Questions For Those Who Monitor Their Heart Rate while Exercising

OldAssDude wrote: »

AnnPT77 wrote: »

OldAssDude wrote: »

NorthCascades wrote: »

OldAssDude wrote: »

dewd2 wrote: »

OldAssDude wrote: »

Although perceived effort is a fairly estimate of intensity, I prefer to monitor my heart rate during exercise in conjunction with how i feel. Sometimes i feel like i'm working harder that i actually am, and sometimes i feel like i'm not working as hard as i actually am. Using heart rate, there is no doubt, and using heart rate in conjunction with perceived exertion can tell you if you are recovering enough (or not enough).

I feel that heart rate training is a good way to improve cardio fitness level because the basic rule of thumb to get a minimum training effect is to keep your heart rate in the cardio zone for a minimum of 20 minutes non stop and a minimum of 3 times a week. You can't do that unless you know what your heart rate is during the workout.

The most important thing (and the first thing you should know) in heart rate training is your "true max heart rate". Since all your heart rate zones are based on MHR, they will all be off if your MHR is not correct. There are several ways to get your true max heart rate, from different formulas, to different tests you can do with a heart rate monitor, to having it done in a lab.

There are also different ways to setup heart rate zones: peercent of MHR, percent of HRR, percent of LT, etc...

Also, there are different zone systems: 3 zone, 5 zone, custom with sub zones, etc...

Which brings me to my questions.

what is your age and your MHR?

how did you get your MHR?

how do you have your zones setup (MHR, HRR, LT)?

what zone system do you use (3 zone, 5 zone, custom)?

my answers are as follows...

I'm 61 and currently have mine set at 174.

I used the EDWARDS formula. In addition i have got my HR up to 169 using a heart rate monitor enough times to be confident that the EDWARDS formula is probably a more accurate number for me. An ultra runner once told me to use the highest heart rate recorded and add 5 to that number. So 169 + 5 = 174.

I currently have my zones set to percent of MHR.

I currently use a standard 5 zone system.

I am interested to know how other people that do heart rate training set their numbers.

thanks in advance,

Oh, yes there is. There is plenty of doubt. Run easy on a very hot day and do the same run on a cold day. Was the run harder on the hot day? Go a few nights with little sleep and do the same run. Do it again just before you get sick. Do it when you are just getting better.

Everyone one of these will be different. You'll be doing the exact same run but get wildly different heart rates.

I know I can't talk you out of this (you know I've tried ). Just be aware the heart rate will lie to you.

What i meant by no doubt is there is no doubt what your heart rate is.

On a hot day my heart rate is going to be higher than on a cold day. I know that because i can see it as i am running. The same with not enough sleep getting sick.

but...

I have done very similar runs at similar heart rates and similar conditions and perceived them differently. So you can't just go by that either, and your heart rate is still going to be whatever it is. I would not have even noticed that if i was not monitoring my heart rate and wondering why i perceived things differently at the same heart rate under the same conditions.

My point is, if i want to improve my fitness level, and i know i have to be in at least zone 3 for at least 20 minutes at least 3 times a week to get a minimum training effect, i'm going to do at least that regardless of how i perceive it.

The CDC states...
The Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) is a way of measuring physical activity intensity level. Perceived exertion is how hard you feel like your body is working. It is based on the physical sensations a person experiences during physical activity, including increased heart rate, increased respiration or breathing rate, increased sweating, and muscle fatigue. Although this is a subjective measure, a person's exertion rating may provide a fairly good estimate of the actual heart rate during physical activity* (Borg, 1998).

You are already at an elite level of fitness so you probably don't need to worry about heart rate so much, and your easiest workout would probably be my hardest workout.

I will also add that many ultra runners on the suunto forum have all these crazy sub zones setup on their devices target not only zones, but specific bpm numbers to squeeze every drop of energy out of their hearts to be able to run for that long without fizzling out.

I'm not saying anyone has to monitor their heart rate, but it's a good way to know if your getting a training effect or not. And my intent for this thread was simple to find out how other people that do use heart rate training do it.

Serious question, why not use pace? Or grade normalized pace if you're running in hilly terrain?

Well for 1, GPS pace usually sucks on most devices (jumps all over the place). I suppose i could use lap pace or average pace, but it's just so much easier to just glance at my HR every once in a while and adjust if needed. My garmin has the HR zones laid out so i can see what zone i'm in with just a quick glance.

Knowing that keeping HR in a certain zone for a certain time will give me a training effect, why not just use HR instead of trying to guess by feel or pace?

Running power seems to be interesting, but i think it still has a long way to go before they even know what the standards are going to be.

You've mentioned something like the bolded several times, but I'm not sure I understand.

My personal experience makes me think it's not so cut and dried as "20 continuous minutes in zone 3, 3x a week, to get 'a training effect'". Any amount of exercise has an effect. (Obviously, one needs to exceed some threshold frequency/volume/intensity/etc. for that effect to be measurable.) Moreover, there are a whole bunch of different types of "training effects" in exercise physiology terms.

When you say (type) it, what do you mean by 'training effect'?

Are you talking about the Garmin "training effect" score where they kind of chop up/quantize something that's in reality kinda more analog, in order to make aerobic/anaerobic benefits of exercise more conceptually digestible and trackable?

I'm not trying to be disputatious here; I'm really trying to understand/communicate, and maybe learn something.

When i was in the army, i went through a fitness course that qualified me to be the fitness instructor for my unit. part of the course was cardio fitness and training effect. Training effect is the effect from exercise that will improve your fitness level (VO2max). the rule of thumb is a minimum of 20 minutes in the cardio zone, and a minimum of 3 times per week to get a minimum training effect. So, if you want a better training effect you should increase the minutes and/or number of sessions per week. Less than that will probably have some benefits, but not enough to increase your fitness level (VO2max). This was back in the 1980's, but i think the basic principle is still valid. In fact, i think i read somewhere recently that they are now recommending at least 30 to 40 minutes at least 3 times per week.

There is probably a lot more to it now a days, but i just stick to the basic principles that i know. I think garmin is on to something with their aerobic and anaerobic training effects, and i try to do workouts that get me above lactate threshold for short bursts as well as more longer zone 3/4 sessions.

It certainly can't hurt to mix it up.

OK, I think I get where you're coming from. I still think the reality maybe isn't that structured in terms of getting fitness results, but that makes sense as a general set of rules of thumb.

When I was actually training, the approach I used (was given by my coach) included some base work (which would've been > 20 minutes continuous), but the more intense workouts tended to be in segments shorter than a race duration (a race would be 8-9 minutes, for me, generally), treated in an interval fashion, so there would likely be 20 minutes of zone 3 (of a 5-zone scheme, if we used that), but not continuous, for example. Sometime during the training week, there would (at many/most times of the year) some zone 4 to near-max, but short. The net result of following a periodized plan of this sort of thing definitely including achieving anaerobic/aerobic training effects.

Also, in my understanding, one standard technique for increasing VO2max is classic Tabata intervals (8 x (20" max effort, 10" easy effort)) - with a warmup and cooldown, of course. The actual body of the workout is therefore only four minutes, and the whole session with WU and CD might be only 20-ish minutes total. A couple of times a week can achieve a result, thouogh the original research was 4x weekly Tabata intervals, 1x longer base pace session, 1x rest day.

So, I think different paths can lead to the same/similar training effects.

But, yes: I agree that mixing it up can't hurt, and that's pretty much how I look at workouts these days. I'm just trying to stay active, have fun, and be happy, not achieve any particular athletic goal. During summer on-water rowing, I do mostly base or intervals (going into zone 3 and occasionally 4 MHR method) picking one or the other or a mix at whim based on weather, energy level and whatnot, maybe totalling 50 minutes of actual boat movement (some of which is low intensity by necessity for turns, docking, etc.). Biweekly spin classes are AHR zone 3 for around 45 minutes, but actual HR drops below that sometimes especially early in each session; I try to hit zone 4 for at least a brief time each class. Winter rowing machine work tends to be higher intensity but shorter (3 x (10' higher steady state, 2' water break and easy rowing) would be a typical example) at AHR in upper zone 3/lower zone 4, occasional peak rates above. I don't really shoot for any particular structure to the week, just try to get some intensity in there somewhere, and not get over-fatigued by overdoing the combinations of duration/intensity.

(I hope I got all those zones right; I usually think of things in quasi-custom RHR zones, but tried to accurately translate to MHR method for clearer communication. ).

IMO, exercise oughta be fun, and I don't have specific athletic goals now, so just mixing it up works for me, too.

OldAssDude wrote: »

NorthCascades wrote: »

OldAssDude wrote: »

dewd2 wrote: »

OldAssDude wrote: »

Although perceived effort is a fairly estimate of intensity, I prefer to monitor my heart rate during exercise in conjunction with how i feel. Sometimes i feel like i'm working harder that i actually am, and sometimes i feel like i'm not working as hard as i actually am. Using heart rate, there is no doubt, and using heart rate in conjunction with perceived exertion can tell you if you are recovering enough (or not enough).

I feel that heart rate training is a good way to improve cardio fitness level because the basic rule of thumb to get a minimum training effect is to keep your heart rate in the cardio zone for a minimum of 20 minutes non stop and a minimum of 3 times a week. You can't do that unless you know what your heart rate is during the workout.

The most important thing (and the first thing you should know) in heart rate training is your "true max heart rate". Since all your heart rate zones are based on MHR, they will all be off if your MHR is not correct. There are several ways to get your true max heart rate, from different formulas, to different tests you can do with a heart rate monitor, to having it done in a lab.

There are also different ways to setup heart rate zones: peercent of MHR, percent of HRR, percent of LT, etc...

Also, there are different zone systems: 3 zone, 5 zone, custom with sub zones, etc...

Which brings me to my questions.

what is your age and your MHR?

how did you get your MHR?

how do you have your zones setup (MHR, HRR, LT)?

what zone system do you use (3 zone, 5 zone, custom)?

my answers are as follows...

I'm 61 and currently have mine set at 174.

I used the EDWARDS formula. In addition i have got my HR up to 169 using a heart rate monitor enough times to be confident that the EDWARDS formula is probably a more accurate number for me. An ultra runner once told me to use the highest heart rate recorded and add 5 to that number. So 169 + 5 = 174.

I currently have my zones set to percent of MHR.

I currently use a standard 5 zone system.

I am interested to know how other people that do heart rate training set their numbers.

thanks in advance,

Oh, yes there is. There is plenty of doubt. Run easy on a very hot day and do the same run on a cold day. Was the run harder on the hot day? Go a few nights with little sleep and do the same run. Do it again just before you get sick. Do it when you are just getting better.

Everyone one of these will be different. You'll be doing the exact same run but get wildly different heart rates.

I know I can't talk you out of this (you know I've tried ). Just be aware the heart rate will lie to you.

What i meant by no doubt is there is no doubt what your heart rate is.

On a hot day my heart rate is going to be higher than on a cold day. I know that because i can see it as i am running. The same with not enough sleep getting sick.

but...

I have done very similar runs at similar heart rates and similar conditions and perceived them differently. So you can't just go by that either, and your heart rate is still going to be whatever it is. I would not have even noticed that if i was not monitoring my heart rate and wondering why i perceived things differently at the same heart rate under the same conditions.

My point is, if i want to improve my fitness level, and i know i have to be in at least zone 3 for at least 20 minutes at least 3 times a week to get a minimum training effect, i'm going to do at least that regardless of how i perceive it.

The CDC states...
The Borg Rating of Perceived Exertion (RPE) is a way of measuring physical activity intensity level. Perceived exertion is how hard you feel like your body is working. It is based on the physical sensations a person experiences during physical activity, including increased heart rate, increased respiration or breathing rate, increased sweating, and muscle fatigue. Although this is a subjective measure, a person's exertion rating may provide a fairly good estimate of the actual heart rate during physical activity* (Borg, 1998).

You are already at an elite level of fitness so you probably don't need to worry about heart rate so much, and your easiest workout would probably be my hardest workout.

I will also add that many ultra runners on the suunto forum have all these crazy sub zones setup on their devices target not only zones, but specific bpm numbers to squeeze every drop of energy out of their hearts to be able to run for that long without fizzling out.

I'm not saying anyone has to monitor their heart rate, but it's a good way to know if your getting a training effect or not. And my intent for this thread was simple to find out how other people that do use heart rate training do it.

Serious question, why not use pace? Or grade normalized pace if you're running in hilly terrain?

Well for 1, GPS pace usually sucks on most devices (jumps all over the place). I suppose i could use lap pace or average pace, but it's just so much easier to just glance at my HR every once in a while and adjust if needed. My garmin has the HR zones laid out so i can see what zone i'm in with just a quick glance.

Knowing that keeping HR in a certain zone for a certain time will give me a training effect, why not just use HR instead of trying to guess by feel or pace?

Running power seems to be interesting, but i think it still has a long way to go before they even know what the standards are going to be.

Because your pace is an objective measure of your workload, whereas your heart rate is a subjective measure of a lot of different things combined. If you know your current pace and your capabilities as a runner, Bob's your uncle, you know objectively how intense this is for you. In short it answers the question you're asking of your HRM.

Foot pods can give you a very good instant pace when GPS struggles.

An analogy: when you lift do you use the numbers printed on the weights to know how much to lift, or do you use your HR?

Edit to add: you don't get a training benefit simply from having your heart at X bpm. If that's all it took, people who do cocaine would be the fittest people around, people who watch horror movies might be next. You improve your fitness by doing hard work that stresses your heart, lungs, etc. There's nothing wrong with watching your heart rate but there's a danger of putting too much stock in it. Or maybe not if it motivates you.

I've never been able to do the pace method of training either - too many hills and I get bored just running the track - though I'll do some HIIT workouts from time to time there - but even then I'd prefer some hill sprints at all out effort.
That makes it easy, no target HR or pace. 30-60 hill, all out.

For recovery runs I do use HR and try to stay below a certain level. Changes in HR are lagging at that pace compared to effort. But no big whoop because going slower and easy anyway.

But higher efforts, I've found only a 3-5 sec lag of HR over pace, so adjust for the hill appropriately.
Of course have to be aware of heat induced increase. Or if I did lifting first the HR idea isn't nearly as useful as it's elevated 5-15 higher than normal, but I can usually discern that during the warmup walk so got it figured out.

NorthCascades wrote: »

Sorry, forgot something. In the spirit of exchanging ideas.

Your heart rate lags behind what you're doing. Everybody who runs knows it takes about a minute after you start a run for your HR to get up to speed, and people like to watch how much their HR came down 2 minutes after they finished. Your HR is a window into the past. It's like a 30 to 45 second average of what you just did.

And generally that's not a problem. But a lot of people are doing short intervals, and people should know HR isn't good for this because of that lag. Pace is just fine, that's why people do run/walk intervals.

Not research based, but my experience would suggest that the practical effect of the lag was reduced as I got fitter. Yes, the measurement would be expect to inherently lag a little behind by the very nature of measurement, in addition to physiology. I'm not so sure about the 30-45 second average idea, in interval contexts.

Using a landscape metaphor for HR response: A spin class used to have smaller and more gradual "valleys" for the intervals between songs where I grab a drink/towel, etc., as we briefly ease off the intentional intensity increase that happens during a song. Now (like 15+ years on from doing that and rowing regularly), the "peaks" tend to be more pointy (or mesa-like for longer intensity pieces) with a comparatively quick, steep drop to a pointed "valley". (If I had old charts I could share, I'd show a comparison; I don't.)

It would seem that the implication would be that the "time in zone" data varies depending on fitness level. Speculating wildly with no actual applied knowledge whatsoever about how sophisticated fitness tracker algorithms are, I've wondered whether this kind of thing is another factor that could cause HRM-based calorie estimates to be higher for less-fit people than more-fit people (of the same size and doing the same exercise/pace with what would be expected to be about the same calorie burn). I assume the tracker code would either make an assumption about average fitness level/heart rate response, or - if really sophisticated, which I doubt, in devices that have the estimates - use its VO2max estimate in some way to adjust.

(I'm commenting out of pure interest in the topic, just for conversation's sake. I use my HR data mainly in the moment during workouts, to make sure I don't slack off intensity. Even when training, the actual structure of my plan was more about intensity/duration combinations - holding a target pace that was initially determined based on HR response curves, for a designated length of time or number of meters.)

P.S. Unrelated admission, because it's been bugging me: In a PP on this thread, I typed RHR when I meant HRR. Sigh.