Why are my heart rate zones terrible compared to my pr's

Good news!

There's no correlation between heart rate and pace. Some hearts beat faster at the same pace, others beat slower.

What you are figuring out though is your "zones" regardless of the numbers in those zones.

so in a situation like this does heart rate trump all?... If I use my HR zones to train rather than the paces from pr equivalents will this be better in the long term as far as avoiding fatigue at running higher weekly mileage?

lets say two people run an all out 5k and both run exactly 14:30.. person A has a heart rate of 190 avg.. while person B has a heart rate of 183 avg..... is person B at an advantage because of that. If person A runs at a HR of 183 they would be running slower wouldn't they? Applying these principles to person A and B training would person A be at a disadvantage not being able to run at the faster paces because of their higher heart rate, compared to person B?

Sorry for making it so complex but I am seriously questioning these things and very curious to find out why.

Also in the above example.... Should runner A and B be using the same training paces since they have the same pr, or their own HR zones no matter what pace those end up corresponding to?

Your heart rate numbers are telling you to slow down on training runs. What more they are telling you is uncertain. 6:07 pace is extremely different from 8:15 pace though. You are more efficient at quicker paces, which isn't a bad thing. What I would suggest is increasing mileage while running slower, and then cutting back down and running faster, but keeping a slow long run.

Running slow is great for aerobic fitness yes, but running faster is a more intense stimulus. Use the former to prepare for the latter.

I have a few thoughts for you.

1) How confident are you of the maximum HR you are using? How did you establish it as your max? If your max HR isn't right, your zones won't be right.

2) What is the main event distance(s) you are focusing on?

2) Using the Daniels VDOT charts, your PRs tell a story to me. They are not equivalent to each other, and they indicate that you are aerobically weak. A 4:20 should = a 14:55, which should = 1:08:21. Your 1:14 half is equivalent to a 16:07 5K, and a 4:41 mile.

Your PRs are telling the same story that the HR monitor seems to be telling you.

I think this is actually great news for you. You might have a lot to gain by shoring up your aerobic strength!

Also, I'd say you could probably improve with increased mileage. Take reasonable steps in increasing the volume, of course. You are running well already, so I wouldn't drastically change anything.

I personally came up with the following idea and used it in my own training for a while to use in conjuction with the HR monitor... so I don't know how sound it is, but it made sense to me. I was in a similar boat to you, where my PRs weakened as I increased race distance. I was aerobically weak. Basically, if you want to use target training paces, from McMillan or Daniels, use the race distance PR that is closest to that particular workout's training pace. Ex: use the mile PR for the short/fast repetitions like 200s & 400s. Use the 5K PR for intervals that are around 3K/5K pace, like 800s, 1000s, or 1200s. Use the 10-mile race PR, or half marathon PR for tempo/threshold efforts. And use your best guess for marathon PR (fyi, your marathon PR would probably suck way worse than your half) for the easy paces. Otherwise, like you, if I used my 5K PR to establish easy paces (and tempo paces), I was running way to hard, as indicated by HR, and injury rates.

Hopefully that helps.

1) very confident... For example HR during 5k was 192.

I would guess as I increase my aerobic fitness by incorporating more easy aerobic running my HR would go down at that same 5k time...

2) main focus is 5k this track season..... I am guessing from what I am learning about HR that my best race this season will probably be the 1500 since I need time to allow my body to gain the aerobic fitness needed.... But I want to run a big PR in the 5k. And I've got about 10 weeks to do it!

Wow, how did people ever manage to train before they had all this data?

Because heart rate training is a scam.

Manchester wrote:

Wow, how did people ever manage to train before they had all this data?

1. Coaches

2. Intuitive feel

3. Got lucky

4. Poorly, i.e. making training mistakes that could be avoided with intelligent use of a HR monitor.

Shelve the monitor. Run by feel. I use mine only to force myself to go easy when I am digging myself out from overtraining. HR-based training affords false precision. Run most miles slower than date pace and a few faster than goal pace. Run some bridging efforts. Simple.

i'm doubting you've accurately calculated your true max HR. and without an accurate max HR,you're just estimating and you could be way off.

have you used the "heart rate reserve" method for calculating your zones?

might put you in the right places

Like the previous poster says, you have miscalculated. Better to ditch the HRM and run by feel. If you can't do that, then there is something wrong with your mental approach to running.

Confused what pace to run wrote:

But I want to run a big PR in the 5k. And I've got about 10 weeks to do it!

#1: You can run faster at shorter, aerobic, distances in an effort to lower your 5k time. But, if there's not enough recovery, it will not work out well.

#2 Heart rate monitoring is mostly good for figuring out when you are not recovered enough. Beyond that, not that great. Over time and many varied samples, you can get an idea of what your ranges are. That's useful, but not something to stick to like religion.

The only numbers to pay attention to are minutes:seconds over shorter aerobic distances. It won't be easy. Recovery matters as much as the workout.

Good luck.

That's why McMillan gives you a range. Given a 6:07-7:12 range, you don't start out at the high end of the range. If (and this is a big if) you have an accurate assessment of your max heart rate then 90% is very hard for a long run.

Your progression 1 mile to half marathon indicates that your aerobic fitness is at least a little bit weak. The HRM is independent confirmation.

It's pretty low.

You're talking about doubling your mileage. I'd start by running whatever pace allows the mileage build, get comfortable with the increased mileage, and then worry about paces. If your goal race is spring track season, you probably should have started this a year ago.