I find myself in a similar situation. At 42 years old with a max heart rate of 204, my Zone 1 ranges from 123 to 151 bpm, and Zone 2 goes up to 166 bpm. This works well for me. At 166 bpm, I can still talk in short sentences-around 3 to 5 words before needing a breath. So I can definitely relate. In the past, I tried running Zone 2 sessions capped at 140 bpm, but it felt far too slow. I didn’t see much progress, and it became boring. These days, my easy runs are usually between 140-150 bpm, and my steady runs are around 160-170 bpm. Anything above that is challenging, as my heart rate indicates it should be hard, but it doesn’t always feel that way. The biggest improvement in my performance has come from consistency. This year, I’ve already completed 119 running sessions, and my pace has improved by 30 seconds per kilometer. Recently, I ran a 10k in 55 minutes, beating my personal best by over 6 minutes. Keep running regularly-it makes all the difference!
@@sapwickler that’s super interesting to hear that you’re in a similar position with HR. I also found running to around 130bpm too slow and almost like I wasn’t doing anything effective. I’m now excited to get stuck into some pace-based runs and to be more regular with my efforts to see how these results vary 😊
Interesting deviation from the "norm" and a good example why a sports watch doesn't replace a medical professional. Would be interesting to see how/if your resting heart rate and tempo at 170bpm changes over time.
@GTE_Channel haha. It was different. I think today people are focusing way too much on gear. I did listen to my body. The funny thing is, in the hobby department the level was better than today. In the 80ies I was a U20 runner with PB 32:13 10k and 54:24 10miles. And in the club I was a member there were more than 10 guys faster than that.
@jimmybondy9450 lots of people these days are mostly looking at the little details like you said. In the 70s someone won the Olympic Marathon barefoot. In the 80s people ran near 2:15 marathons without gels and carbon shoes. But I'm training with a Stryd in my key sessions so who am I to judge other people 🤣
@@GTE_Channel Abebe Bikila. And it was even before that, 1960 in Rome in a time of 2:15. Insane. One of the guys in my club was an olympian, having a PB of 28:23 10000m in 1971. He was 100% working and had a family. When he went to the Olympics 1972, he had to take the time off at work. Can you imagine in 2024.😅
Do you feel comfortable at 170 bmp? That'd be wild to me. My max HR is around 196, but 175+ is more like my threshold pace, and I can't hold it for too long.
@@luffyluck great question. Yea, kinda of. Like, I’ve never tried to just run at that HR to know how long I can sustain it. But it’s really not uncommon for my HR to be a bit higher than I expect it to be. I just always assumed it was because I’m super unfit, but maybe it’s just me 🤷🏻♀️
Hi! I once did a test in a lab and got similar results to you. However, my lab suggested that due to high heart rate at relatively low power (I tested on a bike) my Z2 should be manually shifted to lower heart rate ranges, so instead of my Z2 being centered at 150 I left the lab with Z2 being centered at 130 bpm. I remember that I was very stressed out and "ready to die" on the test day so I believe that my high heart rate reflected my nerves, and the lab did a great job to correct my zones. Were you stressed or could there be any other factors affecting your heart rate on that day? Z2 at 170 is very, very unique so I'd be careful with these zones and certainly stay closer to lower end during runs/rides. Good luck with your training!
@@mewek Thanks for sharing your experience, that’s super interesting 🤔 I was pretty nervous going into it, but I felt like that settled down once I warmed up. I’m not too sure if anything else was at play, but then HR can be affected by so many things like sleep, food, caffeine, cycle etc. who knows. It’d be cool to retest in the new year after some focussed training to see how these results shift
@@Jessicastrange Exactly, there are so many things that affect HR! That's why it's very important to listen to own body and check if your theoretical training intensity, based on training zones, aligns with your RPE (rate perceived effort) - if there's a problem with your Z2 your body will tell you that ;)
I do it in a similar way to you. However, my data is completely different. For example, I run at 5.4 pace with a heart rate of 111-120 BPM. I rarely go over 160 BPM (which makes threshold training difficult). I also really like Zift, I think it's a great addition. Can I find you on Zwift? If so, under what name? I'm really bad on the bike. Bike VO2 Max 45. Running VO2 Max 56. How can you explain that? I wish you lots of success and fun. Greetings
I think there are two different zone systems. MaxHR and Lactate Threshold HR (LTHR). Wonder if you switched from using Garmins default of MaxHR Z2 to the LTHR Z2. Though the difference between using the Garmin estimate and an actual lab test could be significant also.🙂 Riding is excellent cross training for running. I basically alternate between the two each day, but then I'm also training for dual endurance disciplines or Ultra running and endurance mountain biking. 🙂
@@geoffwnz I tried to get a better look in Garmin Connect at what was going on, but I couldn’t figure it out 🤷🏻♀️ Garmin also says my max.HR is 203 which seems wild to me. At least I now have more accurate data that’s personal to me and where I am so I can work from that 😊
So typically, if someone has a zone 2 at such an incredibly high percentage of HRMax, they would be classed as an elite endurance athlete. Did the lab give you any insight as to how your lactate threshold is so high when you are just starting out? Apologies if I've missed something about your background that explains this. What is your resting HR?
@@ArnoldJudasRimmer “elite” isn’t even on my fitness spectrum 😂 I’m not 100% sure what all the data means exactly, but my background is that I rode mtb//gravel for nearly a decade, but took 2 yrs off and am now just returning to fitness but, as a runner 🤷🏻♀️
@@Jessicastrange it would be really interesting to look into this further as your numbers are extremely unusual. It could mean that you are almost entirely slow twitch muscle fibres. Or it could be that your heart stroke volume is small. But it is worth exploring. I'm surprised the lab didn't mention it or make more of it. Thanks.
@@ArnoldJudasRimmer I plan to have another assessment around February to see what the difference is. With a second set of data, I should have a clearer picture, maybe this is just me 🤷🏻♀️ Or maybe something else can explain it
That's not true in the slightest. Elite endurance athletes still prescribe by the same % HR for their zones as normal amateur athletes, they're just able to do so much more within that. In fact, you're probably likely to see the opposite with highly trained individuals carrying around a certain amount of chronic fatigue so that they're unable to hit higher heart rates as easily unless tapering. In that case their zones would actually be lower. In this case, the zone 2 they're talking just has to be the 3 zone model lactic threshold model, but expanded maybe?, rather than a typical 5/6 zone model that you'd see on Garmin.
Wow 175 zone 2, i'd be dying. I can't even imagine, I estimate mine is somewhere around 140-145 based on the talk test. Im curious at 175 can you do the talk test and really feel like you're at zone 2? It's hard for me to wrap my head around because at 175 my breathing is heavy.
She said 170, wich is still 87% of her max HR (194), which makes no sense. zone 2 is typically between 60-70% of max HR, ie jogging or riding a bike. It should be around 120-130.
@@Dylan_Miller Funnily enough, I did a short tempo run yesterday, where my HR was around 180 ish and I could talk in short sentences. I wasn’t completely gassed until 190 ish. Maybe I’ll go out to see how much talking I can do at 170 😄
@@mattsoutham 🤷🏻♀️ That’s what the result shows. Agreed, it seems a little wild and it’s worth exploring a little more to understand this all better 😄
I think there is a confusion of zone models here. I can see LT2 or anaerobic threshold putting you at 170 bpm based on a 3 zone model (what most runners use), but not in a 5-6 zone model where zone 2 corresponds to LT1.
@@richardmiddleton7770 I’m not too sure, to be honest. These tables are directly pulled from the fitness report. Maybe a 2nd test in the new year will shine a better light on the data
Wauw, Dan is the guy who paced Phily Bowden to her PB
I find myself in a similar situation. At 42 years old with a max heart rate of 204, my Zone 1 ranges from 123 to 151 bpm, and Zone 2 goes up to 166 bpm. This works well for me. At 166 bpm, I can still talk in short sentences-around 3 to 5 words before needing a breath. So I can definitely relate.
In the past, I tried running Zone 2 sessions capped at 140 bpm, but it felt far too slow. I didn’t see much progress, and it became boring. These days, my easy runs are usually between 140-150 bpm, and my steady runs are around 160-170 bpm. Anything above that is challenging, as my heart rate indicates it should be hard, but it doesn’t always feel that way.
The biggest improvement in my performance has come from consistency. This year, I’ve already completed 119 running sessions, and my pace has improved by 30 seconds per kilometer. Recently, I ran a 10k in 55 minutes, beating my personal best by over 6 minutes.
Keep running regularly-it makes all the difference!
@@sapwickler that’s super interesting to hear that you’re in a similar position with HR. I also found running to around 130bpm too slow and almost like I wasn’t doing anything effective.
I’m now excited to get stuck into some pace-based runs and to be more regular with my efforts to see how these results vary 😊
Great video Jess. Keep pushing 😊
@@ianpeat2947 Thanks Ian 👊🏻
Interesting deviation from the "norm" and a good example why a sports watch doesn't replace a medical professional.
Would be interesting to see how/if your resting heart rate and tempo at 170bpm changes over time.
How much difference was your Vo2 max as compared with garmin reading?
Haha. Decades ago we just put on shoes and went for a run. I didn't wear a watch, not even in a competition. 😅
The good old times.
@GTE_Channel haha. It was different. I think today people are focusing way too much on gear. I did listen to my body.
The funny thing is, in the hobby department the level was better than today. In the 80ies I was a U20 runner with PB 32:13 10k and 54:24 10miles. And in the club I was a member there were more than 10 guys faster than that.
@jimmybondy9450 lots of people these days are mostly looking at the little details like you said. In the 70s someone won the Olympic Marathon barefoot.
In the 80s people ran near 2:15 marathons without gels and carbon shoes.
But I'm training with a Stryd in my key sessions so who am I to judge other people 🤣
@@GTE_Channel Abebe Bikila. And it was even before that, 1960 in Rome in a time of 2:15. Insane.
One of the guys in my club was an olympian, having a PB of 28:23 10000m in 1971. He was 100% working and had a family. When he went to the Olympics 1972, he had to take the time off at work. Can you imagine in 2024.😅
Do you feel comfortable at 170 bmp? That'd be wild to me. My max HR is around 196, but 175+ is more like my threshold pace, and I can't hold it for too long.
@@luffyluck great question. Yea, kinda of. Like, I’ve never tried to just run at that HR to know how long I can sustain it. But it’s really not uncommon for my HR to be a bit higher than I expect it to be. I just always assumed it was because I’m super unfit, but maybe it’s just me 🤷🏻♀️
as others have pointed out, it is really unusual data.....very interested to see the results of a second test
Hi! I once did a test in a lab and got similar results to you. However, my lab suggested that due to high heart rate at relatively low power (I tested on a bike) my Z2 should be manually shifted to lower heart rate ranges, so instead of my Z2 being centered at 150 I left the lab with Z2 being centered at 130 bpm. I remember that I was very stressed out and "ready to die" on the test day so I believe that my high heart rate reflected my nerves, and the lab did a great job to correct my zones. Were you stressed or could there be any other factors affecting your heart rate on that day? Z2 at 170 is very, very unique so I'd be careful with these zones and certainly stay closer to lower end during runs/rides. Good luck with your training!
@@mewek Thanks for sharing your experience, that’s super interesting 🤔
I was pretty nervous going into it, but I felt like that settled down once I warmed up. I’m not too sure if anything else was at play, but then HR can be affected by so many things like sleep, food, caffeine, cycle etc. who knows. It’d be cool to retest in the new year after some focussed training to see how these results shift
@@Jessicastrange Exactly, there are so many things that affect HR! That's why it's very important to listen to own body and check if your theoretical training intensity, based on training zones, aligns with your RPE (rate perceived effort) - if there's a problem with your Z2 your body will tell you that ;)
I do it in a similar way to you. However, my data is completely different. For example, I run at 5.4 pace with a heart rate of 111-120 BPM. I rarely go over 160 BPM (which makes threshold training difficult). I also really like Zift, I think it's a great addition. Can I find you on Zwift? If so, under what name? I'm really bad on the bike. Bike VO2 Max 45. Running VO2 Max 56. How can you explain that? I wish you lots of success and fun. Greetings
@@Aorist1 Zwift is great fun and really good for mixing up the training. I think you can find me just by searching my name 🤷🏻♀️
I think there are two different zone systems. MaxHR and Lactate Threshold HR (LTHR). Wonder if you switched from using Garmins default of MaxHR Z2 to the LTHR Z2. Though the difference between using the Garmin estimate and an actual lab test could be significant also.🙂
Riding is excellent cross training for running. I basically alternate between the two each day, but then I'm also training for dual endurance disciplines or Ultra running and endurance mountain biking. 🙂
Spot on geoff and there is a 3rd to add to the mix with Zwift riding that is cycling power zones as well
@@geoffwnz I tried to get a better look in Garmin Connect at what was going on, but I couldn’t figure it out 🤷🏻♀️ Garmin also says my max.HR is 203 which seems wild to me.
At least I now have more accurate data that’s personal to me and where I am so I can work from that 😊
So typically, if someone has a zone 2 at such an incredibly high percentage of HRMax, they would be classed as an elite endurance athlete. Did the lab give you any insight as to how your lactate threshold is so high when you are just starting out? Apologies if I've missed something about your background that explains this. What is your resting HR?
Also - how does the zone 2 heart rate correlate with the "talk test" or rpe? Does 175bpm feel very easy for you?
@@ArnoldJudasRimmer “elite” isn’t even on my fitness spectrum 😂 I’m not 100% sure what all the data means exactly, but my background is that I rode mtb//gravel for nearly a decade, but took 2 yrs off and am now just returning to fitness but, as a runner 🤷🏻♀️
@@Jessicastrange it would be really interesting to look into this further as your numbers are extremely unusual. It could mean that you are almost entirely slow twitch muscle fibres. Or it could be that your heart stroke volume is small. But it is worth exploring. I'm surprised the lab didn't mention it or make more of it. Thanks.
@@ArnoldJudasRimmer I plan to have another assessment around February to see what the difference is. With a second set of data, I should have a clearer picture, maybe this is just me 🤷🏻♀️ Or maybe something else can explain it
That's not true in the slightest. Elite endurance athletes still prescribe by the same % HR for their zones as normal amateur athletes, they're just able to do so much more within that. In fact, you're probably likely to see the opposite with highly trained individuals carrying around a certain amount of chronic fatigue so that they're unable to hit higher heart rates as easily unless tapering. In that case their zones would actually be lower.
In this case, the zone 2 they're talking just has to be the 3 zone model lactic threshold model, but expanded maybe?, rather than a typical 5/6 zone model that you'd see on Garmin.
Wow 175 zone 2, i'd be dying. I can't even imagine, I estimate mine is somewhere around 140-145 based on the talk test. Im curious at 175 can you do the talk test and really feel like you're at zone 2? It's hard for me to wrap my head around because at 175 my breathing is heavy.
She said 170, wich is still 87% of her max HR (194), which makes no sense. zone 2 is typically between 60-70% of max HR, ie jogging or riding a bike. It should be around 120-130.
@@Dylan_Miller Funnily enough, I did a short tempo run yesterday, where my HR was around 180 ish and I could talk in short sentences. I wasn’t completely gassed until 190 ish.
Maybe I’ll go out to see how much talking I can do at 170 😄
Hey, vindication regarding zone 2 huh! Do I get a position on your coaching team? 😉
Doing this assessment makes so much sense! And yea, crazy how different Garmin estimates are against my actual stats 🤯
zone 2 at 170 bpm? I doubt that..
No way Zone 2 is at 170bpm for easy runs!? We sure thats not referring to LT2?
@@mattsoutham 🤷🏻♀️ That’s what the result shows. Agreed, it seems a little wild and it’s worth exploring a little more to understand this all better 😄
That's what I'm inferring but it is bizarre that they represent it as a 6 zone model, where you'd usually see LT as 3 zone?
Sounds okay to me. Her LT2 is at 186 as far as I remember. I have similar HFmax and LT2 values and my Zone 2 ends at 166.
I think there is a confusion of zone models here. I can see LT2 or anaerobic threshold putting you at 170 bpm based on a 3 zone model (what most runners use), but not in a 5-6 zone model where zone 2 corresponds to LT1.
@@richardmiddleton7770 I’m not too sure, to be honest. These tables are directly pulled from the fitness report. Maybe a 2nd test in the new year will shine a better light on the data
I never heard of the 3 zone model, I do not think most runners use that.
🥵