HRM's & Such

I do use your beloved HR monitor. Because of the correlation between heart rate and lactate acid which is the best way to tell where you are in training. Not in terms of just training times, but mostly in terms of balance (training stress) The higher heart rate of max HR at a given lactate acid the better balance/total shape are you in. I have tried many parameters to monitor this, but there is no better.

Marius

http://www.mariusbakken.com

Ps : the Kenyans don't use HR monitors and just run. But if mzungos continue JUST to try and do like them, they will continue just to be 2nd class runners because we cannot match their supreme (light bone mass, little fat and great symmetry) body shape and altitude/social adaption. We have to find a better and more advanced way to beat them.

Listening to your body is the way to do it.

Heart rate monitors help you to learn "what" to listen to, and how it feels to run the right paces in training.

Once you know this you don't need them anymore. But until then, they are very useful.

I'm using one and stunned how easy I'm running and quickly recovering. Harder workouts are within pre-defined limits. But the biggest benefit has been forcing the pace slower on recovery days. Over a period of time I expect the monitor will become less relevant as "the feel" gets developed.

Thanks Marius,

I enjoy your website, good info. It seems to me that you have observed the way the Kenyans train & have tried to emulate them, and since they do not rely on the HRM? Uh, nevermind.

Hodgie:

What changes to the 15-a-day system would you suggest for the following two ends of the spectrum:

1. A late 40's male looking to improve long-term (a relative term considering the age) at the local 5K level. His (my) running and racing have been minimal for the last 10 years. A current out-of-shape 5k time would be about 21 flat (yes, I know, that's very flat).

2. A female high school senior looking to improve her 1600 and 3200 times in 2003 outdoor track season to attract college attention. Primary interst is in taking 3200 best from last year of 11:40 down to sub-11. Last year's 1600 best was 5:21. Suggestions?

Hodgie,

Are these 15-a-day to be run at "Easy", converstional pace?

brother oldman,

You know that my suggestion outlined above is for base fitness only, yes?

The other periods of preparation will require more thought and careful analysis.

This is what may be called, getting fit to get fit, the essential ingrediant.

You may want to try my "starter kit" or a variation of your own making, to build your base.

http://www.bunnhill.com/BobHodge/BaseTraining.htm

Just cover the miles, the pace will find you.

Very early in the Cape Cod Marathon this year, I had a choice between paying attention to my body (which said the pace was too easy), my watch (which said I was right on pace) and my HRM (which said I was working much too hard).

I listened to my body and my watch and ignored the HRM. There was no way I was going to let that thing dictate my race to me.

Unfortunately, that thing wasn't lying. I was working too hard for that pace and I paid the price. The problem with running by feel is that sometimes you feel great when you're working too hard.

Normally I just wear the HRM and ignore it. Then I look at the data afterwards and compare it to how I felt. But in my next marathon, I am going to let the HRM hold me back for the first 10 miles and only THEN try to run by feel.

I've been running competitively for many years. But my body still plays tricks on me. It's nice to have a tool that my body can't fool.

Joe,

That is the most common mistake of any marathon runner. You made a novice mistake.

It is your mind that is playing tricks on you.

Better idea would be to simply jab your two fingers into the side of your neck and take ur pulse that way. Take for count of 6 then multiply times 10. I usually do this occasionally on hard runs simply for shits and giggles.

Alan

Hodgie-san wrote:

Joe,

That is the most common mistake of any marathon runner. You made a novice mistake.

It is your mind that is playing tricks on you.

Can you people believe this guy?

Yet another spew-the-basics-while-subtly-trashing-modern-training-methods post from a runner who had his best running over twenty years ago, never was able to put it all together for a peak performance on the needed day to make an international team in his event (marathon), and has never hands-on coached anyone else to success.

Now he trashes heart monitors. Marius calls him on it, he backpedals. Someone else says they read their body, as he recommends, but had trouble and he says, "It wasn't your BODY it was your HEAD."

What garbage! Reminds me of an OLD coach I knew who, when the runners ran well, claimed it was the success of the program and when the runners ran badly claimed it was their heads, not their trained-by-the-coach bodies.

What is there about message boards that brings out the "wise mentor-wannabe" complex in some people? Are you REALLY that desperate for attention?

So, I was downloading information off my HRM while trying to draw blood for my lactate and hemocrit tester when I noticed that I was running low on Endurox R4. Since it was a holiday, I had to down some Ultima for rehydration until I could get to the store for some isolated whey protein powder, magnesium tablets, and Ultra Fuel. My shoes were a little wet from the rain so I removed the magnetic insoles in order to dry them faster. My PC based coaching program and running log needed to be re-booted so I started a new Excel spreadsheet to temporarily hold the data from my GPS measured 6.72384 mile trail run. I felt a little sluggish on that run and it occurred to me that my low mileage, speed based "Coe" sessions coupled with my macrobiotic vegan diet might be causing some anemia. The solution? Perhaps some walking breaks or aromatherapy in tandem with the Atkins Diet could give me a boost. I went to Runner's World Online since they feature some great tips on cross training and positive visualization. (I was inspired by the Penguin's wit.)

I wolfed down a big helping of Tofurkey with organic pasta, put on some Dave Matthews, and did a little Active Isolated Stretching with the special rope I purchased from a catalog. I was working out a minor knot in my right calf with The Stick when it hit me like a ton of bricks...

I would be better off ditching all of this expensive bullshit and focusing my energies on big miles and developing a base!!! (Just like Lydiard figured out over forty years ago.)

Portland Runner wrote:

So, I was downloading information off my HRM while trying to draw blood for my lactate and hemocrit tester

This is the only thing in your list that true exercise science people would even think to consider when evaluating an athlete's HIGH-LEVEL training and recovery. Everything else is Runner's World crap that people like Hodge are using to bolster their "wise elder/aged mentor" status on this board.

I would be better off ditching all of this expensive bullshit and focusing my energies on big miles and developing a base!!! (Just like Lydiard figured out over forty years ago.)[/quote]

As long as you do those miles in a way that build you up rather than overtrain and tear you down. And things like heart-rate monitors are the best thing for that task. Lydiard used to routinely have his people check their pulse. HRM's are just a modern version of this action (which certain old guys on this board feel threatened by).

Exercise science people are great on high-leevel training...as long as you can recover and benefit from it. Going out to "just run" can be deceiving when it comes to doing this.

Hodgie-san wrote:

That is the most common mistake of any marathon runner. You made a novice mistake. It is your mind that is playing tricks on you.

Was my watch playing tricks with me too? It agreed with my mind. Only the HRM disagreed, but it was outvoted. Unfortunately democracy failed me this time.

Okay, first of all, Hodge was referring to training, while Joe was racing. I consider the two to be quite different.

Second, Hodge was talking about base building, not sharpening.

Under those constraints, I agree with ignoring the technology. Unless you're running because you like the technology, which I'd like to think is a minority opinion.

But then again, I consider running with sunglasses on to be an affectation.

To "A Guest": Dude, don?t trash Hodgie, you bitch! This guy is 50 times better a distance runner than 99.99999% of the guys we have out there running for the US RIGHT NOW?.and he was doing it MANY MOONS AGO. And more importantly, he MAKES SENSE!! As we all do here, he is slightly exaggerating his ideas (even he admits that training get a bit more complicated than just putting in easy miles. He mentions other ?adjuncts.?)?.TO MAKE A FRIGGIN? POINT!!! Do we need to SPELL that point out for you??? Really. OK, here it is for you, read SLOWLY.

If you wanna get good at running, KEEP IT SIMPLE STUPID!! (at least/especially at first). Run lots of base mileage (build up slowly) at a pace YOU CAN TOLERATE. If you are too hurting one week, cut the pace back a bit. FIND YOUR PACE. You DON?T need a hear-rate monitor for that. Remember Henry David Thoreau?s wisdom? ?Simplify, simplify?? After this base, obviously you will cut back on mileage and runner faster tempo workouts. But this base is the KEY.

The point: to do this, a hear rate monitor might be of some use, but it is NOT necessary!

Marius has some good ideas, but I have 2 issues for him:

 Firstly, a recent scientific study (I can give you the name if you really want) stated that his beloved Lactate Measurer is NOT such an accurate tool after all. There are MANY variables that can effect the readings, and thus, a high lactate reading really might be due just to variables, and not extra stress from a workout. This does not mean that the tool might no be useful in some ways, it just means it is not foolproof and not the cure-all for running improvement that Marius seems to state on his site where he peddles these things. How you feel is more important than your lactate reading (and of course should correspond in some way. But I think you can learn this feeling without the lactate tool)

 Also on his site, he looks at all of these great runners and tries to find the common thread between their training. He REALLY wants it to be lactate threshold running, and of course, there is a good chunk of that for most runners he looks at. BUT?.the different groups of Kenyans, the Portuguese, the Moroccans?.from what I can see, they ALL utilize different training styles. The Portuguese he mentioned seems to focus on hard shorter track repeats MUCH more than longer threshold training. And though he argues that the Kenyans have a huge background of threshold training (which they might), it again seems to be the hard track workouts that bring them to the top. And the Moroccans seem to mix all types of training (Coe-like?), but not a HUGE focus on threshold running.

I am not saying that threshold training is not useful, but I AM saying that it might not be the ?silver bullet? that he claims. Like I said, the examples he gives himself, are not ALL using threshold training to the extent that he seems to argue would be necessary for success.

A SIMPLE solution? Lots of easy base mileage, gradually working in speed stuff of all LENGTHS (and do these without too much straining): 1,2,3,5,10,15,25,35 minutes hard. One can do ANY combo of those distances(times) in a workout: 2 x 25/5 x 5/3X 10/ 10 X 2/ 1 x 15,10,5,2,1. WHAT-ever! Obviously, the shorter the repeat, the speed will be a little quicker, but don?t blow it out. Later, the intensity can get a little harder. Mix ALL of these intensities and lengths together.

Finally, hit the track for specific distance repeats trying to hit specific times. 400?s at slightly below goal-race pace, 800?s at goal-race pace, 200?s well below race pace. Sometimes take more rest, and run then a little faster (or more of them), sometimes less rest and slow down the pace (or do less repeats).

Do you need special tools and genius coaches for that??? To run lots of easy base mileage, and then work in various speed combinations, hitting ALL tempos, and ALL different lengths of the repeats??? (just save the more intense efforts for alter in your season. And maybe throw in some up and down-hills runs to round things out).

I don?t think so.

I agree that in base training you can normally go by feel, but I did find the HRM very helpful when I was learning to go by feel. I'm wondering if you are anti-gadget. For example, what if I want to vary my courses and want to use the Timex GPS monitor to do that? Sure, I can estimate my mileage from the feel of the intensity and the time, but what if I want to make sure that I am more accurate. Thoughts?

Average_Joe wrote:

Was my watch playing tricks with me too? It agreed with my mind. Only the HRM disagreed, but it was outvoted. Unfortunately democracy failed me this time.

Seems as though regardless of the technology involved, you simply went out too hard and died. When you say your watch told you that you were "on pace," what were you on pace for and how did you develop this goal?

I think what Hodgie meant by "novice mistake" was failing to correlate perceived effort with physiological effort (including HR) on account of adrenalin ("nerves"). It's a mistake made by experienced runners as well, but veteran marathoners learn to mete out their "excitation energy" over a period of a few hours rather than in the first 10K.