HR and power zones calculation

Hi guys,

I recently started to use TrainingPeaks for my planning. I noticed that the HR and power zones are quite different from those of Sufferfest.

For example, my zone 2 with SUF is 127-154, in TP this is 148-160. Both are based on the same threshold, but they barely overlap. Which model do I choose? As I work with a polarized training model, getting my zone 2 right is quite important :slight_smile:

1 Like

TrainingPeaks has so many different zone calculations (e.g. 15 different methods based on LTHR!) so hard to say. The SUF zones and HR methodology are explained in this article. Maybe match things up to your RPE/internal monologue and see what’s right for you.


Hi @bart
I’ve been playing with the idea of using training peaks. But decided against it as wanted to try using a SUF plan 100%.

Are you currently on a SUF training plan? I see that you mentioned polarized training. Which makes me believe you are not using any SUF plan.

If that is the case I would use the TP heart rate zones for consistency. And just input them into SUF for their workouts.

1 Like

In general, anyone wanting to mix two - or more - platforms to either compare their numbers, or follow a training plan, will run into trouble at some point.

TR, TP, Xert, SUF and even Strava have similarities in their numbers, but they hardly ever match up.

Pick one and stick with it, or you will eventually spend as much time trying to sort it all out, as you do actually training.


I used full SUF plans last year and they worked great but after 2 or 3 plans I started to get stale. Switched to polarized trainer which I designed myself and it is showing good results. Probably will switch to a suf plan in February or so.

1 Like

I think that depends on what you are trying to get out of the training data. TheSuf provides 0 analysis (at least none that I have found so far). TrainingPeaks (Premium) and WKO5 (TrainingPeaks), as examples, offer a great deal of analysis and modelling. If you don’t care about the numbers then sure, just use one or the other.

It was not so much a question of what you want to get out of the data, it was about comparing, or lining up, data from one service to the other.

Anyway, TP and WKO have a steep learning curve, but probably most in-depth analysis tools do, including free ones like GC.

However, I highly recommend if you want that kind of analysis. And for free, although I would think it’s only fair if you contribute in some way, if you find it useful.

1 Like

And golden cheetah does it for free!

Strava’s stuff is decent as well, but GC is a whole nuther level.

And if you have strava, is a donation based analysis tool that does quite a good job imho.

1 Like

As I said, but it is not that easy to use either.

About David is working really hard to add features every day. He also is pulling away from 100% Strava linked - Garmin is already a connection possibility for workouts and direct uploads (FIT files) will be available soon.

Admittedly, all the extras that you can pull from his master piece, is also making it a bit harder to use.

Then again, I don’t know what they’re talking about half the time anyway, when they discuss a new graph or metric :joy: