ErgData LogBook HR Zone Bands

[SumBigGuyRowing]

When I open ErgData and go to LogBook and I click on a workout I can scroll down to Avg HR and Max HR. It also shows Zones 1-5 by HR, and time spent in each zone.

Where do the upper and lower BPM's for each zone come from? Did I set age and weight somewhere? These zones are different from the ones I calculated myself.

One reason I'm asking is that I want to spend a lot of time in Zone 2, and I'm pretty sure that's what I'm doing. But ErgData says I spend more time in Zone 3. It's a little confusing that this Zone 3 seems to be called Zone 2 elsewhere.

Screenshot https://ibb.co/nMKXt56

[Joebasscat]

ErgData calculates your zones based on your max HR entered in the Settings tab under Profile. Can’t remember exactly where it starts but it’s just a straight percentage of Max HR. 50%,60%,70% and so forth. If you calculated your zones using say the Karvonen method utilizing HRR, your zones will be higher.

[hikeplusrow]

ErgData calculates your zones based on your max HR entered in the Settings tab under Profile. Can’t remember exactly where it starts but it’s just a straight percentage of Max HR. 50%,60%,70% and so forth. If you calculated your zones using say the Karvonen method utilizing HRR, your zones will be higher.

But many people (including me) find that the HRR model makes the zones too intense.

[Joebasscat]

ErgData calculates your zones based on your max HR entered in the Settings tab under Profile. Can’t remember exactly where it starts but it’s just a straight percentage of Max HR. 50%,60%,70% and so forth. If you calculated your zones using say the Karvonen method utilizing HRR, your zones will be higher.

But many people (including me) find that the HRR model makes the zones too intense.

Yep, for me at 70% it’s the difference of 132 and 145, so yes HRR is a good bit higher. I use the lower and prefer no more than about 65% for Zone 2.

[hikeplusrow]

ErgData calculates your zones based on your max HR entered in the Settings tab under Profile. Can’t remember exactly where it starts but it’s just a straight percentage of Max HR. 50%,60%,70% and so forth. If you calculated your zones using say the Karvonen method utilizing HRR, your zones will be higher.

But many people (including me) find that the HRR model makes the zones too intense.

Yep, for me at 70% it’s the difference of 132 and 145, so yes HRR is a good bit higher. I use the lower and prefer no more than about 65% for Zone 2.

Yep, the equivalent 70% for me is 122/132. I too would go lower, as 132 is deep into UT1. I don't really use HR that much, but look at the top of my UT2 being 120 and top of UT1 being 136.

[Xrayvizhen]

I thought I'd add to this discussion since I was going to ask nearly the same question. It's been written in many places that the correct way to calculate zones is to subtract your age from 220, The result is what your maximum heart rate should be. As an example, I'm 74 so my zone 5 should be 131-145; zone 4; 117-130, etc. In ErgData I entered my correct date of birth and for today's WOD, as an example, I know I spent most of my time in Zone 3, and a short while in Zone 4. Yet ErgData shows zero time in Zone 3 and above and all my time in Zones 1 & 2. ErgData obviously uses some other method. What is it and which one is correct?

[JaapvanE]

I thought I'd add to this discussion since I was going to ask nearly the same question. It's been written in many places that the correct way to calculate zones is to subtract your age from 220, The result is what your maximum heart rate should be.

Not really. While it is true that this relation seems to hold, there are many other alternative formulae that describe the general relation between the age and maximum heart rate.

Please note, this is the general relation for a population average. There is a lot of variation in that population. For example, I'm 51, so my MaxHR for my age is expected to be around 169. My personal and really observed MaxHR is much higher, around 186, and I frequently hit 176 during training without any issues. But other people have a much lower MaxHR, so in practice as a group we might hit that average, but as a person it is much less useable as a number.

As an example, I'm 74 so my zone 5 should be 131-145; zone 4; 117-130, etc. In ErgData I entered my correct date of birth and for today's WOD, as an example, I know I spent most of my time in Zone 3, and a short while in Zone 4. Yet ErgData shows zero time in Zone 3 and above and all my time in Zones 1 & 2. ErgData obviously uses some other method. What is it and which one is correct?

For Zone 2, one should be able to maintain pace and HR for quite some time. I know from experimenting that for me around HR 128 to 130 my ceiling of Zone 2 is. If I hit 131 or higher for too long, my HR will go up and I'm at 150 in no time. Currently, the pace to do that varies between 2:21 to 2:25, so I start at 2:25, see what my HR does for 10 minutes and go faster if my day allows me to. But that is just my approach.

[hikeplusrow]

I thought I'd add to this discussion since I was going to ask nearly the same question. It's been written in many places that the correct way to calculate zones is to subtract your age from 220, The result is what your maximum heart rate should be.

Not really. While it is true that this relation seems to hold, there are many other alternative formulae that describe the general relation between the age and maximum heart rate.

Please note, this is the general relation for a population average. There is a lot of variation in that population. For example, I'm 51, so my MaxHR for my age is expected to be around 169. My personal and really observed MaxHR is much higher, around 186, and I frequently hit 176 during training without any issues. But other people have a much lower MaxHR, so in practice as a group we might hit that average, but as a person it is much less useable as a number.

As an example, I'm 74 so my zone 5 should be 131-145; zone 4; 117-130, etc. In ErgData I entered my correct date of birth and for today's WOD, as an example, I know I spent most of my time in Zone 3, and a short while in Zone 4. Yet ErgData shows zero time in Zone 3 and above and all my time in Zones 1 & 2. ErgData obviously uses some other method. What is it and which one is correct?

For Zone 2, one should be able to maintain pace and HR for quite some time. I know from experimenting that for me around HR 128 to 130 my ceiling of Zone 2 is. If I hit 131 or higher for too long, my HR will go up and I'm at 150 in no time. Currently, the pace to do that varies between 2:21 to 2:25, so I start at 2:25, see what my HR does for 10 minutes and go faster if my day allows me to. But that is just my approach.

Yes, 220 - age is notoriously unreliable. This formula puts me at 157, when in actuality my erging MHR is somewhere in the 170s. Also, MHR is sport specific. I also agree that UT2 pace should be at a level where minimal HR drift occurs - even over extended periods.

[RWAGR]

One interesting, non-empirical observation I have is that almost everyone who posts their MHR on here says it's above the 220-Age estimate. Yet I've also read that being highly trained doesn't correlate to a higher MHR. I wonder then why (assuming it's true) the comfortable majority of us have a higher than 220-Age MHR. If it's an average, you'd expect an even-ish split.

[hikeplusrow]

One interesting, non-empirical observation I have is that almost everyone who posts their MHR on here says it's above the 220-Age estimate. Yet I've also read that being highly trained doesn't correlate to a higher MHR. I wonder then why (assuming it's true) the comfortable majority of us have a higher than 220-Age MHR. If it's an average, you'd expect an even-ish split.

I've never spoken to anyone, anyone at all, who has found 220 - age to be accurate.

[RWAGR]

I've never spoken to anyone, anyone at all, who has found 220 - age to be accurate.

Right but IME almost everyone says it is inaccurate downwards rather than upwards (ie it is too low). Makes me think it is an underestimate rather than just a bad estimate.

[hikeplusrow]

I've never spoken to anyone, anyone at all, who has found 220 - age to be accurate.
[/quote]

Right but IME almost everyone says it is inaccurate downwards rather than upwards (ie it is too low). Makes me thing it is an underestimate rather than just a bad estimate.
[/quote]

Yes, just to confirm, I meant that everyone thinks it's too low. Frankly, it's bizarre that 220 - age is still being actively promoted. I wonder if the fitness industry's enthusiasm for it is something to do with safety and a concern that people with underlying conditions may over exert themselves if they get anywhere near their true MHR.

[Dangerscouse]

One interesting, non-empirical observation I have is that almost everyone who posts their MHR on here says it's above the 220-Age estimate. Yet I've also read that being highly trained doesn't correlate to a higher MHR. I wonder then why (assuming it's true) the comfortable majority of us have a higher than 220-Age MHR. If it's an average, you'd expect an even-ish split.

I've never spoken to anyone, anyone at all, who has found 220 - age to be accurate.

I do agree it's a totally flawed assumption, but it's interesting to note that I seem to regularly fail at 220-age, without it being influenced by seeing the HR.

OOTH, I only really get close to or achieve my max HR when I do really long distance eg it was seen at the end of my FM PB, so I'm not entirely sure what my true max is atm, but I'm sure it's still higher than 220-age, albeit not by much.

Note: my max HR as last seen is 176, and that was almost three years ago.

[p_b82]

220 - age gets me in at 179/178 if I round to my nearest whole year.. my observed max on the erg is 191.

looking at all my recent pb's the final 1k or 2 mins or so (depending distance), is the only time I've gone above 180bpm during the row; there's definitely a mental "it gets tough here" point that I've been avoiding.

[hikeplusrow]

One interesting, non-empirical observation I have is that almost everyone who posts their MHR on here says it's above the 220-Age estimate. Yet I've also read that being highly trained doesn't correlate to a higher MHR. I wonder then why (assuming it's true) the comfortable majority of us have a higher than 220-Age MHR. If it's an average, you'd expect an even-ish split.

I've never spoken to anyone, anyone at all, who has found 220 - age to be accurate.

I do agree it's a totally flawed assumption, but it's interesting to note that I seem to regularly fail at 220-age, without it being influenced by seeing the HR.

OOTH, I only really get close to or achieve my max HR when I do really long distance eg it was seen at the end of my FM PB, so I'm not entirely sure what my true max is atm, but I'm sure it's still higher than 220-age, albeit not by much.

Note: my max HR as last seen is 176, and that was almost three years ago.

220-age + 50% of inside leg measurement is actually spot on.

You're welcome.