HR Tracking/Training 101
Options
Replies
-
@MobyCarp @PastorVincent @MNLittleFinn So you all managed to find zones that you are happy with? Also on routes that aren't flat?
I ran up and down a hill in my neighbourhood a few times tonight, but even when I run at what feels like an "easy effort" all the time, my heart rate goes up on the climbs and down on the descents... Do you really manage to keep the HR stable across different terrain?0 -
_nikkiwolf_ wrote: »@MobyCarp @PastorVincent @MNLittleFinn So you all managed to find zones that you are happy with? Also on routes that aren't flat?
I ran up and down a hill in my neighbourhood a few times tonight, but even when I run at what feels like an "easy effort" all the time, my heart rate goes up on the climbs and down on the descents... Do you really manage to keep the HR stable across different terrain?
Yes. I adjust pace when my HR gets out of zone..... when im paying attention to it, that is.0 -
_nikkiwolf_ wrote: »@MobyCarp @PastorVincent @MNLittleFinn So you all managed to find zones that you are happy with? Also on routes that aren't flat?
I ran up and down a hill in my neighbourhood a few times tonight, but even when I run at what feels like an "easy effort" all the time, my heart rate goes up on the climbs and down on the descents... Do you really manage to keep the HR stable across different terrain?
No.
As you can see my HR vs pace there is way off. That run had like 1100 or 1200 feet of elevation in it so plenty of hills. That is why you target a RANGE. So like "Moderate" for me is 139-154. That was 87% of my run. So no, cannot keep a "stable" HR, but can stay in a range.
Disclaimer: I was not paying attention to HR on this run. Just feel.
1 -
_nikkiwolf_ wrote: »@MobyCarp @PastorVincent @MNLittleFinn So you all managed to find zones that you are happy with? Also on routes that aren't flat?
I ran up and down a hill in my neighbourhood a few times tonight, but even when I run at what feels like an "easy effort" all the time, my heart rate goes up on the climbs and down on the descents... Do you really manage to keep the HR stable across different terrain?
I am not a hard core devotee of HR training. I've looked at it, and remain aware of the issue that reasonable systems compute zones off max HR or lactic threshold HR. Neither of those numbers is easy to determine accurately.
When I look at the reserve HR method (% between resting HR and max HR) with a best guess max HR, the resulting 5 zones in Garmin make sense for me. When I look at the % of LTRH zones that have floated around the challenge (I think @MNLittleFinn uses these), again zones 1 and 2 make sense; but I have a problem with zone X that you're supposed to stay out of. It's too wide, and I spend a lot of time in an interval workout in zone X, conceptually either moving up to Zone 3 or moving down to Zone 2. So I conclude that the zones work best for me in measuring easy runs, and second best in measuring race effort. Of course, it's race effort that gives me an estimate for LTHR in the first place.
Yes, my HR goes above the target zone going up hills unless I slow way down. My best guess is that training by the HR will work best for continual runs at the same effort, which is easier to do on flat terrain.
I guess this is a long-winded way of saying, I found zones that I'm happy with; but I'm not happy with HR zone training as a major focus. It's a tool in the training tool kit, but it's not the only tool in the kit or an appropriate tool for all workouts.
And as I type this, I realize that the runs with hills where I've come closest to keeping the HR even for most of the run have all been races. Maybe it's just easier to feel race pace effort and let the hills slow me down naturally when I'm running hard, than it is to try to slow down enough on the hills so the run stays easy as measured by HR.1 -
I stopped using the Fitzgerald zones for reasons @MobyCarp talked about. I just use 5 zones that garmin has and it seems to work. I2m rarely in zone 4 though. Its mostly z2 for easy and z4 for harder running. Not aure what worours would have me in z31
-
Like the others, I have gone back almost 100% to running by feel, but I still have the zones set up in Strava for after run reports. I am leaning towards the opinion that we are approaching information overload on all this running data. I mean in the end, on race day, only finish time matters. None of the rest of the stats count.
So I watch pace and distance now primarily. Trying to get to the point 8:50 feels like a comfortable run so that it can be my Marathon Pace.
1 -
I'm about 90% like this. I'll check my HR every once in a while on runs, but I mostly run by feel. If I look at my watch and HR is above like 157, I'll cut back a little to help bring it down, but that's about it.PastorVincent wrote: »Like the others, I have gone back almost 100% to running by feel, but I still have the zones set up in Strava for after run reports. I am leaning towards the opinion that we are approaching information overload on all this running data. I mean in the end, on race day, only finish time matters. None of the rest of the stats count.
So I watch pace and distance now primarily. Trying to get to the point 8:50 feels like a comfortable run so that it can be my Marathon Pace.
0 -
It's been quiet here for a while, but just my humble 2 cents. Last year I did a fitness test where they basically let you run on a treadmill till you drop while measuring lactic acid in your blood every 5 minutes or so. Then they estimate HR zones. Best money ever spent, as it's the most accurate measurement.1
-
Starflight00 wrote: »It's been quiet here for a while, but just my humble 2 cents. Last year I did a fitness test where they basically let you run on a treadmill till you drop while measuring lactic acid in your blood every 5 minutes or so. Then they estimate HR zones. Best money ever spent, as it's the most accurate measurement.
I'd be willing to spend the money, but I don't think I'm willing to run on a treadmill for a couple of hours to get an accurate LTHR.1 -
Starflight00 wrote: »It's been quiet here for a while, but just my humble 2 cents. Last year I did a fitness test where they basically let you run on a treadmill till you drop while measuring lactic acid in your blood every 5 minutes or so. Then they estimate HR zones. Best money ever spent, as it's the most accurate measurement.
How much did it cost you?0 -
Starflight00 wrote: »It's been quiet here for a while, but just my humble 2 cents. Last year I did a fitness test where they basically let you run on a treadmill till you drop while measuring lactic acid in your blood every 5 minutes or so. Then they estimate HR zones. Best money ever spent, as it's the most accurate measurement.
I'd be willing to spend the money, but I don't think I'm willing to run on a treadmill for a couple of hours to get an accurate LTHR.
It takes an hour at most as they're gradually increasing resistance to the point when you have to run 15 km/h uphill. Think most of my colleagues (some really fit) didn't make it past 45 minutes.0 -
PastorVincent wrote: »Starflight00 wrote: »It's been quiet here for a while, but just my humble 2 cents. Last year I did a fitness test where they basically let you run on a treadmill till you drop while measuring lactic acid in your blood every 5 minutes or so. Then they estimate HR zones. Best money ever spent, as it's the most accurate measurement.
How much did it cost you?
It was 190€ for the test + 50€ for a bodyscan to establish body composition. I'm in Europe though, no idea how much it costs in the US...0 -
Starflight00 wrote: »PastorVincent wrote: »Starflight00 wrote: »It's been quiet here for a while, but just my humble 2 cents. Last year I did a fitness test where they basically let you run on a treadmill till you drop while measuring lactic acid in your blood every 5 minutes or so. Then they estimate HR zones. Best money ever spent, as it's the most accurate measurement.
How much did it cost you?
It was 190€ for the test + 50€ for a bodyscan to establish body composition. I'm in Europe though, no idea how much it costs in the US...
Bah, was hoping you were in US, cause medical here is way wackier in pricing then over there. Probably 10 times that cost here.0 -
PastorVincent wrote: »Like the others, I have gone back almost 100% to running by feel, but I still have the zones set up in Strava for after run reports. I am leaning towards the opinion that we are approaching information overload on all this running data. I mean in the end, on race day, only finish time matters. None of the rest of the stats count.
So I watch pace and distance now primarily. Trying to get to the point 8:50 feels like a comfortable run so that it can be my Marathon Pace.
I agree. I spent some time training with my HRM when I first read "80/20 Running", but that was mostly just to get an idea what "easy" running should feel like. I am not sure that I ever really nailed down my actual lactate threshold heart rate, but it was close enough to set up some zones that worked to help keep me at an easy pace. I learned that I had been running too fast and I also learned that a HRM is pretty much useless for anything other than steady state runs at an easy pace, so once I got a pretty good feel for what that was, I ditched the HRM. Mine is a chest strap, so I prefer not to use it if I don't have to. Every once in a while I will bust it out just to see where my HR is on my easy runs and I believe it is on target with where it should be. In a way, I think a HRM is kind of like "training wheels" to teach you how to run at the correct PRE.3 -
_nikkiwolf_ wrote: »Having just read Fitzgerald's 80/20, I also started thinking about proper training zones recently.
Fitzgerald's book was the first explanation of heart rate zones that made sense to me. My Garmin 635 automatically sets zones and they seem to correlate pretty well with what I'm feeling. Heart rate technology (including the comfort of the chest strap) has improved a lot, so if you tried it 5-6 years ago, it might be worth revisiting it.0
