Heart rate
2 lurkers |
300 watchers
Nov 2018
11:17am, 14 Nov 2018
1,527 posts
|
J2R
geordiegirl, you may want to take a look at the 'Polarised training' thread, if you haven't already done so. It's VERY long but full of useful material. I swear by a polarised training method. Basically do 80% or so of your runs easy (conversational pace), which allows you to do a reasonably high mileage without overloading your system, and do the other 20% as a mix of short fast stuff (short enough and fast enough that HR isn't especially useful as a measure, in that it never has the chance to get to a high sustained level), and more race specific speed work, particularly late in the training cycle.
|
Nov 2018
11:56am, 14 Nov 2018
409 posts
|
SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss)
geordiegirl I'm not a HR master but I do have some experience. The number 1 most effective use of HR training is it slows you down! And this is a good thing. By spending most of your running early on in training under your aerobic threshold, you'll get faster at all distances. Most recreational runners' habitual pace is too fast -it's in the no-man's land territory and as a result, less effective. It starts by establishing your maximum heart rate. In itself this figure isn't important, but it's used to establish your aerobic threshold (considered to be under 77% of max). This is the important bit. You have to be patient, believe in the process and don't care too much about pace -that's a result of your fitness |
Nov 2018
12:03pm, 14 Nov 2018
19,987 posts
|
Wriggling Snake
I don't use HR training at all, but can't agree more with the idea of 80/20 or that most people's easy/recovery/log runs are too fast, and don't start me on intervals ;-).
|
Nov 2018
12:08pm, 14 Nov 2018
29,541 posts
|
HappyG(rrr)
(I haven't had any problem with the distance or height measure with VA3 ChrisU - worth checking with Garmin? I don't have a decent gauge for height - I don't do much real mountain running - but distance is as accurate as an GPS as far as I can see.) Does anyone know about such a device that I referred to a mome ago? Chest sited, stick on, wash proof, clean, hygienic long term, "always attached" HR sensor? I'd stop short of subcutaneous, cos I haven't quite signed up to cyborg tech for humans yet, but surely a very thin, wireless, battery lasts a year etc. isn't beyond modern technology, is it? What would you pay for a reliable, correctly sited "skin mounted" HR monitor, connected to phone or watch in usual way (Bluetooth presumably)? I'd say optical HR is about 40-50 quid premium on a watch, and it doesn't bliddy work. I'd pay £100? for a skin-mounted one that did work. Any Fetchie engineers / entrepreneurs want to look into it?!  G
|
Nov 2018
12:09pm, 14 Nov 2018
6,034 posts
|
larkim
The most beneficial thing to me in my running is that HR is the single best measure of tracking improvements in overall fitness which translates very well into improved running performance across all distances from 5k upwards (I don't really have much experience below that in terms of distance). I may not follow HR training guidance very well (in fact, I put my faith in P&D plans instead really, which are pace directed rather than HR directed), but measuring HR is well worth doing from that objective measure of fitness aspect alone, particularly over a period of time (i.e. rather than just run by run). |
|
Nov 2018
12:29pm, 14 Nov 2018
1,528 posts
|
J2R
I think SSHLP hits the nail on the head there, in that the biggest single benefit of heart rate training is that it makes training easier, for the same or greater benefits. I run a 10K at 5:45-5:50 mins/mile but I do the vast majority of my training at more like 8:00-8:15 mins/mile, which is normally about 50 beats or so below my HRmax, so feels pretty easy. Makes training easier and more pleasant, reduces risk of injury and burnout, yet improves performance. What's not to like?
|
|
Nov 2018
12:31pm, 14 Nov 2018
410 posts
|
SSLHP (Shoes smell like horse piss)
I do 'time trial' every 6 weeks during training, which works well as larkim suggests. It works like this: Find somewhere you can run a flat mile (even by having to go out and back). I use an athletic's track. After a warm-up run 1-mile at 130 bpm, 140, 150 and 160. Record your pace separately for each. In 6-week's time when you do this again, you should see in increase in your pace for the same heart rate. Important things to bear in mind: You must build UP to your target HR slowly (try not to go above and come down) and spend a while making sure you're locked-in to the right HR before you press record. (it might take 1/2 or so to do this). You actual pace is not important, it's just a figure by which you measure tour improvements over time. There's a very good book called 'My Best Race Training Manual For Runners' by Richard Diaz which explains all things HR training in easy to understand terms |
Nov 2018
12:35pm, 14 Nov 2018
13,467 posts
|
Chrisull
Ok, let's hurl a dead cat onto the table. I've become sceptical of the term "no-man's land". I think also some of the top coaches have as well for a while now. I don't think it's helpful, and I think it is counter productive. See the blog: scienceofrunning.com Apologies if this has been posted before here and debunked. I think the point he makes that is really strong is: *Quote* "We have a difficult question: How to improve the complex notion of performance? And we’ve replaced it with “How do we improve these parameters?” The second question is much easier to grasp our heads around then the first. It’s fine to simplify and reduce, but in this case we have to ask if the second question really answers the first." *End Quote* I'd concur, and I'm not sure it does. I'd use Fetch's own data in support, which indicates the faster you train for a marathon, the faster you will run that marathon. Let's call it the Paul_a conundrum (in honour of Paul who consistently will argue this one whenever he's around). It's almost the reverse of, (but NOT the opposite) Seb Coe's maxim "I've always felt that long, slow distance produces long, slow runners." I'm not arguing this one. I think long slow runs have their place. However let's be clear this is definitely NOT the same thing. After all it might be possible running slow might make you slower, AND it could also be true that running fast, doesn't necessarily make you faster. BUT the Paul_a conundrum to me is that on Fetch, to gross over-simplify- "the faster you train for a race, the faster your race will be." In fact if you look at all my training runs in 2012, my fastest year, they were on average way faster. Now the HR zone model would argue that my zones in 2012 were higher, ie higher MAX HR, lower resting HR. But what if they were not? The limited stats I have available from that time seem to say not. I hit 176 in a bleep test then, and lower on the hill test. I have hit 175 this year. So what IF regardless of other factors (let's rule them out for a moment - injury, fatigue), the MAIN driver behind my performance increase in 2012 was training at a higher rate which produced a higher training stimulus which led to my improved times? Now I am NOT dismissing HR training, or polarised training. I am merely taking issue with this maxim. Does this "zone" exist? And if it does, where is the statistical evidence that shows when a runner isn't injured or fatigued, training in this zone is of less benefit than training in the easy zone. |
Nov 2018
12:48pm, 14 Nov 2018
9,462 posts
|
Garfield
My Fenix 5 does weird things over the same distance at times. I have a small run that I'll do when I'm completely knackered just to stretch out the legs gently and it sometimes gets the distance right, other times, it thinks the run is shorter... so 1.28 miles generally, but once it measured the same run as 1.11 miles. HR...well, I've started taking some of the readings after about 10 minutes with a truckload of salt...as it goes off the scale, so to speak, when I'm not running all *that* hard. Time to dig out the HR band from my Forerunner 620 to see what happens!
|
|
Nov 2018
12:56pm, 14 Nov 2018
1,529 posts
|
J2R
Chrisull, I'm not sure that training in the zone you mention is necessarily LESS beneficial than training in the easy zone, but it is presumably more likely to result in injury or overtraining, so unless you get some extra benefit from training in that zone, it probably isn't worth it. Also, for me, one of the most important focuses is on recovery. If I consistently trained at a higher HR, I would be less likely to fully recover between training sessions. I don't think it is at all clear-cut, and 'your mileage may vary'. I sometimes wonder if the fastest runners are those who are genetically blessed such that they can sustain a higher training load and can get away with repeated sessions at a high heart rate, but for the vast majority of us, doing most of our training in an easier zone is likely to result in better outcomes long term. |
Related Threads
-
Daniels Running Formula. The Definitive Wire.
Jul 2023
-
Jack daniels marathon plan help
May 2014
-
Polarized training
Apr 2024
-
Low Resting/ High Training Heart Rate
Jan 2021
-
No limit to the benefits of exercise in reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease
Jan 2021
-
Resetting Max Heart Rate
Dec 2020
-
Resting Heart Rate: Is it normal
Oct 2020
-
Heart rate zones
Jul 2020
-
Running Heart rate
Jun 2020
-
Heart Rate monitors
Jun 2020