This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
I run 4-5 times a week and am reasonably serious about - I record all my runs, I do training stuff like intervals and hill reps, I race distances from a few short hilly miles up to half marathons (although I'm doing the 26.6 miles of the Lairig Ghru race in a couple of weeks, but that's a bit of an aberration). I have a GPS watch to tell me distances, times, speed, pace, and all that kind of stuff.
I could, if I wanted, record heart rate. But what would I do with the data? I know when I'm running hard and when I'm taking it easy, and I know that my heart rate will go up when I do faster stuff.
So how would I benefit from recording heart rate during training sessions and races?
Post edited at 17:34
In reply to tony:
For me, I want another metric that tells me how hard I am working, percieved effort isn't always as accurate as we think.
Not during a session, but perhaps to say make the next session easier or harder.
For me, I want another metric that tells me how hard I am working, percieved effort isn't always as accurate as we think.
Not during a session, but perhaps to say make the next session easier or harder.
In reply to tony:
I use it for a couple of things:
- To moderate myself when I need to (e.g. stop myself burning out on a hill or early on in a long run)
- To get an idea after a run of how hard I actually worked - e.g., did I actually go all out in those intervals, or could I have worked harder
- To get an idea of when I need to back off. If I am ill or over-training, I notice that my heart-rate is higher for the same pace or perceived effort - and sometimes higher when I put the monitor on before I start running. Early warning is good.
I also like to look at the pretty traces
I am quite new at this, mind you, so other suggestions welcome.
I use it for a couple of things:
- To moderate myself when I need to (e.g. stop myself burning out on a hill or early on in a long run)
- To get an idea after a run of how hard I actually worked - e.g., did I actually go all out in those intervals, or could I have worked harder
- To get an idea of when I need to back off. If I am ill or over-training, I notice that my heart-rate is higher for the same pace or perceived effort - and sometimes higher when I put the monitor on before I start running. Early warning is good.
I also like to look at the pretty traces
I am quite new at this, mind you, so other suggestions welcome.
1
In reply to tony:
I'm fairly serious when it comes to running and love my stats - 2500km per year runner - run 5-6 times per week.
I never care about my HR data while I'm out on a run - since I'm always in the hills I just go on perceived effort as the terrain means keeping my HR within a certain band is fairly pointless. I guess I've just got used to putting the HR strap on every time I go out.
I often look back on stored data in Strava to see how hard the effort was. Although a bit gimmicky, the 'suffer score' uses HR data to give a quick metric as to how intense the workout was. HR data also makes calorie estimation more accurate.
One key thing I do is measure my resting HR every week and my HRM is an easy way to do this. Its usually within a 3-4 beat range but if its drastically up, it can be a sign of overtraining so is a good indicator that you're going to start getting run down.
I'm fairly serious when it comes to running and love my stats - 2500km per year runner - run 5-6 times per week.
I never care about my HR data while I'm out on a run - since I'm always in the hills I just go on perceived effort as the terrain means keeping my HR within a certain band is fairly pointless. I guess I've just got used to putting the HR strap on every time I go out.
I often look back on stored data in Strava to see how hard the effort was. Although a bit gimmicky, the 'suffer score' uses HR data to give a quick metric as to how intense the workout was. HR data also makes calorie estimation more accurate.
One key thing I do is measure my resting HR every week and my HRM is an easy way to do this. Its usually within a 3-4 beat range but if its drastically up, it can be a sign of overtraining so is a good indicator that you're going to start getting run down.
In reply to tony:
If the numbers go up it means you're having more fun
> So how would I benefit from recording heart rate during training sessions and races?
If the numbers go up it means you're having more fun
1
In reply to nufkin:
We obviously have different ideas about fun ...
But thanks everyone - food for thought. I'm still not sure about the faff factor with chest straps, and I'm not going to shell out for an optical HR/GPS watch just yet.
> If the numbers go up it means you're having more fun
We obviously have different ideas about fun ...
But thanks everyone - food for thought. I'm still not sure about the faff factor with chest straps, and I'm not going to shell out for an optical HR/GPS watch just yet.
In reply to tony:
The chest strap isn't too much faff.
The only use I have for HR values whilst exercising is when I'm aiming to keep in a particular range, say zone 2, but you need to be on your own when training in this manner so that you don't get the competitive urge to keep up with your mates. It requires quite a bit of concentration and time to do correctly.
Pre or post exercise then it's useful data to compare efforts to see if you are improving, so if you do a hill in a specific time then you can either do it quicker at the same rate of exertion or do it in the same time but with less effort. Measuring your HR first thing in the morning can give you clues as to whether you are overtraining or starting with a cold or similar. Obviously you need to know what your usual HR is.
The chest strap isn't too much faff.
The only use I have for HR values whilst exercising is when I'm aiming to keep in a particular range, say zone 2, but you need to be on your own when training in this manner so that you don't get the competitive urge to keep up with your mates. It requires quite a bit of concentration and time to do correctly.
Pre or post exercise then it's useful data to compare efforts to see if you are improving, so if you do a hill in a specific time then you can either do it quicker at the same rate of exertion or do it in the same time but with less effort. Measuring your HR first thing in the morning can give you clues as to whether you are overtraining or starting with a cold or similar. Obviously you need to know what your usual HR is.
In reply to Bob:
I know all that in theory, but what difference does it actually make in practice? For example, I have a set of 6x4 hill reps I do every week. I know how far I get each time, and I know how much better/worse I do with each set and how I feel as I'm doing them. And there are inevitable variations according to what I was doing the day before - easy/hard/rest/bike ride/whatever.
So how, in this case, would HR data actually make a difference?
> Pre or post exercise then it's useful data to compare efforts to see if you are improving, so if you do a hill in a specific time then you can either do it quicker at the same rate of exertion or do it in the same time but with less effort.
I know all that in theory, but what difference does it actually make in practice? For example, I have a set of 6x4 hill reps I do every week. I know how far I get each time, and I know how much better/worse I do with each set and how I feel as I'm doing them. And there are inevitable variations according to what I was doing the day before - easy/hard/rest/bike ride/whatever.
So how, in this case, would HR data actually make a difference?
In reply to tony:
There can be a difference between your perceived rate of exertion and what your body's actually doing. While HR data isn't as accurate as power readings due to HR lag (it can be 10 to 20 seconds before your HR reflects the actual effort) you can see how your HR drifts over an individual effort and across efforts. Getting power data is much easier, if requiring yet more expense, on a bike than when running.
For example: does your HR steadily increase throughout the effort or rise quickly then remain fairly steady? Last winter I spent quite a bit of time on the turbo trainer where I could use both power and HR data. Doing intervals at specific power levels and with timed recovery periods I could see what my HR was doing and how much recovery I needed to continue the intervals. Knowing where my weak points were (everywhere!) I could then aim at working on improving in those areas. I'd really good power and recovery for efforts up to about a minute; two to five minute efforts would waste me and then ten minute efforts were fine (if hard work). My power graph had a dip for those times while my HR went up, or rather was higher than I would have expected. This winter I know where to concentrate my efforts.
Like you say there are lots of variables for those of use who aren't professional athletes who can control the rest of their lives to ensure consistent results. It's been said that the benefit of being a pro sports person isn't that you can train when you need to but that you can rest when you need to.
There can be a difference between your perceived rate of exertion and what your body's actually doing. While HR data isn't as accurate as power readings due to HR lag (it can be 10 to 20 seconds before your HR reflects the actual effort) you can see how your HR drifts over an individual effort and across efforts. Getting power data is much easier, if requiring yet more expense, on a bike than when running.
For example: does your HR steadily increase throughout the effort or rise quickly then remain fairly steady? Last winter I spent quite a bit of time on the turbo trainer where I could use both power and HR data. Doing intervals at specific power levels and with timed recovery periods I could see what my HR was doing and how much recovery I needed to continue the intervals. Knowing where my weak points were (everywhere!) I could then aim at working on improving in those areas. I'd really good power and recovery for efforts up to about a minute; two to five minute efforts would waste me and then ten minute efforts were fine (if hard work). My power graph had a dip for those times while my HR went up, or rather was higher than I would have expected. This winter I know where to concentrate my efforts.
Like you say there are lots of variables for those of use who aren't professional athletes who can control the rest of their lives to ensure consistent results. It's been said that the benefit of being a pro sports person isn't that you can train when you need to but that you can rest when you need to.
In reply to tony:
I've a friend (not a serious runner) who does just one race per year, and assesses his performance based on a distance ran per heart beat (cm/beat) metric!
I've never got on with using a heart rate monitor for training. The strap annoys me and I don't find it a useful way of calibrating effort. You can quickly get lost in post-training data analysis, better to spend the time training!
I've a friend (not a serious runner) who does just one race per year, and assesses his performance based on a distance ran per heart beat (cm/beat) metric!
I've never got on with using a heart rate monitor for training. The strap annoys me and I don't find it a useful way of calibrating effort. You can quickly get lost in post-training data analysis, better to spend the time training!
In reply to tony:
Warning nerd alert:
I only have a fairly basic heart rate monitor which I mainly use to give me my average heart rate for a session. I enter this data into a spreadsheet I created along with times, distance and height gain (I mainly fell run). This is put through a series of equations that produce a couple of different point scores for each run (based on different metrics) which are then graphed to show me trends in my performance and also performance vs. heart rate. (The reliability of my scoring system is confirmed by predicting performance in races, in the last race (the Cader Idris fell race) I did I predicted my time and a number of my friends who were also running to within 30 seconds, <0.5% of total time. I did not tell them their predicted time before hand).
By using heart rate you can see if you are actually getting fitter or just trying harder, which is hard to do on when lots of your runs are at different efforts and are hilly.
My latest discovery is that while I am getting faster my Cardiovascular system is apparently getting fitter fast than my legs, this has identified a relative weakness for me to work on. So I am going to target more of my training on leg fitness and conditioning over cardiovascular fitness.
So more data means smarter training in theory, if you like numerical analysis that is! I'm sure things like strava tell you this sort of thing without you having to develop your own set of equations.
It's also probably worth mentioning that I'm pretty new to running, (only been doing it for a couple of years) and don't do nearly as much running as it sounds like you do. I'd just get better by running more, in fact a few of my friends laugh at me for being so analytical but running so little!
Warning nerd alert:
I only have a fairly basic heart rate monitor which I mainly use to give me my average heart rate for a session. I enter this data into a spreadsheet I created along with times, distance and height gain (I mainly fell run). This is put through a series of equations that produce a couple of different point scores for each run (based on different metrics) which are then graphed to show me trends in my performance and also performance vs. heart rate. (The reliability of my scoring system is confirmed by predicting performance in races, in the last race (the Cader Idris fell race) I did I predicted my time and a number of my friends who were also running to within 30 seconds, <0.5% of total time. I did not tell them their predicted time before hand).
By using heart rate you can see if you are actually getting fitter or just trying harder, which is hard to do on when lots of your runs are at different efforts and are hilly.
My latest discovery is that while I am getting faster my Cardiovascular system is apparently getting fitter fast than my legs, this has identified a relative weakness for me to work on. So I am going to target more of my training on leg fitness and conditioning over cardiovascular fitness.
So more data means smarter training in theory, if you like numerical analysis that is! I'm sure things like strava tell you this sort of thing without you having to develop your own set of equations.
It's also probably worth mentioning that I'm pretty new to running, (only been doing it for a couple of years) and don't do nearly as much running as it sounds like you do. I'd just get better by running more, in fact a few of my friends laugh at me for being so analytical but running so little!
In reply to tony:
I think we can misjudge effort, I do hill reps or fartlek efforts and even allowing for the odd rogue reading, Strava suggests my performance is either better or worse than my perceived effort would suggest.
Like you I'm not a fan of the chest strap.
I think we can misjudge effort, I do hill reps or fartlek efforts and even allowing for the odd rogue reading, Strava suggests my performance is either better or worse than my perceived effort would suggest.
Like you I'm not a fan of the chest strap.
In reply to tony:
For me nothing, I tried an HR monitor because it seemed the thing to do. Always a bit erratic, never got on with the chest strap, distraction when it lost the connection. Same again with a different watch and I never did anything with the data so lost interest. Strava tells me enough. You could simplify that to a watch tells you enough ...or a race position. Best not dwell on that though
For me nothing, I tried an HR monitor because it seemed the thing to do. Always a bit erratic, never got on with the chest strap, distraction when it lost the connection. Same again with a different watch and I never did anything with the data so lost interest. Strava tells me enough. You could simplify that to a watch tells you enough ...or a race position. Best not dwell on that though
In reply to Orgsm:
Funnily enough, this week I have mostly been wearing a kinda-sorta fitbit and donating the data to medical science. http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/physical-activity-monitor/
> I donate mine to the BHF for their research
Funnily enough, this week I have mostly been wearing a kinda-sorta fitbit and donating the data to medical science. http://www.ukbiobank.ac.uk/physical-activity-monitor/
In reply to TGreen:
You're obviously not new to being a bit of a nerd though.
> It's also probably worth mentioning that I'm pretty new to running...
You're obviously not new to being a bit of a nerd though.
In reply to everyone:
Perhaps I should have asked a slightly different question. Has anyone seen perceptible improvements in their performance as a result of using HR data to change their training regime? I'd be interested if I could knock a minute off my 5k time (current best 19.31), or a couple of minutes off my 10k time to get back under 40 minutes.
Perhaps I should have asked a slightly different question. Has anyone seen perceptible improvements in their performance as a result of using HR data to change their training regime? I'd be interested if I could knock a minute off my 5k time (current best 19.31), or a couple of minutes off my 10k time to get back under 40 minutes.
In reply to The New NickB:
I guess its down to personal preference - but once I've got it on I forget its there. The worst thing is putting it on during cold, dark winter mornings when its freezing - I try to remember to leave it on the bathroom radiator when that's the case
Everything I've read about optical HR monitors suggest their accuracy is still some way off. Apparently earbuds with optical HR sensors are better because its darker inside your ear and they rely on the light feedback from the LEDs. But that requires wearing headphones and that's a whole new can of worms
But to answer the OP's latest question - no, in 6 years of running I can't say my HR data has been a pivotal factor in my performance increase (and I've basically got faster, and run further, year on year). The biggest contributor is my GPS watch, ensuring that I can measure distances easily for intervals, and just easily ensuring that I'm running far enough.
I guess the biggest issue is that without the HR strap (I sometimes forget it when I'm traveling) I feel like I'm missing a bit of the historical data, even though its probably just 'nice to have'.
> Like you I'm not a fan of the chest strap.
I guess its down to personal preference - but once I've got it on I forget its there. The worst thing is putting it on during cold, dark winter mornings when its freezing - I try to remember to leave it on the bathroom radiator when that's the case
Everything I've read about optical HR monitors suggest their accuracy is still some way off. Apparently earbuds with optical HR sensors are better because its darker inside your ear and they rely on the light feedback from the LEDs. But that requires wearing headphones and that's a whole new can of worms
But to answer the OP's latest question - no, in 6 years of running I can't say my HR data has been a pivotal factor in my performance increase (and I've basically got faster, and run further, year on year). The biggest contributor is my GPS watch, ensuring that I can measure distances easily for intervals, and just easily ensuring that I'm running far enough.
I guess the biggest issue is that without the HR strap (I sometimes forget it when I'm traveling) I feel like I'm missing a bit of the historical data, even though its probably just 'nice to have'.
In reply to tony:
I can only speak on behalf of semi-long endurance stuff (triathlon) but having HR zones AS WELL AS a proper training plan to follow hugely improved my fitness the last 2 years.
Perhaps it's more important being able to sit right below the red-line in endurance events, but I was amazed at how easy recovery intervals had to be and how conservative I had to be going uphill (to keep in z2 rather than during interval training). Also amazed at how hard I had to work some days and how easy it was on other days.
For me the HR data itself isn't going to do much, it's using it to follow a properly defined training plan which tackles your weaknesses and builds strength through phases towards a peak which is the real benefit of it (I trained for 1 year with HR data but no plan and then 2 years with plan - have got relatively much fitter with plan and targeted training). You then need an accurate test of your threshold and a good training plan to follow for your specific event. Just having data isn't going to make you faster, it's what you do with it.
For me this has meant a fair bit more effort than just keeping in general shape and has become a bit of a chore after 3 years so I'm going to switch it up a bit next year and do something else which doesn't feel like work or a job having to do specific exercises at a specific intensity on specific days for specific duration...
Having said all that, I (obviously) bought it because it a) had a carbon-fibre facade on the watch, and b) looked cool!
I can only speak on behalf of semi-long endurance stuff (triathlon) but having HR zones AS WELL AS a proper training plan to follow hugely improved my fitness the last 2 years.
Perhaps it's more important being able to sit right below the red-line in endurance events, but I was amazed at how easy recovery intervals had to be and how conservative I had to be going uphill (to keep in z2 rather than during interval training). Also amazed at how hard I had to work some days and how easy it was on other days.
For me the HR data itself isn't going to do much, it's using it to follow a properly defined training plan which tackles your weaknesses and builds strength through phases towards a peak which is the real benefit of it (I trained for 1 year with HR data but no plan and then 2 years with plan - have got relatively much fitter with plan and targeted training). You then need an accurate test of your threshold and a good training plan to follow for your specific event. Just having data isn't going to make you faster, it's what you do with it.
For me this has meant a fair bit more effort than just keeping in general shape and has become a bit of a chore after 3 years so I'm going to switch it up a bit next year and do something else which doesn't feel like work or a job having to do specific exercises at a specific intensity on specific days for specific duration...
Having said all that, I (obviously) bought it because it a) had a carbon-fibre facade on the watch, and b) looked cool!
Post edited at 15:00
In reply to James Dunn:
I think your comment about recovery intervals is telling: most people don't train hard enough or rest easily enough - it's the range between the two that kicks the body's adaptation, you need the really hard effort to get the body to go "WTF!! I'd better sort something out if I've got to do that" and the easy rest to let it do the adapation. A lot of people go out on a tempo run/ride for their rest when really this is at way too high an intensity, it's effectively another effort rather than a rest. So I'd say an HRM in those cases is more than useful.
Read/listen to the British track cycling team: they train to an intensity where they have sick buckets by the side of the track but are all but banned from riding when resting.
I think your comment about recovery intervals is telling: most people don't train hard enough or rest easily enough - it's the range between the two that kicks the body's adaptation, you need the really hard effort to get the body to go "WTF!! I'd better sort something out if I've got to do that" and the easy rest to let it do the adapation. A lot of people go out on a tempo run/ride for their rest when really this is at way too high an intensity, it's effectively another effort rather than a rest. So I'd say an HRM in those cases is more than useful.
Read/listen to the British track cycling team: they train to an intensity where they have sick buckets by the side of the track but are all but banned from riding when resting.
Post edited at 15:12
1
In reply to tony:
Yes. I found my HR was too high during my long runs and dropped my speed right down and my endurance increased significantly as a result.
Yes. I found my HR was too high during my long runs and dropped my speed right down and my endurance increased significantly as a result.
1
In reply to Bob:
I definitely agree. Hard intervals make me want to (or actually) throw up quite frequently. Easy is being able to comfortably hold a conversation. It was more 'extreme' (if you like) than I was expecting.
I think my first year of training I overtrained by doing what you suggest - going too easy on hard efforts and too hard on easy efforts. But I had a HR monitor during that year; the important thing for me is knowing what to do with the data, not just having it.
Even with calculating your zones accurately you still need a well designed plan to get fitter. I'd guess you would get fitter on a good training plan based on perceived effort than a poor plan based on accurate HR zones...?
I definitely agree. Hard intervals make me want to (or actually) throw up quite frequently. Easy is being able to comfortably hold a conversation. It was more 'extreme' (if you like) than I was expecting.
I think my first year of training I overtrained by doing what you suggest - going too easy on hard efforts and too hard on easy efforts. But I had a HR monitor during that year; the important thing for me is knowing what to do with the data, not just having it.
Even with calculating your zones accurately you still need a well designed plan to get fitter. I'd guess you would get fitter on a good training plan based on perceived effort than a poor plan based on accurate HR zones...?
Post edited at 15:18
In reply to tony:
I think what I'm saying Tony is that if you are following a good plan with accurate HR data then this is the best option, followed by a good plan on perceived effort, followed by a poor plan. So spend the money on a coach rather than a HR strap.
I think what I'm saying Tony is that if you are following a good plan with accurate HR data then this is the best option, followed by a good plan on perceived effort, followed by a poor plan. So spend the money on a coach rather than a HR strap.
In reply to James Dunn:
There have been occasions at the end of a structured turbo session that my muscles are twitching so much that I struggle to get off the bike and it takes a minute or two to recompose myself, not got to the point of wanting to throw up though I've been close. My wife refuses to be in the house when I'm on the turbo as she's convinced I'm going to die from the way I'm gasping at the end of each effort!
A big problem of course with living in an (in)temperate climate is that you think "Oh, it's a nice day, I'll go for a run/ride" when really you should be resting. A lot of training plans assume a Californian type climate that's reasonably reliable so you can create a training plan and have confidence that you don't have to head out in to horizontal rain.
There have been occasions at the end of a structured turbo session that my muscles are twitching so much that I struggle to get off the bike and it takes a minute or two to recompose myself, not got to the point of wanting to throw up though I've been close. My wife refuses to be in the house when I'm on the turbo as she's convinced I'm going to die from the way I'm gasping at the end of each effort!
A big problem of course with living in an (in)temperate climate is that you think "Oh, it's a nice day, I'll go for a run/ride" when really you should be resting. A lot of training plans assume a Californian type climate that's reasonably reliable so you can create a training plan and have confidence that you don't have to head out in to horizontal rain.
In reply to Bob:
Haha, I have the same after hard turbo efforts. It's like a horrendous hangover crammed into the 5 minutes after the session. Odd, the things we do for 'fun'.
Agree again, although the benefit of having a Scottish coach is the ability to alter this based on the weather. My plan is set weekly (http://www.dzfitness.co.uk for anyone interested) so I can at least make an attempt at planning the weather and/or changing sessions where appropriate.
Another reason for wanting to do something less strict next year is precisely to not end up resting on nice weather days and having a 6 hour solo bike ride in 35mph winds, 7 degrees and rain (which seems to have been the typical long-bike conditions the weather gods have chosen for me this year)! The more you sacrifice the fitter you get though. And at least in those instances the HR data gives you something to focus on!
Haha, I have the same after hard turbo efforts. It's like a horrendous hangover crammed into the 5 minutes after the session. Odd, the things we do for 'fun'.
Agree again, although the benefit of having a Scottish coach is the ability to alter this based on the weather. My plan is set weekly (http://www.dzfitness.co.uk for anyone interested) so I can at least make an attempt at planning the weather and/or changing sessions where appropriate.
Another reason for wanting to do something less strict next year is precisely to not end up resting on nice weather days and having a 6 hour solo bike ride in 35mph winds, 7 degrees and rain (which seems to have been the typical long-bike conditions the weather gods have chosen for me this year)! The more you sacrifice the fitter you get though. And at least in those instances the HR data gives you something to focus on!
This topic has been archived, and won't accept reply postings.
Loading Notifications...