The multi-heart-rate-zone approach to training is quite popular. Here is one typical description of the different zones:
Zone 1 | 55%-65% HR max | Used to get your body moving with minimal stress and exertion. This zone might be used for an easy training day, warming up or cooling down. |
---|---|---|
Zone 2 (aerobic/base) | 65%-75% HR max | Used for longer training sessions, you can sustain this basic-effort zone for many miles, yet still chitchat a little bit with your workout partner. |
Zone 3 | 80%-85% HR max | This is a zone where you push the pace to build up speed and strength; conversation is reduced to single words. |
Zone 4 (lactate threshold) | 85%-88% HR max | In this zone your body is processing its maximum amount of lactic acid as a fuel source; above this level, lactic acid builds up too quickly to be processed and fatigues muscles; training in this zone helps your body develop efficiency when you're operating at your maximum sustainable pace. |
Zone 5 (anaerobic) | 90% HR max and above | This maximum speed zone (think closing kick in a race) trains the neuromuscular system—your body learns how to recruit additional muscle fibers and how to fire muscles more effectively. |
The percentage of HR Max can be determined using various wearable products, physically checking heart rate the old-fashioned way, or by perceived effort as I do. Modern approaches often recommend spending 60 to 85 percent of your training in Zone 2. When Zone 1 is mentioned at all, it's usually lumped in with Zone 2, often resulting in an even greater amount of time in these easy zones. The time spent in higher zones becomes progressively smaller.
I am firmly in favor of employing a large amount of Zone 2 training. For me, the percentage is probably on the order of 80%, but it can be higher or lower depending on where I'm at in my training cycle. Here's the thing about my Zone 2 training: a lot of it is about as slow as you can go. In fact, my Zone 2 should probably be reclassified as Zone 1. Or maybe, it's something in-between.
But closer to 1 than 2. Maybe about 1.2.
No comments:
Post a Comment