rojo and/or wejo,
what are your opinions of heart rate training for high school distance runners? are they to be used and taken seriously for all workouts, some workouts or none at all? would love to hear what you have to say, and all other contributing opinions are appreciated also.
My hs coach always monitored HR, but never really used it to determine workouts:( i.e stay between 75-80% of max hr was never used). We took our heart rate after every interval and routinely during runs to keep track for historical purposes.
For the most part, HR was just observed and not a tool. For example, if a guy who runs 15 flat for the 5k and was out on an easy run at like 7 minute pace and his HR was 170, then it was an indicator something was up: dehydration, lack of sleep, stress, not fully recovered, etc.
On the other hand, if your heart rate is lower doing the same workout over time, then it can be an indication of improved fitness.
Mostly, HR was used to quantitively record feel. Lower HR then feeling better than normal... higher HR then feeling worse than normal. It seemed to work out well: 5 years and 5 different all-americans.
Who pays for the HR monitors? Does the xc program buy one for every runner (or just varsity runner) or does the coach mandate every athlete's family to buy one for the runner (and if so can they buy any brand?). Persinally I don't like HR straps on my chest ...
Probably the best value of HR monitors, espiecially for HS runners, is to limit easy efforts so they don't race every training.
Several issues
HR is not a direct measure of anything except how fast the heart is beating.
In labs HR tracks very linearly with intensity. Less linear in real world.
Lots of factors can affect HR besides intensity.
You need to know each runner's HRmax or else you are guessing.
I agree with another poster that best use is probably for dialing back on the easy days. Even then you need to know what that upper HR limit is for that run.
luv2run wrote:
In labs HR tracks very linearly with intensity. Less linear in real world.
How much less linear? Still pretty darn linear from what I've observed.
luv2run wrote:
Lots of factors can affect HR besides intensity.
Please give me the ones that don't also affect intensity. (for example, higher temperatures tend to elevate HR, but also elevate the intensity of a given pace).
How is intensity defined and measured (so as to establish it's functional relationship with hear rate).
I think HR can be useful, but religious HR training has a lot of problems. One of the biggest is cardiac drift. HR afficianados claim that well trained runners don't show cardiac drift, but that's simply not true, especially if the temperature is at all above optimal. It's just that well trained runners show less drift than poorly trained runners. At a given intensity, HR will steadily climb throughout a workout, so trying to stay in a particular zone will usually lead to an athlete slowing down.
I prefer to train by pace and perceived exertion, using HR for post workout analysis, or in rare cases to confirm that I need to pull the plug on a workout that is going really poorly.
For example, if I'm repeating a workout I did three weeks earlier, I can compare my HR curves. If I went faster at the same perceived exertion more recently, but my HR curves are higher, that probably indicates that I'm approaching a peak. I'm likely using more of my anaerobic system to sustain the pace and I've also probably trained my central governor to disregard some of the pain I experienced three weeks earlier. I know that continued progress along this line will probably be limited.
On the other hand, if I do the same workout faster but with lower HR curves, that probably indicates an increased lactate threshold. It also likely means that I'm still a good ways from peaking.
I primarily use HR to monitor overtraining by resting heart rate changes or the prone-then-stand method. I can also tell how quickly I recover by doing a known course at a set pace and seeing if my HR is higher than usual.
I dont use HR because races are measured by a clock. Nobody gets an award for having the best HR.
BigDuh wrote:
I dont use HR because races are measured by a clock. Nobody gets an award for having the best HR.
not true. i hit 200 bpm today at practice and my friends were impressed. its for bragging points. kudos etc