It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!
There appears to be two distinct methods of working out your zones which produce markedly differing numbers.
Which one is the VHS and which one is the Betamax of methods?
WHR because it takes into account more variation between people. With %MHR, person A could have a resting heart rate of 45 and a max of 195 and they'd be given the same zones as person B who had a resting heart rate of 80 and a max of 195. I think...
Either way, WHR has always produced zones which feel right for me, at least, whereas % MHR hasn't.
I'm not sure they're VHS and Betamax, more that one's relatively quick and easy and one's a bit more of a faff but more accurate
Now you see Dr DAN there is a BIG difference.
If I train at 75% of MHR for all my 'easy' and 'recovery' runs thats 136BPM.
If I train at 75% of WHR it equates to 146BPM.
Thats about 30 seconds a mile faster.
Which is correct? Should I be easy running at 136 or 146?
Cop-out wrote (see)
Now you see Dr DAN there is a BIG difference. If I train at 75% of MHR for all my 'easy' and 'recovery' runs thats 136BPM.If I train at 75% of WHR it equates to 146BPM.Thats about 30 seconds a mile faster.Which is correct? Should I be easy running at 136 or 146?
You should actually be comparing 75% MHR with 70% WHR. I would guess this makes your figures somewhat closer.
This isn't a scientific answer, but I use MHR partly because I CNBA monitoring changes to my resting HR but mainly because the maths is easy, estimated HR being around 200. (My resting HR has been anywhere around high 30s/low 40s when I've measured it, so the figures are pretty similar for me.)