again after a couple months of disciplined training. OR, use a time trial method as described by coaches in the pre-power meter days: like Joe Friel or Chris Carmichael. There must be others but I had good results with those two. Carmichael's zones are narrower which makes sense when you monitor your HR for a while and make note of the range in perceived effort within the boundaries of most HR zone training systems.

rbrides

I use a Scoche HR monitor and have been tracking, recording and saving my max and my zones for a few years. So knowing my current max HR, is there a formula for setting zone 1, 2, 3, 4 5 that is widely accepted as being reasonably accurate?"

blacknbluebikes 

Do a little reading on Heart Rate Reserve; might add useful perspective

rbrides

I also had a Wahoo Systm account for a year+ and their 4D annalysis was very detailed but, again, provided different zones that Zwift and Strava. Three different plateforms and three different zone ranges; thats what prompted me to ask in this forum. Thanks all for your input so far.

rsbob 

I found this tool corresponds works well for me and corresponds with what Garmin calculates for me: https://www.myprocoach.net/calculators/hr-zones/. I use it on my trainer as well

Eric F 

I put in my numbers, and the calculated zones are very close to what I use, which is based on what I actually feel in my body.

Carbonfiberboy 

I like to use lactate threshold, but don't want to fly somewhere to get the lab workup or buy a meter and stop every few minutes to measure. So I go by breathing, testing myself on my rollers to find VT1 and VT2. Lactate threshold should be just a couple beats below VT2, and VT1 is the break between slow and deep breathing and more rapid and deep breathing. So I put my guess at LT into the TrainingPeaks calculator to see zones. Then I modify the Z2-3 junction according to my VT1 HR. I never used MHR, which doesn't seem to have a whole lot to do with one's lactate levels. Maybe it does statistically but not so much individually. Zones are really all about lactate levels. The three-zone system is even simpler with the upper and lower breakpoint of Z2 being VT1 and VT2 absent actual lactate testing.

I find that training will modify the location of these breakpoints, so I modify my zones from time to time as seems appropriate..

Speedskater

Those stupid 'heart rate' charts have confused a countless number of people.

Kai Winters

They are all reasonably accurate...

rbrides

I just completed Wahoo Systm's 4DP FTP test. The results are just slightly lower than what I currently had for my cTHR and HR zones. My summation is; since I am only looking for fitness and overall better health, but am not racing or competing, all three of these platforms are within a reasonable relative range and thus the margin of error is not too signifigant. I will accept some ambiguity.

Iride01 

If you are doing a FTP test, then you must have a PM. My power zones and HR zones don't match at all. They aren't supposed too IMO. I'm not to worried about the ambiguity between them. I'm just riding for overall heath and cardiovascular fitness too. So I don't even use a set training program. I just go for a ride and know there needs to be some easy elements and hard elements mixed in.

Cycling IMO, doesn't do much for for some of the other fitness needs we old people have. And it's notable to me that cycling and walking don't work all the same muscles and those they do aren't worked the same way. So walking is important too. So it's probably important to do some other things too that involve more strength training just to maintain the muscle mass. Particularly the upper body since cycling, at least for me, does nothing for my upper body... other than lungs and heart.

rbrides

Yes, I use the Wahoo Kickr.

PeteHski

Your max heart rate is pretty much fixed and then slowly declines with age. Staying fit reduces this decline to some extent, but it is what it is. Your resting and threshold heart rates are more trainable. The fitter you get, the lower your resting heart rate and higher your threshold heart rate goes. Max heartrate is not trainable and varies enormously across individuals, regardless of their fitness level.

I agree max heart rate formulas are pretty useless as there is way too much variation across individuals. My max HR would be out by nearly 30 bpm using 220-age. So a worthless formula for me.

Kai Winters

Hmmmm, perhaps but how does one achieve a max heart rate? If I were a non fit person and tried to achieve a max heart rate imo it would be quite low because the muscular system would fail before a max heart rate is achieved. Or is the max heart rate for this individual much lower than a fit person because the body itself fails to achieve a max heart rate because of the unfit state? Or would this be the achievable max heart rate because of the fitness, or lack thereof, of this person?
I do ride with people who have a lower max heart rate than I do but are as fit or fitter, some less, than I.
I do not know the science behind any of this, only what I read in non-scientific articles, etc. or am aware of based on personal experience and what those around me tell me.

BTinNYC

Yeah. These Olympic style measuring and training tools don't apply when 10 minutes of pedaling blows up the rider. When I started cycling for fitness I couldn't finish a regular FTP test.

Bald Paul

Stress test at a doctors office while heart activity is being closely monitored is, IMHO, the most accurate way. Either you'll tell the doctor "I've had it" or the doctor will see something on the EKG and tell you to stop. You'll find your maximum HR and figure out your zones from there.
I've had a few stress tests done since my heart attack, know my limit, and set an alarm on my Edge 1030+ when I get to it.

pdlamb

Not necessarily. I had a stress echocardiogram a few years back, after I'd recovered enough to know I could hit 160 pulse rate without any problems. They cut it short around 140, as in turned off the treadmill, and claimed I'd already done an overtest.

MoAlpha

Yeah, most labs target 85% of estimated max HR for stress tests and they use one of the known-inaccurate tables for the estimate. The goal is to challenge the coronary circulation enough to spot actionable issues with blood supply, not to max anything out.

staehpj1

Yeah, it seemed a little ridiculous to me when I did a stress test. My MHR is way above what the "know-inaccurate tables predict" so basing the test off of 85% of that low number results in a test at a really easy effort. I may be wrong, but it didn't seem like enough effort to stress the system much at all. I wasn't even fully warmed up yet. The doc seemed to think it was an impressive test for a middle aged guy (that was decades ago, I am well past middle aged now).