Body vs Heart rate monitor

[cesar]

Hi,


What is a better way to gauge true effort( and therefore train optimally): to wear a heart rate monitor while training so that you know the effort (in terms of heart rate according to the formulas) you are putting while running or it is best to listen to your body( training by feel) to get optimal results?


I ask this because i have read that sometimes you believe you are running at an easy pace( in terms of feeling) but phisiologically( heart rate) you are going faster than you should in an easy day and should slow down.

[Andrew A.]

Training oneself to hold heart rate high for longer duration is a large part of the point of training.  However, as coach Vern Gambetta put it: "Monitoring HR as an isolated measure is basically an exercise in futility. Gathering random numbers."  Assigning hard-and-fast numbers to follow is as erroneous as doing the same for pace.  Learning to run by feel is far superior to both.

[Ryan]

To expand on Andrew's point, there are a lot of variables that can affect your heart rate on any given run, just as there are a lot of variables that can affect your pace on any given run. Late in long runs, there is cardiac drift. Your level of non-running stress, quality of sleep, weather, and numerous other variables can affect your heart rate in ways that may or may not be relevant to how hard you should do your workout.

For example, while you should probably slow down when you are running in the heat, this is something that both your heart rate and how you feel should tell you. If you are doing a workout while still wound up from an argument or if you have an event during a run that excites you such as a close call with a car or a dog chasing you, your heart rate will likely be elevated but that doesn't mean you should slow down. Listening to your body, you would know you don't need to slow down.

[ksrunner]

Hi Cesar,

I've never used a heart rate monitor, but my thought is that on race day, you're better off if you can run by feel.

My Garmin Forerunner broke this spring and I have run without a watch or GPS since that time and I am enjoying it. I have stopped keeping a detailed log with distance, time, pace, weather information, etc. I am keeping a journal where I jot down approximate mileage and perhaps some comments about that days runs, but that is about it.

I think that watches, GPS units, and heart rate monitors can all be useful tools, but I think that they can all be misused as well. I have a tendency to misuse them, so I think that if I do get a watch or another GPS, I will likely not wear them for every run. It's too easy to get so caught up in the numbers that you lose focus on the joy of running.

Coincidentally, my best year of racing since 2000 was 2005. In 2004, my watch broke and I didn't replace it. Most likely, I would have had a good year of racing even with the watch. At the time, I was consistently running to and from work and had been doing that for a couple of years. It is that consistency that made 2005 a very good year. Not measuring my daily runs that year definitely did not hurt my race performance.

Steve

[Andrew A.]

on race day, you're better off if you can run by feel.

Precisely, the end game of training is preparing to race.  If you are dependent on data to tell you how to run and you thus are paying close attention to a readout on your wrist then you are likely to miss important cues that could help enable one's best possible performance on the day.

Another good quip from coach Gambetta: "Training is cumulative. don't lose sight of that by focusing on individual exercises and workouts" 

[Ryan]

...on race day, you're better off if you can run by feel.

Precisely!

I think that watches, GPS units, and heart rate monitors can all be useful tools, but I think that they can all be misused as well.

Not only can be but are misused at a disturbing frequency.

[cesar]

Thanks for your responses.


I agree. Too much people focus on the numbers and focus more on gadgets than in competition. I really enjoy the race reports posted here( Ryan's reports for example) that describe the racing scene and the head to head competition. In other hand, the reports that are only posting mile splits without describing the head to head competition are bored to me.


I had months training without a watch( it is broken) but past Monday i started wearing one to time my run but don't look at it during and when the race come i will be racing it old school(without a watch) and just racing against people.

[Ryan]

Personally, I would think racing by splits so much instead of by head to head competition would also be boring. The thrill of racing comes in that head to head competition. Racing by splits sounds very monotonous and boring to me.

One thing you discover quickly about focusing on head to head competition, you still have to run within yourself. You have to know when you can go with someone or when doing so would be getting you in over your head. You have to know when you have enough to make a move or when to sit back and let someone else do the work. The best way to learn these things, essentially to learn how to run within yourself, is to learn your body's signals by listening to them on a daily basis.

[ksrunner]

The other problem with racing by splits is that you're likely to react inappropriately to the split -- especially if mile markers are incorrect. If you're reacting to splits instead of listening to your body, you're likely to either sell yourself short by running too conservatively or to push the pace too hard and bonk before the finish.

I could see a GPS proving useful for gathering splits during the race so that you could use them for post-race review -- so long as you don't worry about the splits during the race. If you gather the data over the course of several races, you might notice trends that point to weaknesses in your training or your race approach. Reacting to a single race is probably not a good idea. There may have been other factors that contribute to the pace differences. But, if you've got splits for several 5K races and you see that your first mile is always significantly faster than the rest or if your middle mile is always significantly slower, then maybe there's something there that you can work on.

Steve

[Ryan]

The other problem with racing by splits is that you're likely to react inappropriately to the split -- especially if mile markers are incorrect. If you're reacting to splits instead of listening to your body, you're likely to either sell yourself short by running too conservatively or to push the pace too hard and bonk before the finish.

Exactly. Mismarked miles, not taking into account the difficulty of specific miles. I actually remember running one race where someone saw/heard a split and took off sprinting. I heard my split a few seconds later and just said to myself "that mile is off by a good 10 seconds" and went on my way. By the next mile, things evened out for me. The guy who bolted was quickly toast and I passed him no problem well before the finish.

I could see a GPS proving useful for gathering splits during the race so that you could use them for post-race review -- so long as you don't worry about the splits during the race. If you gather the data over the course of several races, you might notice trends that point to weaknesses in your training or your race approach. Reacting to a single race is probably not a good idea. There may have been other factors that contribute to the pace differences. But, if you've got splits for several 5K races and you see that your first mile is always significantly faster than the rest or if your middle mile is always significantly slower, then maybe there's something there that you can work on.

Interesting thought. I could see the benefit in that kind of analysis. I would think similar analysis could be done by reviewing races without GPS data but that data could make pacing issues stand out so clearly that it would be impossible to ignore them.

[cesar]

Steve ,


checking splits post race is a nice idea. But, that is  said easier than it is done cause if i had the watch on , the temptation to look at my wrist would be too high. Therefore i would rather not to wear a watch at all. After all, the most important split is the finishing time.

[wsuraiderwi]

In my college days we had the option of using a heart rate monitor during our workouts and we were given certain thresholds not to exceed or drop below.  A large portion of the team used them throughout the year, however, I tossed mine after two workouts.  Heart rate has many determinants outside of running and to gauge a workout on it is very difficult.  For both of the workouts where I used the hrm I was hitting the higher limit and not even breathing hard and with a perceived minimal effort.  Most of our intervals were untimed as we employed the Igloi training methods so understanding your perceived effort was key...the heart rate monitor was just a nuisance.
 
I firmly believe that running by feel is the best way to teach your body to race effectively.  I have a gps watch but use it only for long runs (14+) when I need to hit MP for 6+ miles.  Other than that I run by feel and never use gps in a race.  I don't want to get caught up in the numbers while I am racing, if you here splits here and there you can obviously get a feel for your pace.  If you hit a mile split and are shocked by the result and you have to speed up or slow down dramatically (assuming the split is correct) then you have not trained yourself properly to race at the pace that you expected.

[Andrew A.]

Well put!  For a race as long as a marathon, 5K splits are perhaps a better indication -- those are what I would really be at all concerned with, anyway.

[Ryan]

Cesar and wsuraiderwi, you both hit on something I typed out in my post and removed. If I were to wear a GPS, I don't think I could resist the temptation to look, being the numbers guy I am. Personally, I do much better just hearing splits along the way when they are given. I use them more as a sanity check than anything and I rarely, if ever, respond to a split I hear by adjusting my effort level.

If you hit a mile split and are shocked by the result and you have to speed up or slow down dramatically (assuming the split is correct) then you have not trained yourself properly to race at the pace that you expected.

Let's see, I've already used "Precisely" and "Exactly" on this thread. I'm too tired to come up with another one so sorry that you're getting seconds for such a good thought but...Precisely.

[Double]

For marathoning I used to find the optimal pace I could keep for the race.
I practiced this pace a lot.  Much of it on a track in the summer.  I'd race some
and get a few good indicators of fitness.  Plus it got me battle ready.
 
I was trying to maximize my time, but racing people does figure in.  I never
wore a HR monitor, or would I know how to use one.  I really did not worry much about splits until after settling in after about 5 miles.  I did not concern myself with being off 10 seconds either way due to course variations, water stops, or weather.  If I was a minute or two down I didn't worry about, but may
have been if ahead.
 
I just wanted to get to 20 with my legs under me, take Kentucky windage, and
bring the sucker in as fast as I could.  The last three miles I'm unconcious. 
Time to get to Monster Island.