Monitoring and controlling the intensity of your endurance training is important, especially if you are new to this type of exercise. By conducting these tests, you can quite accurately determine your body’s metabolic response to exercise at different intensities.
Endurance training is essentially training to affect your body’s metabolism. All endurance training should aim to increase your aerobic metabolic turnover or recycling rate of ATP. If this is a new concept to you, please read this article https://evokeendurance.com/endurance-its-evolution-psychology-meaning-physiology-and-how-to-improve-yours/ to give you an understanding of the basics of metabolism and why it is the driving force in endurance exercises.
The tests referenced in this article https://evokeendurance.com/our-latest-thinking-on-aerobic-assessment-for-the-mountain-athlete/ will establish two cornerstone metabolic breakpoints or thresholds that will help you anchor your individualized heart rate intensity zones.
We use and recommend a simple 4 Zone intensity scale. There are other systems with as many as 7 zones. These attempt to slice the metabolism into unrealistically small pieces that are not useful to the athlete. Trying to keep one’s heart rate within a range as small as 3-5 beats is nearly impossible. The 4-zone system instead uses the Aerobic and Anaerobic Thresholds you establish in the tests above. Below we’ll explain the addition of an optional fifth zone at the top of the scale.
Below is a breakdown of the most common endurance training zone system.
Recovery exercise is conducted without much regard for heart rate but should instead leave you feeling better than when you started it. In some cases, that might creep up into Zone 1, but in most cases, it is done below a heart rate that is less than 20% below your aerobic threshold (Zone 2).
Zone 1 is an intensity used for exercise lasting from 1 to many hours for aerobic base conditioning. It helps improve your body’s ability to use fat as fuel. It can aid recovery between more taxing sessions, although it may be too intense for some athletes to use for recovery. It is not defined so strictly as Zone 2, and the upper limit is set arbitrarily at 10% below the Aerobic Threshold (AeT or top of Zone 2). Athletes with very high aerobic capacities will do a large portion of their aerobic base training in this zone because Zone 2 will be a very demanding pace.
Zone 2 is the intensity just below and up to one’s Aerobic Threshold (AeT). The top of Zone 2 is the heart rate you will derive from your aerobic threshold test explained here. That value can be determined by any of the tests explained in that article. For most people it will come from the heart rate drift test. The AeT is the intensity below which the aerobic metabolism is able to produce the majority of the ATP needed for movement. This intensity will feel very easy for those with Aerobic Deficiency. It will feel moderately challenging for the fittest endurance athletes. Their pace will be quite fast and must be used with some caution by them. This is the best zone to increase your aerobic capacity. It is fueled primarily by fat metabolism fueling Slow Twitch muscle fibers. Duration of this sort of intensity can last around 2 hours continuously.
The aerobic base zones 1 and 2 should make up the vast majority (75-90%) of your training volume.
Zone 3 is the most overused intensity zone because it “feels like training.” It is thought that since this intensity challenges both the aerobic and anaerobic systems, it is the “one-stop shop” for all endurance training. The top of Zone 3 is the heart rate you will derive from the the anaerobic threshold test explained here. At this intensity, the glycolytic (anaerobic) metabolism begins to dominate the production of ATP. The lower force Fast Twitch (FTa) muscle fibers are being used. This intensity feels “fun fast”. Most amateur endurance athletes can sustain this intensity for up to about 30min before local muscular fatigue begins to limit the pace and heart rate. For the elite, this is a pace that can be sustained for about 1 hour. The top of Zone 3 is the endurance limit for the mountain endurance athlete engaged in exercise lasting hours. The upper end of Zone 3 is the Anaerobic Threshold (AnT) established in the previously referred to tests. The temptation to use this zone for most of your endurance training should be avoided as that will lead to rapid gains in endurance performance, usually followed by a plateau and often a decline in that performance weeks later.
Zone 4 is the intensity where exercise becomes hard and impossible to sustain for more than a few minutes at a time. This is the intensity above Zone 3. This is where interval-style training is most often used: intense bouts of exercise lasting from 30 seconds to several minutes, separated by rest intervals. This intensity is usually done at heart rates of about 90-95% of maximum. It is considered the most effective way to increase one’s max VO2. Like Zone 3, most athletes will be limited in both the length of the work bouts and the total volume of Zone 4 in a single workout by local muscular fatigue. Especially when the work bouts get longer than 3-4 minutes, most athletes will see a drop in speed and, consequently, heart rate after just a few repetitions. Even extending the rest interval will often not allow the session to be completed in Zone 4. Most of the training effect is directed towards the anaerobic (glycolytic metabolism) by increasing several anaerobic enzymes (increasing the anaerobic capacity). These enzymatic changes occur quickly, which is why athletes see increases in performance within a few sessions from this kind of training. Those enzymatic increases are quickly lost with the cessation of this kind of training or racing. Increasing the anaerobic capacity will decrease the aerobic capacity, so a careful balancing of Zone 4 and 5 training with adequate aerobic capacity training in Zones 1 and 2 must be maintained.
There is another zone often called Zone 5 that is used very sparingly by mountain endurance athletes, making up less than 1% of the total annual training volume. We think of this as power training to increase an athlete’s sport-specific power. Like Zone 4, it is conducted using short work bouts (this time from 10 to 30 seconds), separated by very long rest intervals of several minutes to allow full recovery. Heart rate is not a good measure of intensity for these short absolute maximal efforts so we’re not suggesting you set this zone into your watch. A preferred Zone 5 workout of ours is hill sprints. Make a mark at the end of the first 1 or 2 sprints. The workout is over when you can no longer reach that mark despite increasing the rest interval.
And there you have it. Careful use of this Zone system will allow you to getthe most benefit from your training.
Hi Scott- thanks for the updated article. In the intro it describes a 4 zone system, and then below walks through 5 zones. Based on my previous understanding, zone 1 and 2 are used somewhat interchangably based on recovery state- which would make for a 4 zone system. Is this correct or am I missing something?
Zachary;
Fair point. However, notice my mention that heart rate is not useful for tracking Z5. Z5 is not really a heart rate zone. It is a maximum effort zone. So there are really are only 4 useful heart rate zones. Also notice the amount of the overall training volume spent in this zone…..less than 1% for most endurance athletes. I hope this helps.
Scott
Scott, how would someone whose Fatmax / crossover point is substantially below their AeT adjust their zones for endurance training?
Was this question ever answered? I’m in the same predicament. AeT at 162 and fat max at 140. Where should I be doing my easy runs?
Burdy:
To move the fatmax intensity up you need to train below 140. Doing some of this in a glycogen depleted state like after an overnight fast will help boost fat use. To increase aerobic capacity you need to train just under AeT or in your case 162.
Fatmax will increase with more volume in the 150-162 HR range but will just take a bit longer.
Scott
First of all, thank you very much for the quick reply. Considering what you said above:
I currently run 4 times a week. 3 in the 155 range and 1 day of tempo, threshold etc. If I am going to start training at the 140 bpm level, would I do that instead of my 155 runs or just add them on top? I can’t run slow enough to get to 140 bpm, so I would be trading running at 155 for income treadmill walking at 140… Would this really benefit my running?
Ayush
Stay tuned to our podcast. Judd Van Sickle will be doing a follow up to the podcast #20 and will discuss testing and evaluation of the tests in depth.
[…] intensity zones, we strongly recommend athletes do an aerobic assessment and then set their intensity zones based on these two important metabolic […]
[…] This is the most important element of any proper endurance training plan. Climbing big mountains requires moving at a consistent pace for hours, days or weeks on end. Training should mirror this pattern, meaning that you should perform frequent (3-4 times per week) hikes or jogs at comfortable paces and for relatively long durations (usually at least an hour.) You cannot shortcut this training with high intensity sessions. In fact, too much high intensity training will develop the wrong metabolic pathways in your body, impeding your growth. Check out the Evoke website for a deeper look at endurance physiology or a discussion of how to set up your heart rate zones to determine intensity. […]
I have recently picked up a polar watch & HRM. The ‘polar flow’ settings suggest using ones aerobic threshold as the minimum HR of zone 3 & ones anaerobic threshold as the minimum HR of zone 5, having the minimum of zone 4 as the halfway between aerobic & anaerobic thresholds.
This does eliminate the use of a zone 5 as a ‘max effort’ zone which you mention is rarely utilized (<1%) – but is nonetheless utilizing a five zone system.
Understanding (and respecting) that majority of training needs to be below the AeT, do you see value in this method? Or unnecessary nuance?
Hello Brian,
There are so many examples of different people calling zones and training thresholds different names. Zone 4 being the middle between your aerobic and anaerobic zone is an interesting concept because if you are well trained that should be a pretty small window (ideally less than 10%). As long as you know what your Aerobic Threshold is – I wouldn’t worry too much about which zone you are calling it as long as you don’t get confused. The same goes for the Anaerobic threshold if you know which heart rate it truly is then the name you call it at won’t matter too much. Where I could see this getting confusing is when you upload your data to Training Peaks, or if you are working with a coach or training plan with Evoke that is setting workouts based on our 4-5 zone system as described above. Personally, as a coach, I mostly use a 4 zones system as Scott said very few people ever need to worry about the difference between zone 4 & 5. As I said above you can find many different ways people separate zones as long as you are training at the correct heart rate you will see improvements in your training. I hope that helps!
Hello Scott,
Thanks in advance for any help you may lend. I was recently tested for my V02max and given four training zones. They say my V02max is 41.2 at 160bpm. They also say my aerobic threshold (AeT) is 98bpm and my anaerobic threshold is 109bpm. Which, given what you have said above, my zones are:
Zone 1: 78-88
Zone 2: 88-98 (they called 75-98 my “Low Zone”)
Zone 3: 98-109 (they called this my “Moderate Zone”)
Zone 4: 109-147 (they called this my “High Zone”)
Zone 5: 147-160 (they called this my “Peak Zone”)
I am 62 years old. And, they tested me on a treadmill when I haven’t run in years. I mostly cycle and row these days due to a 1.62″ limb length deficiency on my right side. Which, by the way, I will be working with a PT who specializes in runners soon so I am really hoping to be able to run again without always hurting myself.
Anyway, my question is I have done the nose breathing only test while working out numerous times and can easily ride or row above 109bpm without any strain or stress for well over an hour (i.e., about 120bpm would be my sweet spot). My limitations are a sore bum or hands way more than exhaustion. Thus, should I trust their assessment and keep the majority under 98bpm (which feels way too easy) OR should I follow your tests discussed above?
P.S., My fear is I have Aerobic Deficiency and the answer is yes Randy, keep 75-95% of your workouts below your AeT (i.e., 98bpm) for the foreseeable future which really kills me mentally. Especially when I ride on Zwift and get passed by runners! 🙂
Randy:
Great questions.
Answers:
It can be difficult to determine AeT and AnT in a maxVO2 test because the ramp rate (duration of each intensity stage) tends to be quite short. This is done so as not to tire you with a long test so that you are unable to reach a true maxVO2 number. The problem with the short stages is that the aerobic metabolism is slow to respond to changes in intensity, and short stages will mean your aerobic system is trailing the test data.
If you are not trained for running, a running test is not going to be very accurate.
I would suggest you do the HR drift test https://evokeendurance.com/our-latest-thinking-on-aerobic-assessment-for-the-mountain-athlete/, which has proven itself with thousands of athletes, is free and allows you to retest anytime you want to recalibrate or see performance gains.
Do this test hiking on an incline for now until you have more running miles in your legs. Or do it cycling if you plan to do much of the training on a bike. To do it on a bike hold the power or speed constant and measure drift in HR. I suspect their zones are wrong based on what you explained in your post.
Scott
Hello Scott,
Thanks a million for your help! And yes, my maxVO2 test had what felt like extremely short ramp periods. Up, up, up that is with hardly any kind of warmup. Something this 62 year old hasn’t trained for in years — especially anything to do with running!
I will absolutely do as you suggest and take your HR drift test. In fact, thanks to you and your various YouTube videos, I have a TrainingPeaks premium account so figuring out my HR drift (i.e., Pw:Hr) will be a piece of cake. Although, given I don’t have a smart trainer — a bike that I can set/control the power/speed — it’s going to be a challenge trying to keep my power/speed consistent for an hour or so!
Note: Yesterday I did the opposite. For over an hour I tried my best to keep my heart rate at 90bpm all the while reducing my cadence/power (on my Concept2 BikeERG) to make this happen. Here’s what TrainingPeaks said:
Time (after 10 min warmup): 1 hour, 18 minutes
Power avg: 60 watts
HR avg: 91 bpm
Speed avg: 12.4 mph
Pw:Hr (HR drift): 14.48% <— yikes!
So, maybe their aerobic threshold of 98bpm isn't too far off the actual mark! 😮
Anyway, thank you again Scott for all your help. Once I get with my new Physical Therapist and get my leg length discrepancy resolved and am running again my plan is to reach out to you for some coaching in 2024. 🙂
Good morning Scott,
Okay, I did it! That is, for 90 minutes I did my best to keep my power on my non-smart Concept2 BikeERG at 60 watts. And, here are my findings:
Total time: 90 minutes
Warmup time: 20 minutes
AeT drift test time: 60 minutes
Power (watts) during the test: 59 average
Heart rate during the test: 92 average
Speed during the test: 12.4 mph
TrainingPeaks’ Pw:Hr estimate during the entire test: 5.41%
Heart rate during the first 30 minutes of test: 89 average
Heart rate during the last 30 minutes of test: 94 average
94/89 = 5.62%
So, yeah, yikes, it does look like my aerobic threshold (AeT) is quite possibly even below the 98 bpm number! Unless, I am interrupting the data wrong.
P.S., I am currently reading your TRAINING FOR THE UPHILL ATHELETE book and am blown away. My only regret is that I didn’t find it sooner. Totally brilliant book that I will end up reading over a dozen times!
Randy:
It sure looks like you did the test correctly. Interestingly, the drift test AeT aligned closely to the gas exchange test AeT. That’s a bit curious, given that you are not a “runner.” Regardless, I think your best course of action is to focus your training at an intensity that results in a heart rate in the mid to upper 90s. Pay attention when you are jogging/hiking or cycling at this intensity for an increase in pace and power. When you see a noticeable improvement, it will be time to retest that AeT with the drift test. The volume of this low-intensity training is what moves the AeT needle, so sneak in more volume when you can as long as you are recovering well day to day. Chances are you will begin to see improvements in pace within 4-6 weeks of consistent training. A small increase in pace indicates that you can re-do the test using a five bpm higher starting heart rate. Good luck and stay consistent.
Scott
Thanks again Scott. Given what you have suggested, and my current training status, my modified plan now has me riding Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday for 60 minutes each day and 90 minutes both Saturday and Sunday. This will give me six hours total per week at 95ish beats per minute. Moreover, I’ll use TrainingPeaks to keep tabs on my speed/power and retest when I see a noticeable improvement.
P.S., Is there anyway I can be notified when you respond? No biggie, currently I check this page every day, but being notified when you or anyone else responds to this thread would be awesome. Thanks again for everything!
Randy:
Good question about notifications. We have that feature on the forum. Not sure how to make that happen on the posts. But we’ll see if we can enable that.
Scott
Okay, cool, thanks for looking into this Scott!
Hi,
In the article you mention two percentages for Zone 1 top range. First you mention
“, but in most cases, it is done below a heart rate that is less than 20% below your aerobic threshold”
and later
“upper limit is set arbitrarily at 10% below the Aerobic Threshold (AeT or top of Zone 2)”
So just wanted to check, which value should be used?
Thank you!
Luka:
From the article-
Recovery exercise is conducted without much regard for heart rate but should instead leave you feeling better than when you started it. In some cases, that might creep up into Zone 1, but in most cases, it is done below a heart rate that is less than 20% below your aerobic threshold (Zone 2).
Zone 1 is an intensity used for exercise lasting from 1 to many hours for aerobic base conditioning. It helps improve your body’s ability to use fat as fuel. It can aid recovery between more taxing sessions, although it may be too intense for some athletes to use for recovery. It is not defined so strictly as Zone 2, and the upper limit is set arbitrarily at 10% below the Aerobic Threshold (AeT or top of Zone 2)
Recovery is at AeT minus 20% and slower
Zone 1 is from AeT minus 10% down to AeT minus 20%
Zone 2 is from AeT to AeT minus 10%
I hope that is more clear.
Scott
Hi Scott, Excellent articles! Can I get your opinion on something.. age based hr zones. Some treat them like gospel, some ignore them. I’m guessing the answer is in the middle! I ask because I’m 62 years old so in theory, max hr is 158m and max aerobic is 100bpm. I can do easy conversational nasal breathing until well into the 120’s, (w/ hrm and chest strap), then it starts getting deeper and less voluntary, even if it stays nasal. I’ve been at this a while, so I can pretty much guess my hr and come pretty close. During rare hill sprints either running or cycling, I will often see hr’s in the 170s! Thoughts? Thanks!
Rich:
I would not use age adjusted zones. Why go by “in theory”?
Why not use the zones you establish with the tests explained in this article https://evokeendurance.com/our-latest-thinking-on-aerobic-assessment-for-the-mountain-athlete/
This tests will actually tell your personal metabolic response to exercise. That will allow you to individualize your zones and hence your training.
I hope this helps.
Scott
Thanks for the reply Scott! I had just read that article and realized I had found my answer. I had done a drift test once (after reading your book) with jogging, but I’m not really a runner.. The uphill treadmill approach would probably suit me better.