Sounds like this has already been answered, but just to add to the conversation, I did write a piece a while ago on zones and out of interest, I researched the various zone models. I found about 30 before I decided I had read enough. So, yes, they can be very confusing and it really depends on who’s system you’re using.
Personally, I don’t actually use zones with my athletes. I give them “ranges” and the range depends on what’s best to target the system we’re trying to train. So, my ranges will overlap a lot.
But probably the two most standard “zone” models are Dr Seiler’s three zone model (below AeT, between AeT and AT, and above AT) and the five zone model that Steve details above. The models are very similar. The five zone model just adds some nuance to zones 1 and 3 in the three zone model.
In the article I wrote, we created a graph showing both Seiler’s three zones on a lactate curve and the standard five zone model.
The artist actually didn’t quite draw it right. Zone 2 was supposed to end right at the aerobic threshold. Zone 4, which is used for training the anaerobic threshold I do personally start just below AT and end just above. However, anaerobic threshold should have been closer to 4 mmol.
I’m coming into the party late here, but @scooter, just wanted to put more information out there with regard to your zones question. Here’s how I present it after physiological testing. This evolved from the previous way we would present, e.g., @CEBorduas’s results from his 2019 test.
I specifically wanted to highlight within the 5 zone model those two metabolic breakpoints of LT1/VT1 and LT2/VT2. So far the feedback has been pretty positive from coaches that have experienced our previous zone sheet compared to this one, so I really enjoy using it in this manner. Hope that helps a bit too.
I apologize, I completely missed your reply on June 8th.
I hope you didn’t misinterpret me. My message wasn’t about me saying that I’m stronger than you. I wasn’t be rhetorical. I don’t know if I’m stronger than you. I was a little stronger than you two years ago, but you’ve been training hard. You may have surpassed me and frankly I hope you have. You’ve worked hard.
The question was simply do you think you’ve gotten 50 watts stronger than me in 2 years. I know that I’ve improved since 2019, so the only point I’m making is that you would have had to improve A LOT to have your numbers that much higher than mine in two years. Again, not saying you haven’t improved that much. Just asking if you feel you have because that’s going to give a good indicator of whether the numbers you are using are accurate or not.
The bigger point I’m trying to communicate is one that we really try to get across in the show - don’t lose the forest in the trees. What I’m seeing in this discussion is a whole lot of evidence that your aerobic threshold is not up in the 250-260 range and likely your aerobic threshold heart rate is significantly lower than 147 BPM. Your test from 2019 was just one test from two years ago. It’s a “tree” from one moment in time and a lot can change in that time period no matter how well conducted the test was at the time.
To give you an example, Jared tested me about a month before we tested you. He pegged my Anaerobic Threshold HR at 176 BPM. Back then it was pretty easy for me to break 180 BPM. But I’ve improved my fitness a lot since then and my experience is that both max and threshold heart rates come down with improved aerobic fitness. Lately it takes a monumental effort for me to break 170 BPM. When I tested this spring, we put my threshold heart rate at 168 BPM. So, 8 BPM lower.
Likewise, I had my aerobic threshold heart rate around 145 BPM back then. Now I have it in the 130s.
The only point I’m making is not a comparison between you and me, but the need to look at the bulk of the evidence (i.e. the forest) and not a single test (i.e. a tree) to make your determinations. In this case, based on everything I’ve read from you, that test from 2019, while accurate then, is outdated and not accurate now.
In general that’s a decent range to start with but may differ depending on the athlete. I would suggest checking out Dr. Seiler’s video on How Long, How Slow? Here’s How to Find Your Ideal Low-Intensity Workout Effort. where he dives into many of the details to consider when determining your low intensity rides.
I’ll also suggest that this is where physiological testing can be helpful. If you can align physiological responses to your HR response, it is another great way to dial in the appropriate intensity.
Coach,
During Inigo’s discussion with Peter Attia, he detailed Z2 as … Lactate between 1.5 and 2.0 mmol’s and typically at Fatmax. In the diagram above, Fatmax occurs at 1.1mmols of Lactate.
is the 1.5 to 2.0 mmol’s general guidance … whereas the actual test will vary day to day?
and the larger question I have is…if I undershoot 1.5 mmol’s one day and overshoot 2.0 mmols another day (this has happened several times during my Z2 training on a trainer using a Lactate meter to test), am I missing the benefits of Z2 training?
thanks
Frank
@Frank_O hello do you happen to have other readings that you took during this session?
Also was the power steady during the session?
Lots of lactate comments are made with values such as 1.5 or 2 or 4 mmol.
If you had a person with LT1 deflection of 2.2 mmol for LT1 I would then attach a power and heart rate value to this number and then use it for endurance training. I would use the power as a ceiling for the rides.
Working with cross country skiers I would assign different values for skate skiing, classic skiing and double pole inky work. You would see a higher lactate in the upper body only work as an absolute value but the deflection during the test would assign the training zone value.
This would be similar to a triathlete having different absolute lactate values at LT1 for each of the three sports.
I use the same machine as you and if you get a value you aren’t sure of always take another reading right away to confirm.
Coach, thanks for your response. Most of my Z2 workouts are within the 1.5 to 2.0 mmol range (I calibrate my Computrainer, use HR strap, and set Z2 wattage after 12 minute WU). But some sessions, my RPE, HR and wattage feel off…and sure enough, lactate then measures either too high or too low. I realize Z2 is not an on/off switch, but if I’m outside the 1.5 to 2.0mmol range (which Inigo defines as Z2) does that mean too little stress or too much stress for my Type I fibers as well as too much or too little for the mighty mitochondria? from what I’ve listened too, Z2 is all about those mitochondria adaptations - and am I missing out if I miss the mmol mark? thanks
@Frank_O I applaud your nerdiness! Who else out there is regularly taking lactate measures on their Z2 trainer rides.
If you are truly wanting to hone in on your day to day zones I would recommend that you look at the Moxy device. Circulating blood lactate measures are only a shadow of what is happening at the muscular level.
Moxy = watching the game live
Lactate = reading about the game in the newspaper the next day
Thanks Man! Yea, Zone2’s got my attention in that it seems to occupy both performance and longevity, and I can see myself churning out some Z2 even when I’m 70! But Moxy? I’ll check it out…but that may be a while (until my wife forgets I bought a lactate meter;)
With the Moxy , in this case you will use the MoXy everytime? I mean , @Frank_O , attached HR and POwer , for dont need to take lactate measures all the time , with moxy not be the same?
Like Lactate test and see how much oxygen saturation (Smo2) goes down , so you need to use Moxy everytime and stick with that…?
sorry if my question seems rude, it’s not my intention; just try to understand in this context.
Hi I will jump in here as a long time Moxy and Lactate user.
The first comments about Moxy being live, and lactate being read the next day in the paper isn’t exactly true.
Depending on your usage, you may need to do an interval with the moxy and see how you respond, then adjust next interval. With lactate you could do the same thing.
You can use moxy for testing, and create zones how you choose based on the outcome, then train with heart rate and/or power until the next test. You can also use it for live monitoring if you understand how it trends with the individual.
In using both for years, I wouldn’t always have anyone staring at the moxy data, it is important to still learn a feeling for many athletes.
I will soon have a Garmin app that will allow you to see how your moxy data is trending during an interval, this helps use it live without have to stare at it all of the time.
If you have any more questions about Moxy don’t hesitate to ask.
My previous comment was mostly thinking about the response to an input.
Changes in SmO2 can be seen rather quickly.
Whereas lactate concentration changes within the muscle cell, then that change is transferred to the blood, then the time it takes for general circulation to reach the finger tip/ear lobe can take a bit longer.
All data is useful in skilled hands. As Steve has shared he has successfully used both approaches for years. The nuances of interpreting live data is a skill to learn and we are lucky to have the coaches here as a resource for us all.
Coming back to the theme of the thread.
The exciting thing for athletes is the breadth of tools at our disposal. We have the ability to use: RPE, HR, Power, Lactate, SmO2, respiration rate; to learn how to better perform Z2 rides or any training session. Beyond any training session, the ability to better understand our bodies is amazing.
@Frank_O has bravely shared his experiences and learnings. I hope that we all can do the same.
Now I’m really confused. @ryan your response to Scooter on 11/06 sets out your zones in the five zone model. It looks like we have the same max hr and threshold hr, and the tempo looks right (for me) too, but the estimates for your aerobic base rides (for hr) are well above what feels right to me. I try and keep below 130bpm based on Seiler’s work (and if I listen to Phil Maffetone I would probably go ever lower). I simply don’t see how that corresponds to what he says this type of effort should feel like (sorry I don’t have a quote to hand). Just below 130bpm I can ride for 2 - 2.5 hrs before my hr starts to drift, so if anything I’m inclined to think that might be a little high for me for a base ride. In my long rides of 4-5 hrs (before my layoff) I really don’t see how i could have done this up to another 20bpm higher! Just when I thought I understood that long base rides should feel nice and easy I see this!
Yeah - I has started to classify aerobic rides into three categories.
FatMax <= 60% of heart rate reserve (129 BPM)
Base ~= 65% of heart rate reserve (136 BPM)
Aerobic Threshold - right at 70% heart rate reserve (144 BPM).
This may seem overly precise, but if you are going to do a load of Z2 work, it’s nice to think of it in this way. And there is a world of difference between FatMax and Aerobic Threshold. Those two I tend to use for structured rides. The latter is really challenging (I did 2:15 in a 2:45 hour ride yesterday and am taking today off).
If I don’t want structure, I’ll just try to keep my HR between 60% and 70% and categorize it as “Base”.
I did an INSCYD test with @steveneal around 2 years ago. That heart rate should be pretty close as I don’t think it changes that much. I’m just using 70% of HRR for aerobic threshold - no test. This usually puts me right around 75% of threshold by power. There’s a massive San Millan thread over on the TR forum and this seems to be the consensus for where he’s having his riders train. One of the users wrote a script to scrub pro’s files and pull the power data. It’s worth a look.
I will just add that I find the following zones to work quite well when using heart rate.
60-70% of max heart rate will work for most, if you are beginning at haven’t done much endurance then you could push that to 74% of max heart rate, as long as it isn’t muscular.
Thanks @steveneal - that’s much closer to what I’d expect to see and feels right. Interested to hear @ryan thoughts, as he appears to suggest something much higher. For example, the hr level he describes as (amongst other things) ‘recovery’ feels way too hard for that.
