I'm curious how many use the Karvonen method to determine their training zone vs the more common method of simply doing the math of XX% of your max H/R?

For those that don't know, the Karvonen method is simply determining your Heart Rate Reserve (HRR), by taking your Max H/R minus your Resting H/R. Example if you have a max H/R of 170 and a resting H/R of 60, your HRR = 110

Then you simply multiply you HRR by your intended zone, then add your resting H/R to that and that is your zone.

Example HRR 110 X .6 (60%) = 66 then simply add you resting H/R of 60 = 126.


Standard Zone 2 for Max H/R of 170bpm

60% = 102 bpm
70% = 119 bpm


Karovnen Method Zone 2 for Max H/R of 170bpm with a HRR of 110 and resting H/R of 60bpm

60% = 126 bpm
70% = 137 bpm

You can clearly see the difference between the two methods and I've noticed, with me at least, that the Karvonen method seems far more accurate. And I evaluate this basically off the "talk test" to determine which zone I'm roughly in. I can talk as if I'm in Zone 2, but according to the standard method, I'm in either a high Zone 3 or low Zone 4.

Just curious how many others have compared the two methods?




.

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.

I use LTHR. Though I haven't done the 20 minute test sample that Joe Friel suggests in over 8 years. In the last couple years, my max HR has started declining from the 180+ bpm that was fairly constant for me during my 50's and early 60's.

Your Karvonen Zone 2 for your HR seems close to what my LTHR zones would be if adjusted for max. Maybe just a tad lower BPM, but not much.

However I can seldom ever ride at zone 2 in my area as it's constant rolling hills. Although for the few times I can ride in a group I have managed to get some time in zone two. But never more than about a third of the time. I don't put much emphasis into z2 at all. Only if I cycled 300 - 400 miles a week or better might I think getting zone 2 benefits as a need.

When I am reasonably fresh, the talk test for finding LT1 jives very well with 70%HRR value, and the 70%MaxHR value not so much. Although when I am riding really tired, talk test puts me pretty close to the maxHR value.

Max: 180
Resting: 53
Talk Test LT1, fresh: 142-ish (70%HHR, 79%maxHR)
Talk Test LT1, dog tired: 132-ish (62%HRR, 73.3%maxHR)

I think it's important to recognize that HR benchmarks (LT1, LT2, max HR) do move a bit depending on your current state. As indicated, for me, LT1 can seemingly come down as much as about 8-10 bpm (although that much change would mean I am pretty damn tired).

For whatever reason, for estimating LT2, the number jives better with the typical 88-92%maxHR range. When I am fresh, LT2 seems to be about 161 or so (89.4%). Mid-150's when smoked. My LT2 estimate comes from some TT like efforts up long climbs that last about 20-25 minutes. I can sustain as high as about 163-164 on those types of climbs, with 'failure' (or at least nearly so) occurring at the top. I figure that means my LT2 is a few BPM below that. I realize this is a bit crude.

My max HR has always been relatively low - right now at age 53 - 164-166 max.

Z2 70% @ 116 BPM. Power wise/FTP based - this is mid Z1.

My Z2 based off power/talk test/rpe = 125-135BPM. Just above the Karvonen method by about 10 bpm.

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.
.

I looked into the Karvonen calculations a while back. My recollection is that they agreed a little more closely with the "talk test" zones but I've subsequently stopped training by HR zones (mostly but not entirely in favor of power-based training).

Most of the time I just ride along at a good pace with my friends.
But sometimes I let 'er rip.

However, no one subscribes to my channel or buys my book with only two sentences. My dietary and financial advice is similar.

I go by my breathing. IME there's not a more accurate way.

RPE, breathing, etc. are great, perhaps the best measures of the internal cost of a given effort. But if one wants to see a number displayed and track that data with a device, that's not really much of an option yet. Garmins will display breathing rate, trying to use HRV data via a chest strap to indirectly estimate breathing rate, but it's only semi-accurate. It seems ok for low level (Z2 efforts), but anything much harder than that and the accuracy seems pretty bad.

I also use a device which displays a number and records all the stats for the ride - a Garmin 1030. I know what my breathing is like in zones 2, 4, and 5. Z3 therefore is whatever is between 2 and 4.

I used Joe Friel's 30 min LTHR test about 10 years ago. It's pretty solid for my LTHR, based on observations while I'm riding, and hasn't really changed (I think it went up 1 bpm (and some days maybe 2 bpm) in '24 when I made a big fitness jump from riding a lot of z2, or maybe my fitness has me handling lactate clearance better, but I left my zones alone and keep that in the back of my mind).

When I started using power, I realized that Friel's HR zones (particularly the top of z2) wasn't as well aligned with my power zones (Coggan), so I switched my HR zones to the Coggan zones, and it's pretty consistent (I spend most time on mtb, with no power meter, so it's important for me to be consistent across bikes). That being said, I spend a lot of time riding in high and low z3, and I can talk fine way up into z3, so maybe that says Friel's zones are more accurate for me, but if so, I'm ok with being a little low rather than high for top of z2.

I did the VO2Max test not so much for cycling performance-I am pretty close to as good as I am going to get--but because I am about to turn 70. And in ten years I want to be able to carry in the groceries, cut the grass and lift my bag into the overhead bin and ride 50 miles.

But like Stephen Wright said, "my plan is live forever. So far, so good!"

I'll turn 77 early in April, started back with some recreationally 'serious' road biking (and some gravel now that I have a suitable mount) in 2023.

Bought a battery-powered lawn mower two years ago (same year as my 'new' CF road bike) 'cause the gas one's just too blinkin' heavy to do my yard, even with two powered wheels.

I don't fly anymore either so overhead bin means closet shelf I guess.

I've yet to ride 50 miles in a session. Closest I've come was 26 miles last summer, around some of the roads around where I live. Took me ~ 2 hours, gave me 1,300' elevation.

Groceries get carried in from my car, or my wife's... if she's done the shopping.

Gonna use Karvonen method for Zone #'s now that I'm aware of it. Seems pretty well suited to what my body's been telling me while I've been out there pedaling around the countryside.

Did the calculation as you referenced above. A HR of around 120 bpm is more in line with what I feel outside. The other methods give me too high a number, more like a Zone4 than a Zone 2.

I use power for my zones rather than heart rate, but in my experience you need to take these generic zones with a bolder of salt. Everyone is different and have different power and imagine heart rate profiles. For example the power suggested by the generic power range % for zone 6 (Coggan) would have me doing those intervals at 100W too low for me.

These percentages are just estimates for some generalized, generic rider... these are not necessarily the zones that YOU should use. Like I said the generic z6 level would have me doing those intervals 100W too low.. for me!
A much better way to figure out how hard to ride an interval is use the generic number.. then after a while you can gauge how hard you should be riding those intervals.

Another thing.. in my experience HR is usable for zone 4 pretty good for zone 3... great for zone 2 down.. but above zone 4 reacts too slowly to be usable...