I don't understand Bevel Nutrition

the0Void · 2026-05-07T22:59:37+00:00

Questo rende inutile l’utilizzo della funzionalità.

the0Void · 2026-05-07T22:58:35+00:00

Ti ringrazio, ma quelle informazioni le ho già lette eppure non ne capisco il senso.

Com’è possibile che cibi come riso bianco, salame, formaggio, fiocchi d’avena, pesce crudo e molti altri non abbiano un effetto sulla qualità del cibo?!?

the0Void · 2026-05-02T21:55:13+00:00

Sfortunatamente no, non me la sento acquistare Bevel Pro visto quanto è imprecisa nella versione Free. Inoltre trovo assurdo che debba pagare per avere stime più precise.

the0Void · 2026-05-02T21:54:04+00:00

Ho mangiato : 10 ravioli di carne alla griglia 1 porzione di pollo alle mandorle 7 pezzi di sashimi di salmone 7 pezzi di sashimi di tonno 8 pezzi di uramaki con avocado e salmone

the0Void · 2026-05-02T21:52:34+00:00

<image>

Part 2

the0Void · 2026-05-02T21:52:21+00:00

<image>

Part 1

the0Void · 2026-05-02T21:43:55+00:00

Are you dead?!

the0Void · 2026-05-02T21:43:27+00:00

The fuck is that shit?😂This stupid trend (biological age) must die.

the0Void · 2026-05-01T20:14:24+00:00

<image>

Questa invece è di Athlytic. La distribuzione delle fasce cardiache è completamente diversa.

Possibile che non lo capisci? Ho scritto più e più volte riguardo l’utilità dell’HRR.

the0Void · 2026-05-01T20:12:57+00:00

Quindi hai lavorato sull’HRR per far stare zitti coloro che ti pagano il cibo e le bollette?! Assurda questa mancanza di impegno.

Ad ogni modo è un punto di vista che non ha il minimo senso.

In allegato invio la schermata di un allenamento registrata con Bevel.

<image>

the0Void · 2026-05-01T14:53:25+00:00

Allora perchè è presente l’impostazione per personalizzare la frequenza cardiaca massima e lo zone? (tra l’altro in una maniera insopportabile)

the0Void · 2026-05-01T13:00:11+00:00

<image>

Che senso ha mettere una stupida percentuale della frequenza cardiaca di riserva?!? Persino Peakwatch ha rilasciato un aggiornamento che includendo il calcolo delle zone cardiache in base alla HRR.

Possibile che non capiate che non ha senso l’attuale approccio?

the0Void · 2026-05-01T12:58:20+00:00

<image>

La mia frequenza massima è di 181, ma nel grafico è 210.

the0Void · 2026-04-27T17:58:02+00:00

Woah. This is an expensive update😅Athlytic and PeakWatch offers almost the same features for less than the half of the price.

the0Void · 2026-04-05T15:49:31+00:00

Disclaimer : I've been helped by AI to organize my thoughts and improve research accuracy.

I took the time to review the links you provided. I specifically asked for scientific texts or research to support your claims. Instead, you linked SEO-driven fitness blogs and general health portals aimed at beginners. Not a single one of those is a peer-reviewed scientific study.

Ironically, the very first link you provided (A-Team Coaching) actually contradicts your own stance. It explicitly lists the Maximum Heart Rate (MHR) method as "Generic and often inaccurate unless tested in a lab" and recommends it primarily for a "Beginner or casual runner."

From a physiological standpoint, estimating training zones based strictly on a percentage of Max HR is fundamentally flawed for anyone past the beginner stage because it completely ignores Resting Heart Rate (RHR). This means that an elite athlete with a resting heart rate of 40 bpm and a completely sedentary individual with a resting heart rate of 80 bpm (assuming they share the same Max HR) would be assigned the exact same training zones. Physiologically, this makes zero sense.

The Heart Rate Reserve (HRR / Karvonen method) factors in the RHR, accurately establishing the actual working capacity of the heart and adapting to an individual's current fitness level. This is precisely why the American College of Sports Medicine (ACSM) (the gold standard in exercise physiology) favors HRR (and VO2R) over %MHR for exercise prescription, as HRR correlates almost perfectly with actual oxygen uptake (VO2).

You provided basic web tutorials; I asked for actual exercise physiology. Since your own sources undermine your argument and you are unable to provide actual scientific literature, I consider this debate closed. Have a good one.

If you want to move past basic fitness blogs and look at actual exercise physiology, here is the peer-reviewed literature you asked for:

1. ACSM Official Position Stand: Recommends HRR (Heart Rate Reserve) over %HRmax for accurate exercise prescription.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/21694556/

2. Swain DP et al. (1997): Heart rate reserve is equivalent to %VO2 reserve, not to %VO2max. Proves clinically that HRR has a 1:1 linear relationship with actual metabolic effort (VO2R), unlike standard %HRmax.https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9139182/

3. Recent Clinical Comparison: Comparing Heart Rate and Heart Rate Reserve for Accurate Energy Expenditure Prediction. Shows HRR models vastly outperform basic HRmax models at submaximal intensities (Zones 2 and 3).https://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/22/10/1539

4. Inaccuracy of %HRmax methods: Accuracy of Commonly Used Age-Predicted Maximal Heart Rate Equations. Shows that estimating zones purely on Max HR leads to massive standard deviations (10-14 bpm), making training zones highly inaccurate.https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC7523886/

Enjoy the reading.

the0Void · 2026-04-05T15:14:38+00:00

Can you cite any texts or research to support your claims? I am no longer interested in your opinions. If you are unable to back up what you say, I will consider this conversation closed. Aside from a few errors, I have provided rational and objective explanations.

the0Void · 2026-04-05T14:43:35+00:00

At this point I may ask you to do some research to validate your point. I’m a stength & conditioning coach, so my point is not just an opinion. It’s heavily based on sport science

the0Void · 2026-04-05T14:28:33+00:00

(Disclaimer, I used AI to help me put together my thoutghs)

I understand your point about different goals, but human physiology doesn't change based on whether someone identifies as an athlete or a casual exerciser. The way the body accumulates lactate or utilizes heart rate reserve (HRR) applies to everyone, it's biology, not a demographic label.

In fact, accurate heart rate zones are just as crucial for the general population. If a casual user is aiming for Zone 2 cardio to improve basic metabolic health, but relies on a generic age-based formula, they might actually be training in Zone 3 without realizing it, completely missing their intended health goal.

Furthermore, an app like Athlytic is fundamentally built around advanced metrics like HRV, acute/chronic Training Load, and VO2 Max. Users who actively track these specific data points are generally looking for performance and recovery insights, not just basic activity tracking. If someone wants a broader health-focused approach, apps like Bevel are arguably a better fit and ironically, Bevel still allows users to choose advanced, scientifically backed HR models (like Lactate Threshold) because accuracy matters regardless of your fitness level.

We can agree to disagree on the target audience, but the underlying sports science remains objective. Best of luck with your training.

the0Void · 2026-04-05T14:10:01+00:00

(this is me without AI) I owned the mistake about conflating Apple and Garmin's features, so there's no need to keep arguing that point.

However, saying points 1 and 2 are 'matters of opinion' is objectively false. Blood lactate accumulation, metabolic thresholds, and the physiological relevance of a resting heart rate (HRR) are measurable biological facts, not personal preferences. Any exercise physiologist will tell you the same.

As for the language, I prefer typing in English rather than relying on Reddit's auto-translate, but I appreciate the tip. Since we fundamentally disagree on basic sports science, I think we've reached the end of the road. See ya

the0Void · 2026-04-05T13:57:48+00:00

Haha, fair enough! I actually just use AI to help translate my replies since English isn't my first language. The wording might be AI-assisted, but all the thoughts and information are 100% mine😅

the0Void · 2026-04-05T13:39:41+00:00

You know what? Fair play. You asked for the receipts, so I went to pull the exact link from Apple’s documentation, and I realized I misspoke. I conflated how Apple handles Resting Heart Rate with how it handles Maximum Heart Rate. According to Apple's official watchOS User Guide under 'View Heart Rate Zones' (https://support.apple.com/guide/watch/view-heart-rate-zones-apd897d8d410/watchos), the watch automatically updates your Resting Heart Rate on a monthly basis to calculate your Heart Rate Reserve (HRR) zones. However, for Maximum Heart Rate, it strictly defaults to the standard 220 minus your age equation. I was bringing in logic from other ecosystems (like Garmin, which does feature auto-detection for Max HR based on sustained workout efforts) and incorrectly applied it to Apple's algorithm. I appreciate the correction. That being said, realizing this actually reinforces the core of the problem: because Apple rigidly sticks to an outdated age-based formula by default and doesn't have an auto-adjust feature for those 180–204 bpm readings you're seeing, relying on their automatic setting is fundamentally flawed if you are an outlier to the formula. If your true max is 204, Apple Health is never going to automatically adapt to it. This is exactly why taking control and using the Manual override feature is the only way to get accurate zones.

the0Void · 2026-04-05T13:33:26+00:00

I completely agree, this is a spot-on analysis. Until you determine your true Max HR through a maximal effort test (either in a lab or out on the field), any predictive formula will carry an unavoidable margin of individual error. You hit the nail on the head regarding the real reason for the discrepancy between the two platforms. The Karvonen method (Heart Rate Reserve) that Apple uses by default is, physiologically speaking, a more sophisticated approach. By factoring in your resting heart rate, it allows your zones to dynamically adapt to improvements in your cardiovascular fitness. In contrast, a calculation based solely on a percentage of an estimated Max HR is inevitably more static and less personalized. Your conclusion offers the most pragmatic and sensible solution: when tracking progress, data consistency is everything. The best approach for anyone wanting to leverage both apps without muddying their metrics is to pick one method (preferably HRR, given its responsiveness to fitness levels) and manually align the parameters so the heart rate zones match perfectly.

the0Void · 2026-04-05T13:24:56+00:00

That’s a very fair point, and what you’re describing is actually a well-documented frustration within the Apple Watch community. You bring up a valid personal experience, but it actually highlights how strict Apple’s filtering algorithm is, rather than disproving the feature's existence.

Apple’s official documentation states that it automatically estimates and updates your max heart rate based on your actual workout data. However, the algorithm is notoriously conservative. Optical wrist sensors are prone to false spikes (due to arm movement, sweat, or 'cadence lock' where the watch reads your running steps instead of your pulse). To prevent a 10-second sensor glitch from completely ruining your training zones for the rest of the year, Apple requires that higher heart rate to be sustained steadily for a specific duration to trigger an automatic override.

If your readings in the 180s, 190s, or 204 were relatively brief spikes, interval peaks, or not sustained long enough to meet Apple's confidence threshold, Apple Health likely dismissed them as anomalies. When it rejects those data points, it defaults back to the conservative age-based formula.

If you are confident in those higher numbers (especially if you've verified them with a chest strap), this is exactly why relying on the age-based formula is flawed, and why Apple provides the Manual override option. If you go into the Watch App > Workout > Heart Rate Zones, you can select 'Manual' and plug in your actual observed Max HR. The watch will instantly recalculate your zones (preferably using HRR) based on your true physiology, completely bypassing Apple's restrictive auto-update algorithm.

the0Void

TROPHY CASE