@2b2bff said in ZoneSense:
what about that heart rate discrepancy?
Your “Measured” “Aerobic threshold” of 148 bpm for that day is just a bone thrown to our obsession with exactitude. I don’t know if it is an average for the whole exercise, or the very first instance of measurement (observe we don’t get the number on our watches), but it is supposed to detect (I’ve forgotten the used terminology) when our HRV-system goes: ‘Hmmm… This doesn’t look like rest anymore’ [i.e. LT1]. Overall, the Heart Rate can be seen as living its own life - think about Pulse Drift for example - while HRV and its associated hormones and chemicals live another. The two measurements can at times be very decoupled.
Let me offer a recent exercise of mine which illustrates the decoupling in stark detail. I’m not used to running much above easy LT1 sessions, so the slightly below LT2 Pace-based 8x3 minutes with 1 minute jogging rests was an ordeal. In fact, I had to cut it short at 7 times because I was completely knackered; at such an extent that I had to start walking as the Cool Down instead of doing a normal running end. The “Measured” “Aerobic threshold” for the day was 145 (lab-measured some years ago as 148) and the first screenshot below is just to show, with a marker, where HR is in step with that threshold at the beginning. 3 minute intervals are not enough for ZS to shine, but it shows the exhausting trend quite accurately. There’s a HR dropout of ca 1 minute at about minute 22 - hence the flat lines in both graphs:
[image: 1751276100374-1000008106.jpg]
The next two screenshots have the marker at almost the same time (hard to manoeuvre with a finger) with the colourised ZS and HR versions of the graphs. At that time I’m walking in the “Light aerobic” HR Zone with 106 bpm, but as ZS shows well and truly Anaerobic. I was exhausted:
[image: 1751276941024-1000008105.jpg]
[image: 1751276964250-1000008107.jpg]
In this instance there really is no sense in talking about an “Aerobic threshold” of 145 bpm