How beneficial is it to use heartrate monitors in training? I know a group of runners who regularly take a treadmill lactate profile test to determine their "heartrate zones." Every single run/workout is done in a certain "zone," and this ultimately defines how training goes. I feel that this is too much complexity for training, but I may be misinformed. Any thoughts?
Big Fourteen wrote:
How beneficial is it to use heartrate monitors in training? I know a group of runners who regularly take a treadmill lactate profile test to determine their "heartrate zones." Every single run/workout is done in a certain "zone," and this ultimately defines how training goes. I feel that this is too much complexity for training, but I may be misinformed. Any thoughts?
Personally I like to keep it simple and use my heart rate-date only to track progression. So for example: if in week 1 you run 12 km in 60 minutes with a heart rate of around 160 and in week 10 you run 12 km in 60 minutes with a heart rate of around 155, than you've progressed. All the rest only makes it more complicated, but that's my opinion.
HR has also practical aspects.
If you know that you're at 170 bpm when training at race pace/lactate threshold on the track, you can go in the hills and get a similar stimulus by holding 170 bpm.
It will also be sensitive to fluctuations in climate and training shape, so you'll be able to hold yourself with HR, which people trying to hit a given pace have difficulty to do (even though they should!).
I honestly believe this is the best way to train. Putting on a heartrate strap and only worrying about zones is much easier. Most people train incorrectly. People who like to "keep it simple" and "run by feel" just use those terms as code for running way too hard. I'm sure plenty of elites use a lactate profile test as basis for their training
I've been using one for 27 years. I started because i was young and not as fast as my running buddies and i was constantly overtrained. an older guy suggested wearing one and making sure it stayed < 145 on my easy days. it was an eye opener. i had to run so slow. but running that slow allowed me to jack up my mileage and i set a 20 minute marathon PR after 5 months. Granted, all of my others had been crash and burns but it taught me how to recover.
25 years later, after a string of injuries, i took up cycling. I use the HRM to get to easy, tempo, and interval "running" intervals on the bike. Knowing my ranges all of these years makes this work. So, i fully support it.
It's also crazy how much better the technology is since my first HRM.
Seeing a couple of my friends set big PR's and avoid the marathon bonk made me rethink HR training. After reading this guy's guide (the equipment section is dated, the rest is great) I took it up.
It takes patience and discipline. I don't use rigid HR zones in training most days, but use HR as a guide. But on race day, I do keep stick to zones. For me, as long as I stay right at or below my target HR during a marathon, I don't bonk, no matter the conditions. The times I've pushed slightly over my target too early in the race I did bonk but not dramatically.
What monitors are people using? Opinions on optical (wrist-based) vs chest strap? I'm considering a Forerunner 35.
Lactate wrote:
I honestly believe this is the best way to train. Putting on a heartrate strap and only worrying about zones is much easier. Most people train incorrectly. People who like to "keep it simple" and "run by feel" just use those terms as code for running way too hard. I'm sure plenty of elites use a lactate profile test as basis for their training
I agree there are many was in wich a heart rate monitor can help you, but I think you can train well without too. You say that running by feel automatically is running too hard, but I only partly agree on that. Let's say you know your 10k-pr and a set goal. Having this information, isn't it pretty easy to to work out the paces for your tempo runs, interval training etc.? For your easy runs I think it's even easier: you just run at a comfortable but not extremely slow pace and once you're running for a couple of weeks, you get to know what that pace is. And if you're tired, that you just let your body do the ajustment work for you and slow down a little. Doesn't that happen by itself? For example: I run my easy runs at around 4:35/km. This can fluctuate, going from 4:10/km on a day I feel amazing to 4:50/km on a day when I'm tired, but 8/10 time it will be 4:25-4:35/km. Is it wrong to listen to run by feel? I don't think so, but please correct me where you think I'm wrong.
Little known fact: Kenyans and Ethiopians only became world class runners when they started using heart rate monitors. Before that their best runners were high 15/low 16 5K types.
Seriously, though. HRM can be useful but it is just a tool. Use it to monitor your response to training and to dial in RPE, ensure proper recovery, and some other useful feedback items, but to slavishly follow heart rate zone training is simply trading one narrow training viewpoint for another.
Guy who says "no" wrote:
Little known fact: Kenyans and Ethiopians only became world class runners when they started using heart rate monitors. Before that their best runners were high 15/low 16 5K types.
Do you have any source to prove this? Actually I heard a lot of stories of Kenyans finding it weird that europeans and americans always rely on their HR-monitors, but maybe I'm wrong?
The wrist-based optical HRM sensors are "good enough". They won't be as accurate as chest straps (around 5% variance). Having said that, if you're going to get a HRM, get one that does both bluetooth and ant+.
BR800 wrote:
Do you have any source to prove this? Actually I heard a lot of stories of Kenyans finding it weird that europeans and americans always rely on their HR-monitors, but maybe I'm wrong?
Sorry, that was my poor attempt at a joke...
Guy who says "no" wrote:
Little known fact: Kenyans and Ethiopians only became world class runners when they started using heart rate monitors. Before that their best runners were high 15/low 16 5K types.
Kenyans can't afford HRMs so they just use some scotch tape and put it around their chest.
In my opinion, the heart rate monitor is useful in low or high temperatures, in particular.
I always thought that most of my progress comes from the winter running, but I couldn't explain why.
When the temperatures are very low, is easy to push myself, because the discomfort of body temperature is reduced. So I push myself at tempo and above level without being aware.
In contrast, when is hot, I tend to slow down, due to higher discomfort caused by temperature.
I found this recently, when I've compared the treadmill with outdoor, using a heart rate monitor.
On the treadmill the discomfort was higher, despite that I had 300 grams of gear and a faster pace at a low heart rate.
Outside the discomfort was really low, wearing 3-4 kg of gear, running slow at a high heart rate, even for longer time.
BR800 wrote:
Guy who says "no" wrote:Little known fact: Kenyans and Ethiopians only became world class runners when they started using heart rate monitors. Before that their best runners were high 15/low 16 5K types.
Do you have any source to prove this? Actually I heard a lot of stories of Kenyans finding it weird that europeans and americans always rely on their HR-monitors, but maybe I'm wrong?
My personal experience with both HR and high altitude training is you can feel your lactate threshold easier at high altitude than you do at sea level. I don't know why this is, but it's theory of why I think Africans can sense and train most appropriately (~stay just below LT). This being said- your heartrate ranges are the same at both sea level and high altitude. Pace is obviously different. Plus, training by HR at HA can really help you know how to pace yourself more appropriately (both recovery and marathon pace up to lactate threshold).