Going it alone: Perceived Effort or invest in a heart rate monitor?
Options
runbabarun
Posts: 89 Member
Hello all,
I started training for my first marathon today and following a plan by Bobby McGee. I was wondering where people land in terms of using a heart rate monitor during training.
I do not currently own one. The plan recommends it but says you can do without it by using perceived effort method. However, I'm doing this alone and without a coach. So I'm not sure how to "perceive" it. For example, majority of the runs are aerobic threshold runs ("at conversation pace"). I guess I could have been talking to myself while I was running but it felt way too slow to me and I've found myself pushing the pace.
I saw the previous discussion about benefits of working with a coach but the times and $$$ etc don't work too well for me at this point. What do you think? Is it a good investment to get a HR monitor? I currently use a Garmin FR 230.
I started training for my first marathon today and following a plan by Bobby McGee. I was wondering where people land in terms of using a heart rate monitor during training.
I do not currently own one. The plan recommends it but says you can do without it by using perceived effort method. However, I'm doing this alone and without a coach. So I'm not sure how to "perceive" it. For example, majority of the runs are aerobic threshold runs ("at conversation pace"). I guess I could have been talking to myself while I was running but it felt way too slow to me and I've found myself pushing the pace.
I saw the previous discussion about benefits of working with a coach but the times and $$$ etc don't work too well for me at this point. What do you think? Is it a good investment to get a HR monitor? I currently use a Garmin FR 230.
0
Replies
-
The Garmin fr 230 works with an HRM, right? I use an HRM, but am still working on Half conditioning.
If you are comfortable training without one, I'd forgo the expense. I like mine, but I'm still building a solid base. I use mine as a gauge. I like the data. But honestly, days I forbid myself to look at it, I run better. I listen to my body, not a number that may or may not reflect accurately how my body is responding to the stress.
Idk, it is nice when I feel beat up to confirm that I really do need to rein it in, or recovery better. I like being able to check "this feels right" with a pace and HR, too.
I see no downside to getting one. If it proves useful - great. If not you're out, what? 100$? Not horrible, as runners, I think that's a negligible risk.
Good luck. I'm sure more experienced runners will chime in.1 -
Thanks Elise! You can get one for $50 now. But when I was getting 230, I was skeptical of that kind of data for some of reasons you mention. So I avoided the watches with HRM capability. Now the prospect of getting one feels like eating my words.1
-
Haha! Ya I get it.1
-
I think it is worth the small investment tbh.
Gives more individual ,realistic data.
Was a useful tool for working out energy expenditure from running+rowing.
Far more objective,whereas perception is just too subjective.1 -
I purchased my first HRM in the late 90's. So I now have 15+ years* of data to look back on (*no data for the couple years I spent on the couch
). It is interesting to look back and see patterns and how my HR has changed over the years.
Today I use the HRM mainly to monitor for changes. If my HR is up and my effort is not, I know something is wrong. It could be the temperature, dehydration, or over-training. Knowing this allows me to make adjustments to my training. I also use it as a gauge for races. I have a good feel for how hard to push based on my HR.1 -
I think a HRM can be a valuable tool in running, especially if you are focusing on increasing your speed. I have used one in the past and have found it to be very helpful. Once you get used to using it, then perceived effort becomes a lot easier in that you know what each HR zone should feel like and you don't really need the tool anymore. Occasionally I throw mine on for a run and I have found that I tend to be right in the zone I expected.1
-
I tend to go by effort while I'm running, but I also use my HRM, and I like to check the data after a run so I when I make notes, I can compare my effort/HR to what the run was like each split.. I have my Garmin to tell me my zone, rather than my actual HR, and that works well for me.1
-
Thanks all for your feedback! Guess I will have to hit the running store sometime soon! #eatingmywords1
-
Personally I use a HRM, but I rarely look at it when I'm actually running, only after to see how I performed.
Recently, however, I ran a 10-miler where the runner in front of me was 4 minutes ahead, the runner behind me was 6-minutes behind. The runner who finished just behind me and I were talking about having to more-or-less run the race solo and it was difficult during some long stretches to judge how hard I was racing other than pace. He said something that stood out as "good advice."
"That's why I have my cadence on my running screen, I only watch that number when racing."
He and I both use the FR220, but the Garmin FR230 has the same "step counter" built in and until he said it, I hadn't thought of that as a gauge before then. When I look back on my recent runs, my race cadence is about 10-15 steps per minute faster than a normal easy run.
The Garmins a small accelerometer in the watch and will display your cadence during a run (think about it...your amrs move with your legs, so each step is also an arm swing). It's a cheaper way to get in-workout intensity (i.e. no more money invested) and you can use it for interval training, etc. If you bike, you'll need a foot cadence pod.1 -
Oh wow! Thank you for this. I knew that it checked cadence because it graphs it in connect app but didn't realize you can view it real time. Great advice!1
-
I did have a heart rate monitor a long time ago. I found I didn't use the information. Now I ask myself these question before I purchase something. "what does it do?" and "is it 'actionable' information that it provides me?" I know I use the mileage and pace information but the heart rate information I don't really use. As far as seemingly going slow when you are at a "conversation" pace, who cares? Enjoy the run at that pace and know that it is doing your body good even if the pace seems slow.1
-
I use a HRM, but most of the time I don't look at HR in real time. I look at it after the run, and seek to understand what happened. I find it interesting and modestly helpful, but it's probably not essential.
FWIW, I backed into what my heart rate should be for various paces by running the paces called for by the Jack Daniels system, and looking afterwards at where my heart rate landed. I did this in good running weather and when running on an indoor track in the winter. Now, in warmer weather, I'm seeing a higher heart rate for the same paces. I'm still working on understanding what that means and what, if anything, I should do about it.2 -
Moby, very helpful as always. Didn't realize Jack Daniels also has an app. I will try cadence and Daniels recommended training times for a while to see how it goes. If things get bumpy, I'll change the approach.1
-
A HRM is important for me, but until I did a lactic threshold & max HR test with my trainer those numbers really didn't mean a lot to me. Once you understand exactly where to set your training zones you can work to hit those zones in specific workouts. Below is the results of my summer 2015 test. These number will change with training and my trainer would like you do get this test done at least every 6 months, but i skipped it over the winter. I'm curious when I go back in a few weeks to see how these numbers have changed since I know that my threshold has increased based on my last HM where my average HR was 166 and i've hit over 200 on my max many times now.
Heart Rate Training Zones (Run):
Easy/Recovery (E) Zone: 115-140 bpm
Aerobic Maintenance (A) Zone: 141-157 bpm
Threshold/Steady (T) Zone: 158-162 bpm LT HR 159 bpm
Interval (I) Zone: 163+ bpm
Maximum HR of 189 bpm
My trainer charges $80 and takes a blood sample every stage to determine Blood Lactate levels. I, like Moby, do not use it in real time on every run since the majority of my run are at an easy pace, but when I'm doing intervals, hills or tempo pace runs I monitor it at least a few times per mile.1 -
A HRM is important for me, but until I did a lactic threshold & max HR test with my trainer those numbers really didn't mean a lot to me. Once you understand exactly where to set your training zones you can work to hit those zones in specific workouts. Below is the results of my summer 2015 test. These number will change with training and my trainer would like you do get this test done at least every 6 months, but i skipped it over the winter. I'm curious when I go back in a few weeks to see how these numbers have changed since I know that my threshold has increased based on my last HM where my average HR was 166 and i've hit over 200 on my max many times now.
Heart Rate Training Zones (Run):
Easy/Recovery (E) Zone: 115-140 bpm
Aerobic Maintenance (A) Zone: 141-157 bpm
Threshold/Steady (T) Zone: 158-162 bpm LT HR 159 bpm
Interval (I) Zone: 163+ bpm
Maximum HR of 189 bpm
My trainer charges $80 and takes a blood sample every stage to determine Blood Lactate levels. I, like Moby, do not use it in real time on every run since the majority of my run are at an easy pace, but when I'm doing intervals, hills or tempo pace runs I monitor it at least a few times per mile.
I used Matt Fitzgerald's "80/20 Running" when training for my last marathon and I did his rudimentary test for estimating my lactate threshold heart rate, which I determined to be right around 160 bpm. Then I used the exact zones you listed for all of my targeted training. I think the HRM was extremely important for me initially on my easy runs because my HR was actually in my aerobic zone and I needed to monitor it in order to slow down to the proper zone. This was difficult at first because I felt like I was running sooo slow, but in reality, I had just been used to running faster than I should have been and creating unnecessary fatigue. Once I knew what the 130s felt like, I could keep it there and eventually my pace increased while my HR stayed in this zone. That is why the principle of 80/20 running is so effective.
Also, OP, I would caution against using your cadence to estimate your effort. This correlation does not work for everybody. There is very little difference in my cadence between an 8 min mile and a 9 min mile. My variance comes from my stride length.2 -
lporter229 wrote: »Also, OP, I would caution against using your cadence to estimate your effort. This correlation does not work for everybody. There is very little difference in my cadence between an 8 min mile and a 9 min mile. My variance comes from my stride length.
To add to this, on my last Fast Finish Long Run, on miles 9 and 11, I had the same recorded average recorded run cadence, but but I was 45 seconds faster per mile on mile 12, pushing through for the Fast Finish.1 -
Wow, thank you all, a lot to chew on here and a lot of good information to read up on. Much appreciated!1
-
One more voice to the choir. I actually bought an HRM before I started running. I was more interested in what my heart rate was doing when I was walking, hiking, backpacking and other cardio-strenuous activities. Except for a few runs, I have a fairly complete data set since 2013.
I started out with a Zephyr HRM (chest strap, BT) that I could connect with my phone. I purchased the add-ons for the Digifit app for HRM and the various testing protocols that they offer with their program. Other programs required a BLE HRM but my phone did not implement that low energy protocol. When I purchase a new smartphone, I also purchased a Zephyr BLE monitor.
The chest strap can rub you raw under certain conditions, though I did not have problems most of the time. I found that using an electrode gel made connections pretty solid with few "dropout" issues.
I recently went with a strapless version (photo-LED) in a GPS watch. I was impressed with the TomTom. Lower cost, great GPS, and 3GB for BT wireless headphones (I already owned three pairs so I bought the watch w/o headphones). All three headphones pair up with the watch and have provided no problems. The other choice I was looking at was the Garmin Forerunner 235.
I did quite a few tests with my strap version of the HRM and the wrist version. The two different types of HRM gave real-time readings that were within 1-2 bpm of each other Tracking on my phone and the readings from my wrist. One was not consistently higher or lower than the other, they just responded slightly differently and many times had the same reading. There have only been a few times when I was testing the two different types where they had a momentary divergence of readings. It has been the wrist-based HRM that has the lower reading compared to the strap-based HRM wen this divergence occurs. When it happened, it didn't last long before the bpm was back and matched with the strap-based HRM. On most runs, when I'm running according to heart rate zone, they give identical zone information. And I now have a pretty decent sense of zones and effort.
Now, how I set my zones:
Above, someone noted Matt Fitzgerald's 80/20 plan (I've used it, too) and one of the the tests he suggests is a thirty minute track run to set certain aspects of your heart zones. Certainly much better than 200-age for top end bpm. Well, as it turned out, the digifit program has a CP-30 test and you need a couple of things for that. Somewhere that you can run at your maximum sustained pace (consistent pacing is important) for 30-minutes (think 5K pace). Generally, I run those tests on a track or on a very flat path where I can sustain a pace without interruption. After running for 30-minutes the program takes my resting heart rate (which I measure before the test), the HR data from the run and suggests a 5-zone range, a lactic acid threshold value and a maximum HR from the run. Since I usually run this on a track, I can see whether I've maintained my pace with each lap throughout the test.
I've run multiple versions of this test in warm conditions and cold. My heart zones, max heart rate, and lactic acid threshold estimate don't show much variation from test to test. And the pattern of the test looks very similar...a quick increase at the beginning of the run, a pretty constant heart rate for the first 15-20 minutes of the run, and then a rather gradual increase in heart rate in the last 10 minutes or so. If you do it right, you can sustain the pace with increasing difficulty (your heart rate increases as you approach the last few minutes of the test) reaching something close to your maximum heart rate as you end the test. It also takes the two minute recovery information into account in setting zones.
Like I said, after running for three years, my HR zones from this test protocol don't change much once the initial conditioning took hold (three months after I started running again). What has changed is the pace I can sustain for 30-minutes. The original test I ran in 2013 covered just 2.77 miles in 30-minutes. I ran that same test just two weeks ago in the same location under similar conditions and ran 4.03 miles in 30-minutes. But several things have changed dramatically. My resting HR is even lower than it was initially, I am about 10 pounds lighter than I was then, and my base mileage is now around 35 miles per week. When I first started out, my base running mileage was probably around 20-miles per week. My resting HR was in the low 60's (today it is in the 40's and in May it averaged 47 bpm).
I do my workouts by HR zone and they are displayed on my watch. But I also have a sense of pace and effort that I didn't have before. That has come with experience and looking at the data. I now know what a lactic acid threshold run feels like, the HR data just confirms that I actually did it. What the HRM really did for me was SLOW ME DOWN in my training runs. The benefit is that, over time, I am getting faster for a given zone and I haven't had any real issues with overtraining.
I know this is a lot of information. I'm a big advocate for having the data to learn how to train.
One other thing...my best marathon (not my fastest) was run in April 2016 on an extremely hilly course with lots of elevation gain. Running more by pace than HR zone, I had the strongest finish and felt the best I have ever felt at the end of 26-miles. I had a 5-minute negative split and missed a PR (which I had set on a very flat course) by a mere 3:20. When one of my running buddies spotted me at mile-24, he and his wife watched me approach from about one-quarter mile away and then start running up this hill before he called out to me. On Monday, he told me that he and his wife were really surprised by how strong I looked (I was accelerating with each mile in the last 6.2). My average HR for the entire marathon was 145 bpm, the lowest it has ever been (and I've now run eight marathons) and I was just cruising along not trying to run a PR.
So, yes, it can really help you stick with a program that is effort/HR-based.
3 -
I do my workouts by HR zone and they are displayed on my watch. But I also have a sense of pace and effort that I didn't have before. That has come with experience and looking at the data. I now know what a lactic acid threshold run feels like, the HR data just confirms that I actually did it. What the HRM really did for me was SLOW ME DOWN in my training runs. The benefit is that, over time, I am getting faster for a given zone and I haven't had any real issues with overtraining.
This is exactly the point I was trying to make above. And I had a similar experience as you when using the HR zones for marathon training. I started using the 80/20 method of training in May of 2014, just establishing an aerobic base in my zone 2. In January of 2015 I ran the Charleston marathon and set a huge PR. I continued to use the same method of training, and actually followed Matt Fitzgerald's intermediate plan but added additional time to all but the long runs. In October of 2015 I ran the Columbus marathon and had another huge PR, qualifying for Boston by 16 minutes. Like @STrooper, I felt like it was the most effortless marathon I ran. They use the on-course tracking to breakdown your time segments into quarters (not exact, but close). My goal had been to go out with the 3:45 pace group (8:33 pace) and try to see if I could get a little extra speed on in the end. My time splits ended up being 8:35, 8:33, 8:21, 7:55 (or something close to this). No where in my mind did I think I could run the last quarter of a marathon at a 7:55 pace. But I credit the HR training for getting me in that kind of physical and mental condition.2 -
Again, super helpful. Thank you so much for sharing your insightful comments.0
