Do you monitor your HRM or pace when running races?
Options
Replies
-
I've always used pace when running or on the bike, with the occasional glance at HR.
If I use HR ranges it's only ever on the turbo trainer as it's easier to focus on it then.0 -
I don't train by HR, but if you do, ideally you'd use it to help you learn what your target race pace (based on HR intensity for the distance) actually feels like to run. If you do enough training at race pace (and other paces) with your HRM, you'll be well trained to run at the appropriate intensity and, in theory, shouldn't need to check your HR or your pace at all during the race because you'll be able to get yourself into the right rhythm, though it can be helpful to have the occasional quick glance at your splits to make sure you're staying focuses.
You also should be able to run faster than your LT pace if you are only doing a short race - it doesn't matter if the lactate builds up faster than you can clear it if you'll be finished soon anyway - you'll just be sore afterwards when it won't affect your racing.
This. I spent a good deal of time training by HR, so now I have a pretty good feel for what pace my HR zones correspond to. I occasionally still monitor during training, but not every run. By contrast, I never monitor my HR in a race. I think it would be more of a distraction than anything. As mentioned above, you will know the right intensity based on your training. For races up to 10K, I generally run over my LT threshold pace, but as you said, for longer distance races, you need to stay below this zone for the majority of the race and then you can kick it up at the end.1 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Foot pod is more accurate than GPS.
I will have to dig for the stats but I'm sure I read that a footpod is almost as accurate as GPS on flat surface. As soon as you introduce the outdoors, it starts to fail (unless your stride stays exactly the same running over obstacles as it does when running on a flat track).0 -
I look solely at my HR. I downloaded Garmins HR zone from the Connect IQ store and strictly look at it. Being in the Miami Valley, it's extremely hilly so I'm worried about flying up a hill and bonking out before the race is over....0
-
NorthCascades wrote: »Foot pod is more accurate than GPS.MeanderingMammal wrote: »In principle I'd agree, although I'm not sure of the materiality, particularly on anything other than the track. My inclination would be that it's just a different pool of error as stride length varies while cadence shouldn't.
A foot pod doesn't just count strides, though. It measures when your foot leaves the ground and when it comes back down, and has some motion sensors that know how fast it's moving while it's in the air. In practice, a foot pod is surprisingly accurate. With a Garmin Fenix 3, specifically, you get a better measure of instantaneous pace with a foot pod than you do with GPS alone.
It's material because it's the answer to @dewd2's question "What is the purpose of the footpod when running outside?" The accuracy and improved pace measurement might or might not matter to you, but that's the reason why people use them.
Also, tunnels. One of my bike routes goes through a long one, I lose the satellites every time I go through it. I don't run there but a lot of people do.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »It's material because it's the answer to @dewd2's question "What is the purpose of the footpod when running outside?" The accuracy and improved pace measurement might or might not matter to you, but that's the reason why people use them.
The point about materiality is more about whether the "more accurate" is actually meaningful in anything other than a lab.
On a track the pool of error from GPS becomes quite pronounced, so I can see where the pool of error for a footpod is likely to be smaller. That said, doing a speed session on a track would tend to be in multiples of 100 or 400 metres anyway, so use the track marking.
On the road or trail the GPS related pool of error is less significant, and whilst a footpod might give a better measure of short term pace, I'd question whether it makes enough of a difference to be meaningful.
Were we to be discussing measuring the length of a football field we could say that a 15cm engineers steel rule is more accurate than a 10 metre tape measure, but we wouldn't suggest using it in practice.
0 -
Correct. However you do go through tunnels, you go under bridges, you go under thick tree canopies. You cycling when it's heavily overcast and the clouds are messing with your GPS/GLONASS position. . .0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »The point about materiality is more about whether the "more accurate" is actually meaningful in anything other than a lab.
Like I said, there's a long tunnel on a popular running route near me, GPS measures it as zero feet. A foot pod is certainly more accurate than that, and I can tell you for a fact that tunnel isn't a lab. So it's pretty much settled.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »On the road or trail the GPS related pool of error is less significant, and whilst a footpod might give a better measure of short term pace, I'd question whether it makes enough of a difference to be meaningful.
It certainly depends a lot on which road, which trail, and which GPS. Even if you really really really want to be right here, a great many experienced runners disagree with you.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »Foot pod is more accurate than GPS.
I will have to dig for the stats but I'm sure I read that a footpod is almost as accurate as GPS on flat surface. As soon as you introduce the outdoors, it starts to fail (unless your stride stays exactly the same running over obstacles as it does when running on a flat track).
fwiw the positional error for consumer grade GPS can be anything out to 2metres at 80%. If you consider that error can be in any direction then worst case you've got a 4metre discrepancy between data points. Over an endurance race that'll probably net off, but it can depend on latitude, elevation, obstruction of the space vehicles, vegetation, humidity and microwave scintillation.
Diff GPS can reduce that compounded error down to less than a metre, and should reduce the effect of atmospherics.
I've seen issues in Iraq from atmospherics on the use of GPS and we ended up doing optical surveys to position equipment given the problems of the constellation
0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »The point about materiality is more about whether the "more accurate" is actually meaningful in anything other than a lab.
Like I said, there's a long tunnel on a popular running route near me, GPS measures it as zero feet. A foot pod is certainly more accurate than that, and I can tell you for a fact that tunnel isn't a lab. So it's pretty much settled.
So your exception case rulez.
cool0 -
Now I understand this post is primarily referring to running. However this happened yesterday and will give you a exact reason why Runners use Cadence Pods and Cycling use Speed Sensors to speed v. distance.
Yesterday I took my Aventon Mataro out for a 26 mile blast. The Bike is a fixed gear bike. Which means when the pedals are spinning the back tire is spinning at the same exact rate. The bike cannot coast. The speed and cadence should be an exact 1:1 relation. If I'm spinning at x RPM then my bike should be going X mph. However I didn't have my Speed Sensor installed on this bike yesterday. I relied on the GPS/GLONASS instead of swapping my Garmin Speed Sensor over to the bike. And this happened.
according to this chart I was actually going slower at a higher RPM. 18.8mph at 92RPM vs 20.1mph at 79RPM.
If I would of had a Speed Sensor on this bike the Speed would of matched the Cadence to a T. But because I was under a heavy Tree Canopy it took the GPS/GLONASS a few seconds to catch up which throws one's number off.
Same thing with runners. When you go through a tunnel, under heavy clouds, under a heavy tree canopy the same thing will happen when you're running.0 -
MeanderingMammal wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »The point about materiality is more about whether the "more accurate" is actually meaningful in anything other than a lab.
Like I said, there's a long tunnel on a popular running route near me, GPS measures it as zero feet. A foot pod is certainly more accurate than that, and I can tell you for a fact that tunnel isn't a lab. So it's pretty much settled.
So your exception case rulez.
cool
When you have some more experience I'm sure you'll figure it out.
0 -
Assuming I can remember I will wear my footpod for my marathon in November. The course is a Boston qualifier so I trust that it will be accurate. I did not wear it for my half yesterday and my Garmin Forerunner 630 gave me 13.15 miles. Since this course is also part of the full marathon I will trust that it is accurate. Maybe I will get a chance to run it again with the footpod as well. Not sure I'll be able to work that in...
FWIW, I did notice my watch buzzing at me for each mile just before the actual markers. It was consistent so I assume if it missed anything it was at the beginning of the race.0 -
NorthCascades wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »NorthCascades wrote: »MeanderingMammal wrote: »The point about materiality is more about whether the "more accurate" is actually meaningful in anything other than a lab.
Like I said, there's a long tunnel on a popular running route near me, GPS measures it as zero feet. A foot pod is certainly more accurate than that, and I can tell you for a fact that tunnel isn't a lab. So it's pretty much settled.
So your exception case rulez.
cool
When you have some more experience I'm sure you'll figure it out.
Given that I've only got a BEng and MSc in Control Engineering I might need to go and do a PhD in it...
1 -
I generally train by pace, but use HR for analysis after the fact. It can give you clues to why things happened the way they did, in a race or workout. Also, as I get into better shape, I find myself looking at my watch less and less, and run more by feel. When I do this, I find myself going faster, for some reason. When the weather is hot, I may monitor my HR during long efforts as a proxy for hydration. (Your HR is inversely proportional to your blood volume, which can decrease as you get dehydrated.)
Humorously, as my eyes get crummier with age, I find the watch information to be a lot less useful. (I can't read it!)
Finally, doesn't your Fenix have a cadence monitor built into it? My Garmin 220 does and can do a pretty good job of estimating distance and pace when I lose GPS signal.
0 -
Recently I went for a 16 mile run with my friend but when we'd finished her garmin said 16.1 miles and mine said 15.85. Luckily I didn't care (except I did a bit because I ran up and down the road till it was a round number ). But in certified measured races measured with a Jones counter I'm more inclined to trust the course measurer than my GPS, which thinks they are all short. And on the track obviously I'm more inclined to trust the fact that it's a 400m track. Easy runs don't matter, because there are no prizes for winning those. 1
-
Bikes don't change stride in the middle of a run.
My bike has a speed sensor but it given it links to a GPS then it doesn't really tell me anything useful when cycling outside (although it is useful on a turbo trainer). That speed sensor also gives cadence though, which is useful (and more of an analogue to what a footpod gives you when running).0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.5K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 391 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 925 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions