Can we finally put to rest the myth that heart rate zones are an absolute, one-size-fits-all metric for training? Ive seen pros and amateurs alike blindly following the 5-zone system without considering individual variations in cardiac response to exercise.
Whats the point of using heart rate zones at all if were not accounting for factors like genetics, fitness level, and even time of day? Is it not possible that a athletes zone 4 is actually equivalent to anothers zone 5 due to differences in cardiac output and peripheral resistance?
And dont even get me started on the so-called lactate threshold being touted as some sort of holy grail for endurance training. Newsflash: its not a fixed number, folks! It varies wildly from person to person, and even within the same individual depending on factors like nutrition, sleep, and stress levels.
So, I ask you: are heart rate zones nothing more than a rough estimate, a crude guideline at best? Or can we actually develop a more nuanced, personalized approach to training that takes into account the vast individual differences in human physiology?
Whats the point of using heart rate zones at all if were not accounting for factors like genetics, fitness level, and even time of day? Is it not possible that a athletes zone 4 is actually equivalent to anothers zone 5 due to differences in cardiac output and peripheral resistance?
And dont even get me started on the so-called lactate threshold being touted as some sort of holy grail for endurance training. Newsflash: its not a fixed number, folks! It varies wildly from person to person, and even within the same individual depending on factors like nutrition, sleep, and stress levels.
So, I ask you: are heart rate zones nothing more than a rough estimate, a crude guideline at best? Or can we actually develop a more nuanced, personalized approach to training that takes into account the vast individual differences in human physiology?