POLL --- Do you use a heart-rate monitor in your RUN training? (Read 383 times)

     

    If aero was truly that much of an advantage then Chrissy Wellington should cut off her pony tails, lose the biking cloves and wear an aero helmet.

    The laboratory wind tunnels and the open road are two different places.

    "I just bought a set of Zip 808's...how much time will that save me?"  Have you heard that one before?

    Seriously, the sport of Triathlons has been ruined by equipment. Just one mans opinion.

    regarding Chrissy (and to add to her options)... or stop doping or retire from the sport... Smile (just kidding)

     

    Regarding the rest of it.... c'mon... relax a little!  Enjoy the game and race against yourself with whatever you have.

    I don't deny that there's a lot of money spent within the sport to gain an advantage on the competition.

    I'd show a picture of my bike, but I don't know how.  I have a YouTube video (youtube) that shows a picture of the bike.  It's a Cannondale Slice with 105's with stock wheels.  Everything stock.  It still got me >19.5mph for 112 miles and I was happy with it.  Could I have gotten higher than 20.0mph??? maybe.

    But I'm ALWAYS racing against myself and my limited abilities, not my best friend and his Zip808's.

    Some day, you'll need to get over your anger toward triathletes and the sport of triathlon.

    2014 Goals:

    #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

    #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

     

      Nice Vid Brian. And congrats on your finish. 19.6mph over 112 miles is nothing to sneeze at.

       

      My disdain towards triathlon has more to do with the focus on equipment than anything else...that's all. And maybe some to do with the big business end of it too.

         

        It could be on a TM, or not. It should at least be the same route and similar conditions. If conditions are not similar, that has to taken into account. It's just one piece of fitness feedback that some people like to use.

         

        Maybe you live someplace with more constant conditions than I do, but that's not very realistic. In 8 wks, my asphalt routes will be snow free (I hope), my trails may or may not be snow free, but even in the summer, the grass grows around the soccer fields making that a variable in my runs. Change is the constant.

         

        My real point was that the only thing wrong with your "improper" example was using an age-based formula, rather than doing some field or lab test to establish the zones - IMHO. And if you're doing hilly races, it's a whole lot easier to keep track of effort rather than pace.

         

        Based on posts I read here, pace seems to need to get adjusted for at least as many things as effort.

        "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

          Something tells me the title of this thread is oversampling people who use HRMs in training. The current 34 Always/Usually to 43 Seldom/Never does not reflect what I see in the running community.

           

          Of the dozens (possibly hundreds) of real life runners I know and run with on a regular basis, I can think of maybe a couple who regularly use a HRM--and they tend to be triathletes.

          It wouldn't surprise me. But I don't find online groups in general reflect the running communities where I live - except maybe some of the trail and ultra fora.

           

          Even the gps watches which so many people here have aren't that common for regular training (maybe occasional) where I am - maybe 10% of runners.

          "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog


          And in the end...

            My real point was that the only thing wrong with your "improper" example was using an age-based formula, rather than doing some field or lab test to establish the zones - IMHO.

             

            What are you saying?  I said that it's wrong to use the generic age-based formula to calculate HR training zones.  Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

             

            Then I said that if you use a HR monitor to gauge fitness improvement you have to factor in other variables (heat, hills, etc).  To expound a little, HR isn't particularly useful as a single data point, but can be useful using multiple datapoints over time... as one training feedback variable.

             

            I don't use a HR monitor, but that doesn't mean I don't think that there is value when properly used.

            ------------------------

            The GITM is moot.

            JimR


              It wouldn't surprise me. But I don't find online groups in general reflect the running communities where I live - except maybe some of the trail and ultra fora.

               

              Even the gps watches which so many people here have aren't that common for regular training (maybe occasional) where I am - maybe 10% of runners.

               

              I think Mikey means that a HRM user is more likely to respond to the poll than a non user.

                 

                What are you saying?  I said that it's wrong to use the generic age-based formula to calculate HR training zones.  Are you agreeing or disagreeing?

                 

                Then I said that if you use a HR monitor to gauge fitness improvement you have to factor in other variables (heat, hills, etc).  To expound a little, HR isn't particularly useful as a single data point, but can be useful using multiple datapoints over time... as one training feedback variable.

                 

                I don't use a HR monitor, but that doesn't mean I don't think that there is value when properly used.

                ok, sorry for misinterpretation. The way your first post sounded, it seemed to imply that monitoring pace for same effort over time was a legit use but using zones wasn't. That's apparently not what you were saying, but were focusing on the age-based formula, which I agree can be close to worthless unless you happen to be near center of the bell curve. (I usually use how easy / hard it is for me to run /power hike hills as measure of fitness - both for breathing and how the legs feel. Those relate directly to my races.)

                "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog

                  I think Mikey means that a HRM user is more likely to respond to the poll than a non user.

                  Right, but he based his comparison on his local runners. I'm saying the population being sampled in an online poll is runners who happen to post online in RA also. It's not a sampling of the total population of runners or even in local areas. It may be that runners who post online are more likely to use hrm or gps or gels or whatever than a runner who does not post online. IOW, online polls are amusing diversions that may or may not relate to reality. Wink

                  "So many people get stuck in the routine of life that their dreams waste away. This is about living the dream." - Cave Dog
                  J-L-C


                     

                     

                    My example reflects how some use HR as a training tool, like Maffetone. Periodic reassessment of HR is the basis for adjusting the training. You can use whatever you like. As I said, it's just a tool.

                     

                    But again, that's not "training" with a hrm.

                     

                    Training with a hrm would involve using it to determine the amount of running done at a particular effort. For example, you could train with your hrm by using it to ensure you stay under a max hr for an easy day. Or you could use it for a tempo effort to ensure you're going hard enough the entire time.

                     

                    What I mean is, the example you gave for "proper hrm use" actually isn't proper use at all. The hrm is a training tool so its proper use is as a training tool. The example you gave is that of an evaluative tool that can just as easily be replaced with a stopwatch.

                    MJ5


                    Chief Unicorn Officer

                      I've been running since 1994 and never used one...I'm kind of a running purist, I guess. I don't even like my Garmin but it is helpful sometimes. But by purist I mean I prefer to run with as little stuff as possible. No headphones, no belts, no water bottles, I hate having all kinds of "stuff" on me.

                      Mile 5:49 - 5K 19:58 - 10K 43:06 - HM 1:36:54

                      LeighDS


                      Live Free & Run

                        No for me. I used one during cardio sessions when I did natural bodybuilding, but if I were to wear one during my running I just don't see the point. If I were trying to stay in a certain zone, that is fine but my per mile pace would become higher, which is not what I'm trying to accomplish.

                        PR

                        5K - 22:53 on 10-26-2013

                        10K - 51:27 on 9-22-2012

                        HM - 1:55:54 on 11-3-2013

                         

                        Upcoming Races

                        Race the Runway 1-Miler - April 5, 2014

                        Race the Runway HM - April 5, 2014

                        Stonyfield 5K - May 3, 2014 


                        And in the end...

                           

                          But again, that's not "training" with a hrm.

                           

                          Training with a hrm would involve using it to determine the amount of running done at a particular effort. For example, you could train with your hrm by using it to ensure you stay under a max hr for an easy day. Or you could use it for a tempo effort to ensure you're going hard enough the entire time.

                           

                          What I mean is, the example you gave for "proper hrm use" actually isn't proper use at all. The hrm is a training tool so its proper use is as a training tool. The example you gave is that of an evaluative tool that can just as easily be replaced with a stopwatch.

                           

                           

                          Yes, it is training with a HRM because the feedback from the HRM is being used to adjust the training. You mean that it's not being used to effect training during an actual run, and that's just a difference in definition of 'training'. To me, a lot of my training happens when I'm not running. To your example, if one knows their MaxHR then one can setup appropriate training zones and do their workouts using the HRM. Most do not know their actual MaxHR so they use the tool incorrectly. They are guessing at their zones. Your example of 'using it to ensure you stay under a max hr for an easy day' is quite misleading. 'Easy' would be generally in the range of 65%-75% of MaxHR. Though, if you wanted to be even more precise you would use your Heart Rate Reserve (HRR) and run at 60%-70% of that MaxHRR. People can use a HRM how they see fit, though I view it's greatest value as a feedback mechanism post-run. I believe there is greater value in learning to gauge effort be paying attention to the body's own feedback.

                          ------------------------

                          The GITM is moot.

                            This word "training" is interesting.

                             

                            I think a lot of folks who identify as runners are looking for a different sort of thing from running than training. In other words, running is much broader than training. Purely speculative, but I guess that those folks who see running more reductively as training for X are more likely to be interested in heart rate monitors. Runners who see trotting down the road as more of an existential and human practice that is complex and tied up in other parts of their lives are less likely to use a heart rate monitor simply because for them "training" is an expansive practice that is better discussed in qualitative terms.

                              This word "training" is interesting.

                               

                              I think a lot of folks who identify as runners are looking for a different sort of thing from running than training. In other words, running is much broader than training. Purely speculative, but I guess that those folks who see running more reductively as training for X are more likely to be interested in heart rate monitors. Runners who see trotting down the road as more of an existential and human practice that is complex and tied up in other parts of their lives are less likely to use a heart rate monitor simply because for them "training" is an expansive practice that is better discussed in qualitative terms.

                               

                              that's deep, dude! Smile

                              It'll definitely take me more than 7 minutes to figure out what I just read.

                              2014 Goals:

                              #1: Do what I can do. <DOING>

                              #2: 365 Hours training <NOPE, INJURED>

                               


                              Not dead. Yet.

                                 

                                I think a lot of folks who identify as runners are looking for a different sort of thing from running than training. In other words, running is much broader than training. Purely speculative, but I guess that those folks who see running more reductively as training for X are more likely to be interested in heart rate monitors. Runners who see trotting down the road as more of an existential and human practice that is complex and tied up in other parts of their lives are less likely to use a heart rate monitor simply because for them "training" is an expansive practice that is better discussed in qualitative terms.

                                 

                                There is clearly a difference between runners who are trying to increase their fitness/times/speed and runners who are simply running for health or enjoyment.  The former I would deem as in "training" and the later not...although they might use the word to describe their practice of running to others.  A heart rate monitor is a tool to report to the user something about those attributes of running that they are trying to improve, so would of course be more interesting to those in "training".

                                How can we know our limits if we don't test them?