Heart-rate zone settings

[E7]

I am wondering if the default settings for the "fat burn," "cardio," and "peak" zones are appropriate for me.

Yesterday I did a 47-minute run.  It was pretty challenging, but nothing extreme.  It was the first time I did it with my new fitbit.  After the run, it told me that I had spent 31 minutes (65%) in the peak zone, 14 minutes in the cardio zone, and 2 minutes in the fat burn zone.

As said, this was not the kind of run that left me completely wiped out; it was vigorous exercise but totally doable.  But spending 65% in the peak zone suggests that it should have left me wiped out, doesn't it?  Or, more likely: it's improbable that I actually spent 65% in the peak zone, isn't it?  I'm thinking fitbit may be underestimating my max. heart rate when it uses the age-based formula.  Should I be looking at changing the default zone settings so that the peak level doesn't kick in until higher heart rates? 

(I hope people don't mind multiple questions from the same user on this slow-moving forum. I guess getting a fitbit a week ago has raised a lot of questions all at once.)

[JohnRi]

First and foremost, I find that my Fitbit Surge, can get my heart rate VERY wrong when exercising hard.  It will often show numbers I can't believe are accurate.  Most of the time it does great, but there are times that depending on where I wear the watch, I can get very bad readings.

That aside, the formula the watch uses, is pretty accurate for most people.  However if your Exercise regularily, your max can be higher. 

The only way I suggest changing the numbers is if you go to a doctor, and have a nuclear stress test done on your heart.  That will be able to tell your actual max.  

I had mine done, and it was 160 on the stress test.  Fitbit has it at 161.  I've gotten my heart up into the 180 range for short times, which is ok.  But there are times I've really pushed my heart at 140 bpm, and felt fine.  I've had harder work outs at 120 bpm's, and felt wasted afterwards.

[Heybales]

You are correct - the 220-age is a huge bell curve of accuracy, or rather inaccuracy - you have more chance being more than 10 beats outside the estimate than within a 10 beat range.

Some people have high revving motorcycle hearts, some have low diesel hearts - which that formula can't even begin to know about. That's just genetics, exercise has nothing to do with it.

Some have been exercising through their aging and HRmax doesn't drop at 1 per year, some never were and dropped faster. That's not genetics totally.

So it is no where near accurate for majority - especially when you start looking at those that exercise.

I'd be 26 according to that formula with test HRmax. And have been for years actually.

And since ranges are based on that - they are way off.

Sadly there isn't much to improve on.

What you can do is get better estimate of HRmax, and better ranges, and then create the 1 custom range, but make it the aerobic range.

Then you know when going above you were in tempo or higher zone, when below it in active recovery (or badly named fat burning) zone.

If you are not changing your training to improve performance, but just going out to enjoy a run - then don't worry about it - you have an idea where your true zones are.

If you have specific days doing specific runs, and want to be able to review prior workouts to see if improvements are happening - then suggest you go for that change.

Here's place to get better estimate of HRmax, and then to get better ranges that incorporate something you do know - your resting HR.

Don't use Fitbit's resting HR which isn't the same thing, really see what it is first thing in morning upon waking, or really calm after sitting.

www.calculatenow.biz/sport/heart.php?

[SunsetRunner]

My MAX HR is also WAY above the 220-age formula. I am 50 now and my MAX HR is still aboce 190 BPM and has been for years. It certainly hasn't decreased at 1 BPM per year.

I use a GARMIN FENIX2 when I want to do actual HR training. I use the CHARGE HR just to see how my HR is doing through the day. As far as the accuracy when you are inactive or just walking around its not bad. Once you start doing any vigorus activity with lots of arm movement the accuracy plumets. Since it relys on watching the blood flow under the skin if the watch moves slightly during your activity it is going to throw the readings off.

I also find it anoying that biking causes so many false "steps" and "stairs" to be recorded. Although marking the activity as BIKE afterwards removes the steps from the activity it doesn't subtract them out of the daily totals (I really hate that).

I wish they would allow more than one custom zone and let you set your own MAX HR. Personally I subscribe to the idea of using your LT (Lactate Threshold) heart rate to set the training zones rather than a percentage of MAX HR (Friel) joe friel's quick guide to setting zones

I am also finding its estimate of my resting heart rate amusing, since I got the CHARGE HRit has increased my resting heart rate from 54 to 64 in the space of 7 days, thats over 1 beat per minute per day. I am certain my true resting heart rate is between 59-61. Last summer when I was more active I believe I had it as low as 56-57 bpm.

[shipo]

My take is the 220-age formula is about as bogus as the whole BMI lie told to us by countless medical professionals.

As with a few other folks in this thread my max heart rate (calculated to be 161) is pretty silly; my very first run with my Fitbit Surge (and also with my Garmin with the chest strap HRM) showed I ran a very hilly (hilly as in over 1,000' of climbing) 9-mile loop from my office in 79 minutes.  Per both my Surge and my Garmin, my Average BPM was 161 and my peak (going up a few nasty hills) was about 180.  When looking at the chart, it showed me in the Peak zone for 78 of the 79 minutes it took me to complete the run.

Regarding Heybales comment, "Some people have high revving motorcycle hearts, some have low diesel hearts, the formula can't even begin to know about that."  I had to laugh; well said.  In my case, my sleeping BPM is typically in the mid to high 30s, my resting BPM is usually in the low to mid 40s, and yet I can easily get my heart rate up into the 170s, and even the low 180s if I push a hill climb hard enough.

[Heybales]

---

@SunsetRunner wrote:

My MAX HR is also WAY above the 220-age formula. I am 50 now and my MAX HR is still aboce 190 BPM and has been for years. It certainly hasn't decreased at 1 BPM per year.

I use a GARMIN FENIX2 when I want to do actual HR training. I use the CHARGE HR just to see how my HR is doing through the day. As far as the accuracy when you are inactive or just walking around its not bad. Once you start doing any vigorus activity with lots of arm movement the accuracy plumets. Since it relys on watching the blood flow under the skin if the watch moves slightly during your activity it is going to throw the readings off.

I also find it anoying that biking causes so many false "steps" and "stairs" to be recorded. Although marking the activity as BIKE afterwards removes the steps from the activity it doesn't subtract them out of the daily totals (I really hate that).

I wish they would allow more than one custom zone and let you set your own MAX HR. Personally I subscribe to the idea of using your LT (Lactate Threshold) heart rate to set the training zones rather than a percentage of MAX HR (Friel) joe friel's quick guide to setting zones

I am also finding its estimate of my resting heart rate amusing, since I got the CHARGE HRit has increased my resting heart rate from 54 to 64 in the space of 7 days, thats over 1 beat per minute per day. I am certain my true resting heart rate is between 59-61. Last summer when I was more active I believe I had it as low as 56-57 bpm.

---

I've had several friends on MFP notice that lately their restingHR declined fast during a week of time.

And now more closely matches the traditional meaning of RHR, like right after waking - instead of some low average for all day.

Have you seen that?

Perhaps your increase is because it's using values from after the alarm goes off, and freaked out heart hasn't settled down yet. 😉

I agree with LT based HR ranges though many would be hard pressed to test it.

But I can understand not allowing manual changing of HRmax. Though they should - just put a warning on it if about to change it.

With calculated HRmax and RHR, they could at the least go for the HRReserve method to get a tad better zones, then at least one end of the range is an observed value.

For those curious about that method - www.calculatenow.biz/sport/heart.php?

With no HR alarms to inform you, the whole idea of ranges while you workout is pretty much not useful, so post workout is just for tracking.

Have you attempted to set a manual zone as your aerobic zone, so at least you know anything above was likely tempo, anything below was active-recovery?

Actually, setting as tempo zone would probably be better, unless you really do several recovery zone workouts.

[Heybales]

---

@shipo wrote:

My take is the 220-age formula is about as bogus as the whole BMI lie told to us by countless medical professionals.

As with a few other folks in this thread my max heart rate (calculated to be 161) is pretty silly; my very first run with my Fitbit Surge (and also with my Garmin with the chest strap HRM) showed I ran a very hilly (hilly as in over 1,000' of climbing) 9-mile loop from my office in 79 minutes.  Per both my Surge and my Garmin, my Average BPM was 161 and my peak (going up a few nasty hills) was about 180.  When looking at the chart, it showed me in the Peak zone for 78 of the 79 minutes it took me to complete the run.

Regarding Heybales comment, "Some people have high revving motorcycle hearts, some have low diesel hearts, the formula can't even begin to know about that."  I had to laugh; well said.  In my case, my sleeping BPM is typically in the mid to high 30s, my resting BPM is usually in the low to mid 40s, and yet I can easily get my heart rate up into the 170s, and even the low 180s if I push a hill climb hard enough.

---

It's sure a super rough way to get a range - and not exactly a nice test to narrow it down either.

At least BMI may give a rough look, but get a bodyfat test and know a much better figure.

Women have it even worse than men - their bell curve is huge and more chances being outside a 10 bpm range then within 10 bpm of an estimate.

You've likely retained your HRmax too despite age.

And even there, I think sometimes it's more the muscles just can't push you hard enough to get the HR higher, it could though.

[Corney]

When I do my aerobic exercise I spend 80-90% in my peak zone and never feel wiped out, because I lift weight for 30 minutes after ward.  If you are not wiped out after spending 65% in you peak zone the your aerobic fitness is at a high level.  Good going!  Really cardio and fat burn are the same, which means you are in you training zone.  I could never understand why most equipment have different heart rate ranges for cardio and fat burn, because they are the same.

[Heybales]

---

@Corney wrote:

When I do my aerobic exercise I spend 80-90% in my peak zone and never feel wiped out, because I lift weight for 30 minutes after ward.  If you are not wiped out after spending 65% in you peak zone the your aerobic fitness is at a high level.  Good going!  Really cardio and fat burn are the same, which means you are in you training zone.  I could never understand why most equipment have different heart rate ranges for cardio and fat burn, because they are the same.

---

Merely the terms used are confusing.

Cardio usually refers to any aerobic or anaerobic endurance type exercise.

So there is some % of fat burn from the bottom of the exercise aerobic range until you reach the top before going to anaerobic - and % of fat starts high and decreases.

Fat-burn range (more correctly called Active Recovery HR range for years prior to the fad) isn't really the level though that improves your cardiovascular system, not after a brief period getting fit anyway.

But then again - that's the whole point of that HR range - add no stress, so it's recovery level.

That's why it's not usually lumped in with cardio range, or aerobic range though it's obviously highly aerobic too.

If you don't feel wiped out at that level - then the level is merely wrong, and you really aren't spending that much time at that % of HRmax. Your HRmax is actually higher, and you are spending your time in probably the 70-85% level.

That's the whole discussion we've been having about the inaccuracies of the levels - might want to read/reread the topic posts - some good info above.

For instance - many in this topic have reported the HRmax that Fitbit is using is way too low for their age - so it could appear they are working out at 110% of HRmax.

Obviously that's not possible, and so it doesn't mean they are super fit.

It means genetically their HRmax is higher, and they have been fit enough to keep it there - and the ranges are merely incorrect for them.

[Haligonian]

---

@Heybales wrote:

I've had several friends on MFP notice that lately their restingHR declined fast during a week of time.

And now more closely matches the traditional meaning of RHR, like right after waking - instead of some low average for all day.

Have you seen that?

---

I swear that they've changed the RHR formula recently. I've ranged between 60-66 BPM for most of the last year. In mid-March, my RHR dropped to 57-60, and since the start of April my RHR has ranged from 54-57 BPM. Two different doctors gave me an all-clear, so I'm relatively sure my heart is fine. And I have been eating better/exercising more lately - but the RHR drop preceeded me starting to exercise more.    

[shipo]

I have a Fitbit Surge and my RHR hasn't significantly changed in the last year.

[SunsetRunner]

Here is what my fitbit Charge HR has been recording for my rhr since I got it about 2 weeks ago.

I know my rhr last summer was at 55 from my garmin. I know it has drifted up a bit since then so the first reading of 54 I knew was off. It started to drift up as it collected more data which i expected, but when it rose all the way to 64 I knew something wasn't quite right. It has since come back down to 59 which I believe is pretty much correct.

If I sit very still and fully relax my hr can drop down as low as 54-55 bpm. I hope to get my rhr back down to that level or even lower this summer.

Andrew Meyer

[shipo]

Mine bounces around a bit; late last year my running was sidelined due to a non-running related injury and my RHR went up into the low to mid 50s; now that I'm back to 5-6 days a week of running I'm pretty much back to last year's norm of mid 40s for an RHR.

[CallieM]

Hey @E7 and everyone!

If you don't think the default settings for Heart Rate are correct for you, then you can create custom HR zones! 

Log into your dashboard and click the gear icon in the upper right. Choose Settings > Personal Info. There you can choose between the default three zones or enter your own custom zone. Learn more about heart rate here.

Hope this helps a few of you! 

[TexasMan]

---

@CallieFitbit wrote:

Hey @E7 and everyone!

If you don't think the default settings for Heart Rate are correct for you, then you can create custom HR zones! 

Log into your dashboard and click the gear icon in the upper right. Choose Settings > Personal Info. There you can choose between the default three zones or enter your own custom zone. Learn more about heart rate here.

Hope this helps a few of you! 

---

The custom zone is just one zone instead of three is it not? I find value in working out in the different  'zones' to maximize my results.

I remedied the calculation error by adjusting my age in settings.