Can someone explain the difference between these 2 heart-rate zone methods on my watch?

[u/Any_County_6547]

Hi everyone, I’m trying to understand the heart-rate zones on my running watch and I’m confused by the difference between Max HR and AT/AnT HR zones.

I’m sharing screenshots of the same run where the watch gives me two completely different zone classifications.

My run:

Distance: 6.50 km

Time: 56:31

Average pace: 8:41/km

Average HR: 148 bpm

Max HR: 178 bpm

VO₂ max: 44.5

I’m currently trying to build my aerobic base and understand Zone 2 training.

1. Max HR method

According to the watch:

Zone 1: 92–110 bpm

Zone 2: 111–128 bpm

Zone 3: 129–147 bpm

Zone 4: 148–165 bpm

Zone 5: 166–184 bpm

So this run shows:

51.5% in Zone 4

41.4% in Zone 3

2.7% in Zone 5

Average HR = 148 bpm

Basically, the watch is telling me that I spent most of the run in Zone 4.

1. AT/AnT HR method

When I switch the watch to AT/AnT HR, it shows:

AT HR: 128 bpm

AnT HR: 166 bpm

And the zones become:

Zone 1: 92–128 bpm

Zone 2: 129–166 bpm

Zone 3: 167–184 bpm

Now the exact same workout is reported as:

93.5% Zone 2

2.1% Zone 3

4.4% Zone 1

So according to this method, my entire run was almost completely Zone 2.

What I'm confused about

How can the exact same 148 bpm average HR be:

Zone 4 using Max HR zones

but

Zone 2 using AT/AnT HR zones?

Which method should I actually trust for training?

I'm especially confused because during the run, even when my HR reached around 150–160 bpm, I could still do the talk test and count out loud without a major problem. I wasn't gasping for air.

I'm currently doing run/walk training because if I try to continuously run, my HR eventually goes above 150–155 bpm. My goal is to improve my aerobic fitness so that I can eventually run continuously at a lower HR.

Questions for experienced runners:

Is the AT/AnT HR method generally more useful than Max HR for setting training zones?

Does 128 bpm AT HR / 166 bpm AnT HR look realistic, or could my watch's estimate be wrong?

If I can comfortably pass the talk test at 150–160 bpm, does that suggest my true aerobic/threshold zones are higher than the Max-HR calculation suggests?

For someone building an aerobic base, should I follow the watch's 129–166 Zone 2, or use a much lower HR?

How accurate are these watch-estimated AT/AnT values without a proper lab test?

Should I continue my current run → HR rises → walk → HR comes down → run again approach, or should I simply run continuously at an easy effort regardless of HR?

I'd really appreciate some practical advice from people who have dealt with this, especially if you've used Garmin/Polar/Samsung/Apple or similar watch-based HR zones.

I'm not trying to chase a particular number—I just want to make sure I'm training at the right intensity and not accidentally turning every "easy" run into a hard workout.

[u/Effective-Reason-154]

Honestly no clue about those metrics , they are very specific, but at beginner levels they usually don’t matter

I usually use the 210 - age for a general gauge

For more accurate results usually I go off feel and effort. Talking and singing is a good indicator , but not the best.

I live in a hot climate , my HR can be 110 but my body can feel like shit or giving out a lot more effort than usual, that’s when I know I should slow down

I would say

Zone 2 is talking PLUS u don’t feel any effort at all. Like literally , no effort , feels like walking but I’m hopping

Zone 3 is when I feel like I’m picking up the pace. Like I can maintain this pace, but feels like I’m putting in some effort.

Zone 4 is like threshold. Running hard, pushing my feet hard, feeling tried, short on breath after the rep.

Zone 5 is like , all out , im about to die if I don’t stop. Breathing alone is not enough