hey, why is your target HR zone so huge?

Rob asked me last night where I got 120-170 for my target zone, since that encompasses, like, 3 different exercise zones.

I think I went into detail about it somewhere...let's see if I can find it.

*I'm sailing awaaaay, set an open course for the virrrgin sea
I've got to be free, free to face the life that's ahead of meee
On board, I'm the captaaaain, so climb abooooard
We'll search for tomorr--* [hold music...the Eric Cartman version]

Ah, there it is. Quote:

Target ranges seem to be pretty subjective, anyway. For my age (31), the M32 sets my target range at 126-161. During the average OwnZone calculation, it was setting between 110-140 and 125-155. After reading Kristi's latest post, I went to the target zone calculator on Polar's website, plugged in my morning resting rate, and it gave me 139-177 (60-90%) as my target range. So, um, which is it guys? To get my 120-170, I just sort of carved out a chunk in the middle of all of them, and that seems to be working for me for now.

So, there you go.

Now, that's not to say that I shoot for that whole range with every workout. Short cardio workouts, I like to be in the 140s-160s. I have grudgingly accepted that running is going to take me into the 170s and low-180s. For the recovery workouts (the walks and rides on strength days), I try to stay below 135. Strength workouts, I shoot for 110-140.

So why don't I just change the damned range for each workout? Because it involves pushing a couple little buttons a lot of times, and I'd rather have a big range for all my various workouts (with a target avg HR in mind) than several little ranges that I have to configure every day.

The target range confusions frustrates the heck out of me! My target is 60-70% of max. According to the old age-based formula, that would be 113-132. I used the formula when I first got my HRM, and it was way too easy to stay in that range. Actually it was hard not to go OVER that range.

Then I found the resting heart rate based forumla on the Polar site, which gives me 139-152. Way outside the age-based range. That's the range I've been using lately, and on some days I feel like I have to work really hard just to get above 139. On brisk walks it doesn't even go into my target zone.

And then there's the range the watch itself gives me. Every time I go into the settings and update my current weight, it automatically changes my target zone to 123-161. So annoying. I have to change it manually every time. Who knows maybe I should just start using that range.

The middle of this week I decided to extend my range to 139-161. I did this because since I've started going back to water aerobics, I often see my heart rate in the 160s during that workout.

Well this has gotten a little long! I guess I should have just posted an entry in my own journal, but oh well... ;)

IMHO, I would reassess the HR ranges that your currently use in your workout. Most experts stress the need to avoid any kind of prolonged exercise in Zone 3. At your current fitness level, most all of your exercise minutes should be in Zone 2 (aerobic). Any exercising not in Zone 2, should be considered a "hard" workout, and be a Zone 4 workout. Avoid the range that encompasses 70%-80% of MHR as it does little for your overall conditioning.

I used my old resting rate and updated one from 10 weeks later just to see how it'd differ.

This it what it gave me:
@ 76
Estimated MaxHR: 188 bmp
60-70% of MaxHR: 143 bpm - 154 bpm
70-80% of MaxHR: 154 bpm - 166 bpm
80+% of MaxHR: 166 bpm - 188 bpm

@ 84
Estimated MaxHR: 188 bmp
60-70% of MaxHR: 146 bpm - 157 bpm
70-80% of MaxHR: 157 bpm - 167 bpm
80+% of MaxHR: 167 bpm - 188 bpm

From that, I took the avg. For my fat burning workouts I try to hit an avg of 150 and for my aerobic (running, HIIT walks) I try to hit 160 b/c those two figures seem to be the avg in both resting heartrates. Recovery is anyting between 100-130 for me.

I'm glad you posted that calculator, b/c I finally *got* it. In spite of my math phobia ;)