Using HRM in training/racing

SonicDeathMonkey80

I started using an HRM a couple months ago. I see that it's a useful tool for training and figuring out my "real" effort vs perceived, etc, but I want to make sure I'm using it correctly and when I need to. On my training runs, I maintain a pace from 9:30-10:30, and my HR barely gets above 140, and that's my "conversational" pace.

In June, I ran a half marathon without an HRM. I ran what felt good, and ended up with 1:45, and was very pleased. I didn't have anything to "worry" about aside from lap notifications from my phone. I feel like I put in a really strong effort that I might not have if I saw what my HR probably was.

Fast forward to earlier this month, I ran a full with an HRM. I tried to keep my HR in the 140s, and kinda obsessed over it. I started to get in the 160s after mile 20, and I feel like I may have gotten irrational about that number and deliberately lowered my effort to try to keep in the 150s. I think that if I didn't have it, my performance would have been better.

Do any of you wear an HRM when running a race? If so, what are the things you look for? I'm leaning toward not bothering with it and just running on how I feel.

g04fit_girl

Hi ! I use HRM (Polar watch) when I run. I also run with my Iphone and Nikeplus app. Lots of gadgets haha!

I used to only go by my running pace and tried to maintain a certain pace the whole time. I quickly realized it wasn't accurate.. For exemple going uphill requires more effort !!!

For me I think 140/150 is great! If I push myself and my HR is at 170/180 I know that i can only maintain that for a few minutes MAX.

bert16

I train and race with my Garmin and its accompanying HRM chest strap; they're my BFF's (yes, I am sad and lonely; and please don't tell my iPhone I'm cheating on it when I head out for runs). :laugh:

I can't imagine running without them, mostly because I'm a complete idiot when it comes to pacing myself (in fact, back in my days as a competitive athlete, my nickname was "Hero" (said extremely mockingly and sarcastically by my teammates) because I always started every workout out as if it was the last workout of my life, going out waaaaayyyy fast (and generally dying like a stuck pig). So, after years of getting to know myself, I know I can't be trusted to pace myself in anything. During my races now, my coach gives me a target HR range based on mileage; for example, I ran a half a couple weekends ago and I had to keep my HR below 155 for the first 5 miles, between 155-160 for miles 6-9, and between 160-165 for the rest. Even with that guidance I ended up +2 bpm for each range, but without that guidance I know I would've been a hot mess by the end of the run, instead of passing everyone as I picked up the pace for the last several miles (always a great feeling).

I agree it would be great to run more intuitively, but I just know myself well enough to know I can't be trusted with that particular responsibility (at least, not yet)!

ZenInTexas

I haven't worn mine during a race yet, I am looking forward to doing so though, just to see the results. I may try a heart rate training plan on my next training cycle, my perceived effort and actual effort don't tend to line up so I think it might be a good way to go.

scott091501

Pretty much live in my hr monitor. If you set your zones correctly (220-age is BS) and are faithful to training in the correct zones you will become faster and more efficient in those zones and you LT HR will creep closer to your max HR.

ATT949

Do any of you wear an HRM when running a race? If so, what are the things you look for? I'm leaning toward not bothering with it and just running on how I feel.

I wear my HRM and my footpod when I race.

I understand the "run by feel" approach and am moving in that direction as of now, and for at least the next few months, I will be using the data from my HRM.

During my last Half (I've only done 3) I had a simple approach - get my HR to LT and go. Did fine 'til I started cramping at mile 10.3. With cardiac drift, my LT HR trends up from about 168 to about 171 so I kept it a little below those values. Could I have done that without an HRM? Perhaps.

The footpod helps me keep my cadence rate up and that reminder is important to me because I want to increase my stride rate at speed.

So, yes, I run and race with an HRM and footpod.

But what's really nice is that I won't NEED a footpod with my HRM soon… :-)

PeteWhoLikesToRunAlot

I have a FR610 with a HRM and footpod. I weather them for every single activity. I'm a slave to the numbers.

I leave the watch on the heart rate page 90% of the time to ensure my effort is where I want it to be. Interestingly enough, my 22M on Tuesday had me averaging ~145 bpm through the first 10-ish miles, then gradually increased through the 150s on the last 10+, despite no appreciable increase in pace. Like you, I started worrying about it to the point that it probably hurt my performance more than helped it. This was only a training run so no harm done, but it's an interesting observation.

SonicDeathMonkey80

I have a FR610 with a HRM and footpod. I weather them for every single activity. I'm a slave to the numbers.

I leave the watch on the heart rate page 90% of the time to ensure my effort is where I want it to be. Interestingly enough, my 22M on Tuesday had me averaging ~145 bpm through the first 10-ish miles, then gradually increased through the 150s on the last 10+, despite no appreciable increase in pace. Like you, I started worrying about it to the point that it probably hurt my performance more than helped it. This was only a training run so no harm done, but it's an interesting observation.

This is why I'm 90% sure I'm ditching the HRM for the marathon. I did fine without it all this time, I don't think I'll be hampered by its absence. But yes, it is a very useful tool for training, and it's nice to see how my HR/pace improves over time.

daj150

I have a FR610 with a HRM and footpod. I weather them for every single activity. I'm a slave to the numbers.

I leave the watch on the heart rate page 90% of the time to ensure my effort is where I want it to be. Interestingly enough, my 22M on Tuesday had me averaging ~145 bpm through the first 10-ish miles, then gradually increased through the 150s on the last 10+, despite no appreciable increase in pace. Like you, I started worrying about it to the point that it probably hurt my performance more than helped it. This was only a training run so no harm done, but it's an interesting observation.

This is why I'm 90% sure I'm ditching the HRM for the marathon. I did fine without it all this time, I don't think I'll be hampered by its absence. But yes, it is a very useful tool for training, and it's nice to see how my HR/pace improves over time.

Heart rate zone is really designed for 2 things; if you have certain health issues, it alerts you when you are putting too much stress on yourself, and the other is for improving overall performance. Pete touched on the benefit of living in the numbers. I too live in the numbers.

For your issue of obsessing over the numbers during a race, for your races you can still wear your HRM, but definitely disable the HR from displaying or your watch from beeping alerts for HR.

It's still nice to track your heart rate over the course of your race. But, if you don't care about that, then don't worry about it. My dad has been running marathons for over 20 years, and he has always done HR zone training. Because he was competitive, he used the HR monitor during the race to make sure he was running the correct pace and pushing himself enough to hit his goals. So, at certain heart rates, he can tell you exactly what his pace is. With technology now, you can get on-demand pace info with GPS equipped devices or footpods. So, some people argue HR zone training isn't as vital for training as it used to be. I am on the fence on that debate.

trail_rnr

I pay attention to the stats when training, but not while racing. However, even in training, I don't obsess about them. It's information and I look for patterns that might indicate overtraining (or undertraining :frown: )!

I've been transitioning to perceived effort, with quite a bit of success. The races I do are generally quite long, and I've found that as long as I can keep a good head on my shoulders (that is, not go out too fast), I do fine with perceived effort. For me, the race really starts in the second half (so, after ~15 miles for a 50k or 25 miles for a 50m).

Sounds to me like you need to ditch it for the races, or at least not show the HR data on the screen.

KeithAngilly

I wear mine, but have the display set up so I can't see it. I also wear a footpod and use both to record information for use after the race. I obsess too much over the watch, as well. But it's more of problem with pace than heart rate for me.

Good luck!

ATT949

I have a FR610 with a HRM and footpod. I weather them for every single activity. I'm a slave to the numbers.

I leave the watch on the heart rate page 90% of the time to ensure my effort is where I want it to be. Interestingly enough, my 22M on Tuesday had me averaging ~145 bpm through the first 10-ish miles, then gradually increased through the 150s on the last 10+, despite no appreciable increase in pace. Like you, I started worrying about it to the point that it probably hurt my performance more than helped it. This was only a training run so no harm done, but it's an interesting observation.

What you've described is a symptom of as "cardiac drift" ("CD") and that's why, when I push my HR to LT, I go by perceived exertion rather than a hard number.

That response might raise the question as to why show heart rate at all while you're racing, right?

My response is "Why not?"

The core issue, as I see it, is that a heart rate monitor is no more than a device that captures, displays, and analyzes data. It's up to the expertise and judgement of the person making the decisions to understand both the accuracy and the inaccuracy of the data.

One of the things that's interesting about the new Garmin 620 is that it's a leap in data gathering, display, and communication but it's barely scratching the surface with real time data. What I'm really looking forward to is the Garmin 940 that will come out in the 2017 timeframe. Now THAT will be cool!