Do you monitor your HRM or pace when running races?

This year I've wore a hrm and monitored my stats while doing 5k and 10k runs. In some ways I wonder if it's distracting so might try without.

Those with a hrm/fitness device, do you keep and eye on the stats when doing actual races or more so use for training?
«1

Replies

  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    I do both but I pay more attention to my HR zone. I will often look at my km splits but skip one or two so I don't know exactly how fast (or slow) I'm running. Sometimes I don't look at pace at all and run by HR and feel. I tend to get discouraged if I'm not hitting the paces I want so it's not always best to know.

    I have certain HR zones I aim for. I have certain HR zones I try to avoid unless I can see the finish.
    I *try* to stay in HR zones but I also balance it with how I feel. I let it creep up a bit if I'm feeling ok. I do try to stay out of my red zone though.
  • powered85
    powered85 Posts: 297 Member

    I have certain HR zones I aim for. I have certain HR zones I try to avoid unless I can see the finish.
    I *try* to stay in HR zones but I also balance it with how I feel. I let it creep up a bit if I'm feeling ok. I do try to stay out of my red zone though.

    What distances are you running? I did a 5k recently and spent the majority in the red zone. Imagine on longer races staying out of the red zone is more important?
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    edited September 2016
    powered85 wrote: »

    I have certain HR zones I aim for. I have certain HR zones I try to avoid unless I can see the finish.
    I *try* to stay in HR zones but I also balance it with how I feel. I let it creep up a bit if I'm feeling ok. I do try to stay out of my red zone though.

    What distances are you running? I did a 5k recently and spent the majority in the red zone. Imagine on longer races staying out of the red zone is more important?

    I do anything from 1 mile to half marathon (and half Ironman).
    I made the mistake earlier this year of starting out in the red zone on a 5k race and died the second half. I mean, I was running my max HR for the first km. I just couldn't keep it up.
    Usually on a run, your HR goes up as the race goes on, even for a 5k. On this run my HR went down continuously. I physically couldn't move fast enough to get it higher.

    ETA - but yes, I think for longer races it's more important. But shorter races can be affected too.
  • JimmyLedford
    JimmyLedford Posts: 7 Member
    I just got my Polar 7 heart rate monitor this past week and love it. The exercise calories are better measured with my monitor. I am bringing together so many variables right now and beginning to see progress. I have been on this journey for 100 days now and have committed for the next 15 months. I have 100 + pounds to loose. Would love some friends to share with and encourage.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    HR every time, and here's why:

    (1) "Right now" pace is really hard to measure, so a lot of watches (including mine) don't always do a perfect job of it. Mine is good under an open sky but not so good near trees and buildings. I don't have a foot pod, and lap/mile pace isn't responsive enough for me.

    (2) Hills.

    (3) I know my LTHR, it's 165 bpm. In theory, the fastest I can run any race would be with an average HR of 164. I can usually feel when I cross my threshold, I'm burning matches above 165, recovering below.

    As a cyclist that trains with power, I feel like pace should be a better way to pace your effort, but in practice HR works much, much better (for me).
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    edited September 2016
    Personally generally it's pace, as I run trail endurance races HR varies so much that it's meaningless.

    That said it is useful to have an awareness of LTHR as going over it is going to impact. For a 10K I can hold myself there and finish, but if I approach it in a Half or a Marathon I'll burn out far too quickly.

    That said, testing it is a challenge. Mine is similarly 168 bpm, but on steep climbs it's easy to exceed.
  • dewd2
    dewd2 Posts: 2,445 Member
    When it is hot like today, I will use HR more than pace. I'm running a half marathon today and with the weather I can't say for certain how fast I will be. Basing my strategy on pace could be an issue.

    When I run shorter races, I look at my HR but do not pay much attention. I run by feel since the course is short. FWIW, I run 5ks at 92-96% of my max. No sense saving anything.
  • olymp1a
    olymp1a Posts: 1,766 Member
    In longer run I usually monitor my HR zone I have an alarm set when I go over so I don't get that distracted. Shorter runs I don't mind monitoring HR unless there's a lot uphill.
  • RoxieDawn
    RoxieDawn Posts: 15,488 Member
    edited September 2016
    I am a runner and not a cyclist. So for me I do both. I am adapted to hot weather so weather is not issue for me. But my conditioning during training or races all matter. Short 5k or 8k, all pace. 1/2 HR and 10K both.

    I did run 10K race yesterday, and did not do any running 10 days prior the race. I trained to do this race in splits. So because of my situation it was all all important at this point for me. I did finish 20th overall and surprisingly and placed in age group.
  • powered85
    powered85 Posts: 297 Member
    edited September 2016
    Wow great points here thanks all. I run a Fenix3 with a footpod & rhythm+ so have access to estimated LTHR and close pace via the footpod. I should look at LTHR a bit more closely to see if that gives any benefit in the 10k runs.

    I do feel it creates a bit of anxiety looking down at the watch though depending on how pace/time/hr is doing. Might need to get past that lol.
  • litsy3
    litsy3 Posts: 783 Member
    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.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    powered85 wrote: »
    I do feel it creates a bit of anxiety looking down at the watch though depending on how pace/time/hr is doing. Might need to get past that lol.

    If you want to target a specific pace or HR you can set it to buzz at you when you go out of bounds.

    I've run with a Fenix 3 and a F3 HR and both of them put my LTHR at the same number every time. The consistency is impressive.
  • powered85
    powered85 Posts: 297 Member
    powered85 wrote: »
    I do feel it creates a bit of anxiety looking down at the watch though depending on how pace/time/hr is doing. Might need to get past that lol.

    If you want to target a specific pace or HR you can set it to buzz at you when you go out of bounds.

    I've run with a Fenix 3 and a F3 HR and both of them put my LTHR at the same number every time. The consistency is impressive.

    Do you run a footpod too? Notice since I added one my LTHR and Vo2 max are significantly different.
  • BasicGreatGuy
    BasicGreatGuy Posts: 857 Member
    I wear a Polar M400. I monitor my heart rate and pace during training and only monitor pace during a race. I don't see much point in monitoring heart rate during a race.
  • 3dogsrunning
    3dogsrunning Posts: 27,167 Member
    And i forgot my HRM for my 5k race today.

    I didn't end up looking at my paces either.

    After I responded last night I thought of the point that I like being distracted. Thinking about my HR keeps my mind occupied.
    Plus, I do well if i know that I'm working at a certain effort and know I can hold it even if it's feeling hard.
  • scorpio516
    scorpio516 Posts: 955 Member
    I train by hr, race by pace.
    Although, I raced a new to me distance this summer and went by hr(kept it right below lthr for an hour). And I race by both during a duathlon - pace running, hr biking (no pm)
  • dewd2
    dewd2 Posts: 2,445 Member
    powered85 wrote: »
    powered85 wrote: »
    I do feel it creates a bit of anxiety looking down at the watch though depending on how pace/time/hr is doing. Might need to get past that lol.

    If you want to target a specific pace or HR you can set it to buzz at you when you go out of bounds.

    I've run with a Fenix 3 and a F3 HR and both of them put my LTHR at the same number every time. The consistency is impressive.

    Do you run a footpod too? Notice since I added one my LTHR and Vo2 max are significantly different.

    What is the purpose of the footpod when running outside (other than a quick calibration)?

    FWIW, I use a footpod only when I am forced to run on the dreadmill.
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Foot pod is more accurate than GPS.
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    Foot pod is more accurate than GPS.

    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.
  • dougii
    dougii Posts: 679 Member
    I ran for over a year with my Garmin 225 using pace; this year I switched to HR. What a difference for the better. I am able to train longer and harder using heart rate.
  • _mr_b
    _mr_b Posts: 302 Member
    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.
  • lporter229
    lporter229 Posts: 4,907 Member
    litsy3 wrote: »
    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.
  • dewd2
    dewd2 Posts: 2,445 Member
    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).
  • CincyNeid
    CincyNeid Posts: 1,249 Member
    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....
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    Foot pod is more accurate than GPS.
    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.
  • CincyNeid
    CincyNeid Posts: 1,249 Member
    dewd2 wrote: »
    What is the purpose of the footpod when running outside (other than a quick calibration)?

    Same reason Cyclist have Speed Sensors on their bikes. ;)
  • MeanderingMammal
    MeanderingMammal Posts: 7,866 Member
    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.

  • dewd2
    dewd2 Posts: 2,445 Member
    CincyNeid wrote: »
    dewd2 wrote: »
    What is the purpose of the footpod when running outside (other than a quick calibration)?

    Same reason Cyclist have Speed Sensors on their bikes. ;)

    Bikes don't change stride in the middle of a run.
  • CincyNeid
    CincyNeid Posts: 1,249 Member
    dewd2 wrote: »
    CincyNeid wrote: »
    dewd2 wrote: »
    What is the purpose of the footpod when running outside (other than a quick calibration)?

    Same reason Cyclist have Speed Sensors on their bikes. ;)

    Bikes don't change stride in the middle of a run.

    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. . .
  • NorthCascades
    NorthCascades Posts: 10,968 Member
    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.