HR Training

Training with the use of a HR monitor is IMO smart, as it can provide valuable information, particularly with regard to recovery (very important), and can help with adjustment of paces for variability of terrain. Thus, it is a vast improvement over the old-school method of RPE (rate of perceived exertion), i.e., run by feel, for it adds significant information that one can, after experience, equate with RPE. HR monitors have been poo-poo'ed in the past by the old-school that did not grow up with them (lack of understanding and utility), and due to inaccurate HR measurements in the past. Also, caffeine intake and dehydration can skew heart rates, again reasons used by the old-school as a 'knock' on their utility, but instead (assuming the HR measurement is accurate), those factors can be better understood in a comprehensive training program using a HR monitor.

jholle wrote:

Could my HR max be set too low? (I used a formula based on my age of 33, but so far I haven't even hit my max).

Firstly, the answer to this question, is YES, your max HR is quite possibly inaccurate. You can perform self-test(s) to determine it. One method is to run all-out 800m repeats. (This may quite likely be a harder level of effort than you are used to.) Run two 800m repeats; if the HR max is higher in the second repeat than the first, then run another. If the HR max in the third repeat is even higher then that is likely your max HR, and/or you are still not pushing yourself hard enough in the repeats, and you will need to run another. Hill repetitions can be used in lieu of 800m repeats.

jholle wrote:

I have been running semi-regularly for a few years now, but have never really trained for my races (10k to half marathons) aside from just slowly building up the distance and running at my normal pace (about 8:30 min/mile training). My 10k race pace the last couple years has been just under 8 min/mile, with my most recent 10 mile race pace 8:20 min. miles. ... I'm finding that my "normal" pace on 2-3 mile runs so far has been in HR zone 4 and even 5 in the second half of the run, based on a max HR of 185. I've tried staying in zone 3 (up to 80% of max) for a couple 2 or 3 mile runs, but I find it nearly impossible and my pace slows to around 9:30/min miles!

For those longer distance races, you will quite likely have better success by keeping 80-90% of your volume in Zone 2 (out of a five-zone spectrum), assuming you have the training time available to increase your volume as a result of training at the easier pace.

This is good to know. The road I live near is not quite 800m, (closer to 600m), but is straight and uphill the whole way and finishes on a pretty steep hill, so I'll try that to determine my max. Thank you!

The numbers you’re giving line up pretty well, actually. It’s possible that your max HR is off, but it’s probably close (at least supporting the numbers you gave), so getting the correct HR max will probably only slightly change the HR zones you’re using.

An 8-min 10k pace equates to a 9:40-ish easy run pace on the Daniels VDOT tables, which seems to match what your HRM is telling you. Those tables aren’t 100% accurate, but that’s now two different things saying the slower pace is correct.

It’s very common for newer runners to do their daily runs too fast (I did it for years, too).

You should keep going at that lower speed to build your aerobic system. Increasing mileage at that lower speed would also help, but do it slowly so you don’t get hurt. Lastly, look at a training program and add higher intensity work (not at the same time as increasing mileage, though).

I have pretty good success just using the optical wrist-based measurement of a Garmin 245. (I shaved the hair on my arm underneath the watch, and cinch it down pretty good before workouts). I've compared its values against manual pulse measurement, and await to get a strap to see if there is any difference in accuracy. I can't vouch for a "Polar 430", so you may want to be using a strap for improved accuracy.

That is helpful. I'll probably try to verify my HR max, but sounds like I'll have to just get used to the slower pace in training. My training load has never been very high in the past, so it makes sense that I could go at a higher effort and still recover. I found a pretty good training plan on Polar's website that includes long slow runs, medium pacing runs, and intervals as well, so hopefully that's a good balance. Thanks for the help!

I picked the Polar M430 partly because it is supposed to have one of the more accurate wrist-based monitors, plus the training programs that can be programmed into the watch, so I'm not too worried about accuracy, but I do sometimes forget to tighten it down good before I run, so I should definitely make sure of that.

I think Polar were (maybe) the first company to put a HR monitor for mass consumption on the market, and spear-headed HR training.

holpin wrote:

I think Polar were (maybe) the first company to put a HR monitor for mass consumption on the market, and spear-headed HR training.

...because I vaguely recall purchasing a Polar HR monitor some 30 years ago(?) at the local Sports Chalet, and Polar also offered a HR training manual booklet at the time.

Here is some handy info pertaining to HR training, as compared to %VO2max:

% VO2max.....% HRmax..............................Speed

50%........................70%.................Very Slow (warm up, cool down, recovery)

60%........................75%.................Slow Running (early measure of a long run, recovery day)

70%........................82%.................Steady Running (off-season; maybe challenging for LIT runs)

80%........................88%.................Half Marathon Pace; Just above Marathon Pace

90%........................95%.................10K Speed

95%........................98%...................5k Speed

100%....................100%.................3K Speed

110%....................100%...............1500 Speed

This table can be found in the following document:

https://www.ncsf.org/pdf/ceu/relationship_between_percent_hr_max_and_percent_vo2_max.pdf[/quote

]

Fixed link:

https://www.ncsf.org/pdf/ceu/relationship_between_percent_hr_max_and_percent_vo2_max.pdf

While accurate to the average of the general population, it must be said that some things may differ based upon training fitness and individual experiences. Take these as a guideline and not hard fact.

Otherwise, I agree with the other posters, except on the use of optical hr sensors. The only optical HRM i've ever seen and used that's accurate is the polar oh1. if I was doing a test effort, i would definitely defer to a chest strap.

HRM training is best used for continuous efforts longer than 10min. for shorter intervals/runs, it would be better to use pace/power

babushka_lady wrote:

While accurate to the average of the general population, it must be said that some things may differ based upon training fitness and individual experiences. Take these as a guideline and not hard fact.

Otherwise, I agree with the other posters, except on the use of optical hr sensors. The only optical HRM i've ever seen and used that's accurate is the polar oh1. if I was doing a test effort, i would definitely defer to a chest strap.

HRM training is best used for continuous efforts longer than 10min. for shorter intervals/runs, it would be better to use pace/power

No, using power in running is rather unnecessary, if not stupid, since it is just a derived parameter from HR and pace. Some pod manufacturer may try to tell you they also took into account ground strike energy (or other) and elevation in the derivation of power, but that is already taken into account with running economy determining your paces, and HR output. But if you have anything credible to add, I'm willing to evaluate.

And like I said, I've found my Garmin 245 to be accurate (unless an app using it has been incorrectly tweaked.). Optical sensors have come a long way.

Pace isn't always accurate on the day. temperature, humidity, and wind all play a role. Stryd does a good job of measuring the impact of wind (and soon temperature, I hear) so I recommended it for that purpose. It's also not derived from HR and pace - HR has nothing to do with it at all. Power is calculated from weight, acceleration, and elevation (to generalize).

If you're using Stryd, and you know 5:10 mile pace equates to a certain power value, you can run at that power value no matter what the wind is and you'll hit the correct intensity. HR does the same thing but most intervals are too short to use HR on. Ideally pace would work the same as power, but you'd have to take environmental factors completely out of it.

No beef against the 245 or your experience, just that the OH1 is.. better. It's a bigger optical sensor placed on the upper arm, a better place to get a reading than the wrist. I'm not invalidating your experience by saying that