Suunto ZoneSense
-
@brave_dave said in Suunto ZoneSense:
For me personally, when I know that on average, even under perfect conditions, the ZS estimated threshold is off by 8-10 BPMs in either direction, it is not usable for me
It is way worse for me. I’ve seen example of ZS suggesting anaerobic threshold that is even below my aerobic threshold - that is almost 30 BPM below what it should be. These are laughably inaccurate estimates.
Let’s look at another example where I actually had a steady threshold effort for a long time that was a good indicator of my anaerobic threshold. ZoneSense still managed to detect my anaerobic threshold at 148 even though I ran for 20 minutes in the 160-165 range. By the way, that closely matches multiple of Garmin’s LTHR estimates that all detected my LTHR at 162-163. How ZoneSense managed to detect that at 148 is beyond my understanding. I can’t seriously trust that at all.
-
@sky-runner this reviewer did lab tests along with ZoneSense . Among his group was DC Rainmaker. The findings suggest Zonesense is not to be trusted.
-
I only ever look at zone sense in the app after a workout, I have found it wildly inaccurate at times and others fairly accurate. For me the gold standard is RPE followed by HR however even HR can be misleading as I’m often training fatigued and when doing an hour long effort at near threshold in terms of RPE when fatigued my HR might only be in high zone 3. When fresh HR seems to align better with RPE. Zone sense has often shown nearly all green with a few tiny spurts into yellow when I’m at 9-9.5 RPE doing a threshold effort up a vertical kilometre!!!
-
@Doodoo-Runner said in Suunto ZoneSense:
@sky-runner this reviewer did lab tests along with ZoneSense . Among his group was DC Rainmaker. The findings suggest Zonesense is not to be trusted.
curious to know why, with the same HR source, the SV and SR results differ.
-
This reviewer did a lab test along with ZoneSense and came to the conclusion that it’s very good:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9Sr0-Ig_oQ
Written form: https://www.nakan.ch/wp/2025/09/17/tout-savoir-sur-zonesense-de-suunto/#Conclusion_sur_lalgorithme_ZoneSense_de_Suunto
Just to show that in today’s world of influencers it doesn’t take long to find someone who claims the opposite.
-
@Brad_Olwin I agree - it’s the real time feedback, that is most valuable and for me too it really corresponds on how I feel. I used to train a lot by HR Zones and sometimes it worked great but often I felt they were too low to or too high compared to my set zones (having had a tested LTH).
With Zonesense this feels much more ‚realistic‘ and actually Zonesense for me is (besides others) one of the features why I would never use another brand. -
@Brad_Olwin I don’t really get what you want to convince me of. I am just stating scientific facts and want to point out that the accuracy of ZoneSense is just based on anecdotal information like yours and that the scientific data rather hint to a too high inaccuracy to recommend it for training control on a population level. Therefore, users with strange data should not be unsettled that they do something wrong in their training.
-
Is it possible to turn Zonesense off in the app (iOS). I do not use it. Unfortunately it set default in the graph.
-
@MarkusG big problem of our modern society where everyone can just spread unverified and anecdotal information! Better rely on verified data from independent researchers and experts. But apparently there is too much money to make with just claiming that you have developed something special. Garmin is the worst example with their “body battery”, “heat/height acclimation”, “Real-Time stamina”, “endurance score”, “training readiness”, “running tolerance”, “race predictor”. Nothing of that has ever been scientifically validated that it actually works and every good coach and athlete can do more accurate race predictions
-
Is still something happening with Zonesense? I don’t think it is mature enough to stop development. Or maybe its in a dead end?
Apart from @brad_olwin there are not many reports about the feature working.
For myself I am using it to verify my HR and Powerzones from time to time. Just comparing Zonesense TSS with TSS(HR) and TSS(p). But real time its still absolutely random
(New belt, new battery, moistened with water and gel, 10min slow intro, tight fit and sweating like in hell) -
Is still something happening with Zonesense? I don’t think it is mature enough to stop development. Or maybe its in a dead end?
Apart from @brad_olwin there are not many reports about the feature working.
For myself I am using it to verify my HR and Powerzones from time to time. Just comparing Zonesense TSS with TSS(HR) and TSS(p). But real time its still absolutely random
(New belt, new battery, moistened with water and gel, 10min slow intro, tight fit and sweating like in hell)I’ve found ZoneSense to be interesting but problematic. First, the ten minute calibration I’ve found needs to be managed carefully. You can’t go too hard, but nor can you go too easy, or else you’ll get problematic results. I normally consider my AeT / LT1 to be 144bpm, but yesterday doing a Wahoo SYSTM structured indoor bike workout ZoneSense thought it was 122bpm, as the workout featured a very light warmup. With a proper warmup it’ll give me my expected result, are very close to it (e.g. 140-148bpm range).
Because it’s a lagging indicator, interval sessions sometimes don’t even register. A track workout of 400m sprints, with 400m walks may or may not register; 100m sprints almost certainly will not.
For an indoor rowing workout, where sessions might only be 10-20m with short intervals, the calibration time takes most of the session, the intervals are too short, and I can’t really glance at my watch during the session so it’s useless for that modality live. If I do a longer 20-30m session, starting steady-state for the first 6-8m at 120w, then increase to my rowing FTP of 160w for the final couple minutes of calibration, that tends to work decently to get it right but I still can only make note of the data after session and not during.
I find it best in running as a “secondary indicator” after normal HR when returning to a longer, slower effort after a harder push. If I do 1km at a threshold effort, then return to a lighter effort, I’ll first notice my HR dropping down to zone 2, then about a minute later ZoneSense will return “green,” and sometime (typically when weather is hot), I need to dial down HR a bit more, so rather than settling in at say 140bpm I’ll go a little slower and get to 136bpm and then ZoneSense will be happy.
At this point though a lot of this I’ve internalized as RPE so looking at ZoneSense “live” during session I don’t typically need. Now, if ZoneSense could “remember” say my last week/month of data, and use that as “temporary, provisional” info while during the calibration, then that might be helpful but I suspect that’s against the philosophy of what it’s doing.
-
@raven This is also my experience. But today I watched a spanish YouTube video analyzing Zonesense. They say if you correctly calibrate Zonesense, then it also works during runs. Slower and just three zones, but zone based training should bring better results.
They say (per sport do):
Once : 10 minute warm up, then intervalls > 5 Minutes covering all zones
Every Training: 10 minute Warmup as you described
After this you should trust Zonesense. So if its not red, you are not pushing enough
Maybe I try it…
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login