are HR monitors and GPS productive/helpful?

The HR has helped me stay healthy and improve my aerobic base. The tech is only as good as the operator. It is just biofeedback. If you suck without it, you will suck with it too.

If you have trouble maintaining a pace or tracking how far you run, then a GPS or a HR monitor would be helpful. This seems pretty obvious. Am I missing something in your question?

I went from using an HRM to not using one once I became confident enough to train by feel. I'm fine without it, but I think having it was helpful and it is what gave me the confidence to get rid of it (ironically).

I've never not had a GPS watch and I'll have one forever I think. It's too useful.

This link appeared early this week and is still on the front page. While collecting data is good I believe technology can be a crutch and performance limiter.

https://specksinajaundicedeye.wordpress.com/2017/09/12/the-technology-trap/

More so than anything I appreciate the historical data and the fact that it keeps me honest.

I can run without it, but I wouldn't want to go back.

Hobbyist Hustler wrote:

More so than anything I appreciate the historical data and the fact that it keeps me honest.

I can run without it, but I wouldn't want to go back.

Same story. Don't need it to train, but like being able to look back.

I recently bought a GPS watch after years of being a steadfast luddite (ie only using a low-end Timex ironman watch/Badger miles method). My watch broke under warranty for the nth time in 5 years (stupid Timex), so I figured I should get something else that didn't break every few months.

Previously I had scorned GPS watches on the basis that I didn't think that having such data while running would be useful or even beneficial. Plus, I know that I have a tendency to overextend myself when there is any possible way to quantify myself - other people in a workout, paces etc. Actually, I still think they are a bad idea because of those points, and make an expressed attempt to avoid looking at it during a run. I am basically a metronome (the GPS watch has confirmed this), so I have no need for feedback during my run, and have no trouble pushing myself in workouts. So for me, while running the GPS watch isn't much more useful than a standard watch.

I think mostly, the bonus is in being able to track my training more accurately for retrospective purposes. Currently coming back from injury right now, but I suspect it might be interesting to take a look at my pacing during workouts on a more sensitive basis than the overall time for the interval. I'd imagine that this bonus is less useful if you are training for shorter distances and doing track-based workouts though. But for doing longer cut-down or progression workouts on the roads, I think it would be instructive for me to have some more detailed pace/distance info.

That said... I'd still say that owning a GPS watch is probably dumb unless you are training for 10k+ road races and are off-track a lot. Would have been more or less useless to me in college methinks.

It's another useful tool, particularly if you train alone and want to stick to an effort based plan, you prefer unmeasured trails over practicing on a track, you are away from home at a place where you don't know any distances, or don't have access to a track.

Depending on your situation, it allows you to be more flexible than a basic stopwatch.

It keeps you honest about keeping "easy paces" easy.

It enables you to do "interval training" on any unmeasured trail, based on time and effort, rather than time and distance.

If you are good at "training by feel", and have measured places to do "time and distance" based intervals, a HR based watch does not train you better than a watch with a timer.

GPS watches are useful if you don't know distances, but want to (providing you get a good signal -- an issue in cities and woods), and if you want to download a course onto Google Maps.

I used a foot pod for a while, until one time when I just no longer replace the batteries. The pace and distance feedback was interesting at first, but then the constant tuning required to maintain high footpod accuracy became a burden. It enables distance based intervals on unmeasured courses.

I did see a trend in HR-fitness over the years, but once you are fit, this data becomes less interesting, primarily because you already know you are fit.

I've used both an HR monitor and a GPS watch but have since "regressed" to a Timex Ironman 50-Lap which IMHO is the best running watch on the market. I mostly run the same routes near my home which I measured a long ago user MilerMeter so have found the GPS watch largely useless. That said I can see it being useful if you regularly run unfamiliar routes, or if you are travelling or going on vacation.

I found the HR monitor much more useful and would be using it if I was still competing. There were two benefits for me. One was that it made threshold runs/sessions a lot easier as I'm not great at judging pace and I could easily see if I was in the right "zone" or not. The other benefit was that I discovered that I was running too fast on my recovery and easy runs. I switched from max pace to max HR for these, which meant I recovered faster and was able to push myself further on hard days. Ran a big PB over 5K later that summer as a consequence

As a user of polar hr monitors in the early 90's I found them valuable in assessing fitness. What I mean by this is what was my HR at any given workload. Now if you are progressing you get faster with your HR staying similar. Example 10 mile run at 5:30 mile pace your heart rate avg may be 165. After a good block of training and under similar conditions you may do the same run in the same time with a heart rate of 155. This would give you confidence that your program is working and that you are headed in the right direction.

Now fast forward 25 years I now analyse my athletes heart rate to make sure they are getting the work in but also looking at recovery heart rate and how hard is it to get the heart rate up. I do this by looking at their garmin data that gives me information. For the athletes not so important but as a coach I like to see it on specific sessions.

Do you need it to run fast? Of course not! But it helps to monitor and keep track of your fitness if that is your interest.

Analytics has penetrated all major sports and in every case there was a phase of resistance by old timers followed by gradual acceptance. At this point there isn't any team in baseball which doesn't use something similar to moneyball. There isn't a question that the technology is useful and the only question is the correct way to use it.

biogen wrote:

I went from using an HRM to not using one once I became confident enough to train by feel. I'm fine without it, but I think having it was helpful and it is what gave me the confidence to get rid of it (ironically).

I've never not had a GPS watch and I'll have one forever I think. It's too useful.

Agreed, I got back into running seriously and I must admit I would have been a lot better if GPS watches were more common 15 years ago. I need something to benchmark speed against and my standard loop circuit turned out to be 400m less than I thought. HRM are less important but it is a quick way to find out if you have any beat rate anomalies. Unless you know your max rate, it is potentially dangerous guess work.

My tuppenceworth....

I have used a Polar HR then a combined Garmin HR/GPS for about 15 years.

Both useful for gauging HR for easy/recovery runs.

Both useful for threshold runs where I hold it between 85 & 90 % max heart rate for 20-40 mins

The GPS is great for producing split times and devising measured intervals on road when a track is not available. I use it a lot for 1 km reps at 2.50 - 3.20 for example.

With reference to heart rate, I think though the more you run the more you develop a sixth sense where you just know and sense with a high level of certainty you are running at a given heart rate. A glance at the HR then confirms.

So in a way then experience makes the device unnecessary !

On an aside, tried a Stryd power meter for a flat threshold session and while an accurate match with my threshold pace just felt that it was not needed given that I know I can hold 30-40 mins at a given pace per km. I don't do rolling threshold sessions as I prefer the consistency of flat terrain - it is hard enough !

I don't know anyone at the elite or sub elite level using a Stryd.

The HRM has been mildly helpful for me. Like others have mentioned it is just one more feedback tool and I did pretty well running by feel or RPE or whatever you want to call it.

The pace function has helped quite a bit from a review perspective. I do not have to remember splits and do the math after my run. If I want to look back over the run I can just recall each Mile on the watch.

The huge benefit for me is tracking the distance. I travel a lot for work. Although I know my distances on local running routes the GPS speeds up getting out to run specific distances. If I am out on a new trail or altering a known trail I have automatic feedback on how far.

GPS and HR devices are pretty much a waste of money for someone who has good math skills and is in tune with their body. You will be, and become, a smarter human without one.

I didn't get a GPS watch until after college. My main driver for the GPS watch was that I didn't really have time sit around using gmaps pedometer anymore when I was working full time. The watch part also kept popping out of the wrist band on my timex ironman watches which drove me to finally buy a Garmin.

I started running with a HRM my final year of college after getting some testing done that showed I was really over training and running my recovery runs too fast (I was a 17 flat 5k runner that sometimes ran sub 7 pace on my 'easy' runs and rarely ran slower than 7:30).

The HRM is also a good tool for cross training and making sure you're getting an honest effort in.

maybe this wrote:

Analytics has penetrated all major sports and in every case there was a phase of resistance by old timers followed by gradual acceptance. At this point there isn't any team in baseball which doesn't use something similar to moneyball. There isn't a question that the technology is useful and the only question is the correct way to use it.

GPS and HRMs are not the same thing as "analytics," whatever that means. Elite runners have been extremely precise and analytic about their training since long before these tools existed. The reason people aren't that interested in these tools is because they don't add much. A track is far more useful than a GPS watch or a running power meter. Heart rate is seriously limited method of tracking effort, stress, or fitness.

I'm not suggesting that these tools are bad or pointless. I use both. But the question is how they improve my training. For the most part, they don't. The main reason I use GPS is because it logs my runs for me automatically and because Strava is awesome.

[quote]maybe this wrote:

Analytics has penetrated all major sports and in every case there was a phase of resistance by old timers /quote]

Like instant replay, it is the ruination of sports. If it was so great, the masters of moneyball wouldn't be 65-82 this year. Analytics don't tell you when to pull a pitcher or when to give an everyday player a day off. Why do you think Terry Francona and the Indians have the best september/October record over the last 4 years?

Heart rate and GPS are fun little devises but are unneeded to make you a better runner. Don't forget reliance on artificial feedback can also be a limiting factor.

Non competitive..... wrote:

[quote]maybe this wrote:

Analytics has penetrated all major sports and in every case there was a phase of resistance by old timers /quote]

Like instant replay, it is the ruination of sports. If it was so great, the masters of moneyball wouldn't be 65-82 this year. Analytics don't tell you when to pull a pitcher or when to give an everyday player a day off. Why do you think Terry Francona and the Indians have the best september/October record over the last 4 years?

Heart rate and GPS are fun little devises but are unneeded to make you a better runner. Don't forget reliance on artificial feedback can also be a limiting factor.

The "masters of moneyball" are 65-82 because now everyone is doing what they started 15-20 years ago.

Huapango wrote:

GPS and HR devices are pretty much a waste of money for someone who has good math skills and is in tune with their body. You will be, and become, a smarter human without one.

That isn't many people. Like others, a HRM is excellent for learning pace and recovery. Much less trial and error and frustrations.

If you are using a hrm right, you'll likely outgrow it.

GPS watches are fun, but not accurate.

Still nothing beats a fixed course and a stopwatch.