Forums >Running 101>What's more important...heart rate or pace?
Ok, I'm not trying to start a war here and the fact that I posted here means that I'm talking about beginning and intermediate runners. There's a post in the gears forum about buying a 205 vs 305 and most people that have chimed in seem to indicate that they don't care about HR. This doesn't make sense to me because if I have to look at a number, I think HR is much more important than pace. The biggest problem most beginners face is either over- or under-training. If someone tells me that they ran 10 miles at 9:00/mile that means nothing. If the same person tells me they ran that with an avg HR of 200 BPM then I would suggest they slow down before they die. If they say their HR was 70 then I would suggest they speed up.
I understand that during a race, pace is everything but what's the obsession with pace during training? I understand that level of effort or feel may be a better indicator than HR but it takes a long time to dial those things in properly.
However, if you're just starting out and you're obsessing about your pace then I still contend that if you WANT to look at a data point then look at HR.
Actually neither absolute value tellls you anything. HR needs to be relative to LT HR or VO2max HR although max HR can be used also. This is why I always people how their breathing was or were they able to talk or whatever. Actually, if you work at it, it's not that hard. I "learned" to run by HR training and learned to correlate HR and effort. When running hills, the HR response might be too slow to properly gauge your effort. If I went too hard or too long, I'd be gasping, almost hyperventilating. With signals like that, I learned quickly to recognize body signals preceding that. Using your HRM based on HR zones, you'd be likely to keep pedal to the metal too long - like holding gas pedal down until you hit the speed limit and going over it, rather than backing off before hand. Yes, there are still times and conditions when things don't always line up right. But I rarely look at HR during race, and am usually clueless about pace. I'm just headed for the finish line, managing my energy resources up and down hills to get there in the fastest time I can. If one believes in the benefits of various physiological zones for training, then there is a reason to be conscious of effort in training. For me, I find breathing / feel is most correlated with zones followed by HR. But typical estimates of zones are just surrogates for lactate concentration or whatever other measure. IOW, I just run. I should mention also that low HR training is not the same as regular HR training, although for some people they may be similar (for others, they're drastically different).
A Saucy Wench
A lot of you that have chimed in are not what I would call beginning runners.
I have become Death, the destroyer of electronic gadgets
"When I got too tired to run anymore I just pretended I wasnt tired and kept running anyway" - dd, age 7
I think it's important to keep in mind that a lot of people are here to lose weight, improve their cardiovascular fitness, or get into better shape. They are running but they aren't runners. Some of those people will eventually make the decision to become runners but many won't.
I contend that you worry (aka 'obsess', but I don't mean to be pejorative) about pace and numbers more than 85% of the beginners that I work with. Many beginners I know are excited as all heck to run that first mile nonstop... and then their first 3 miler. Some collect finish times, but many do not worry about it as much as "how far did I go? how far did I go?"
Prince of Fatness
I do think beginners with poor aerobic base should use a HRM as a brake.
Not at it at all.
A) we were all beginners at one point. B) ummmm....do you think running advice from people who are no longer beginners is invalid and that people who are new to the sport have more valid opinions?
Well, I dunno if you'd like what you call "my world" that much. From what you've posted, I think it would make you itchy and bored. And yes, what Nobby posted is different from what I posted. This is ok. Nobby is a far better runner than I am, and based on what I've seen an orders-of-magnitude better coach and mentor than me. I'm very ok with this. I have a different perspective gained from the type of person who has come to me for help. It's a big world
Well, I dunno if you'd like what you call "my world" that much. From what you've posted, I think it would make you itchy and bored.
I have a buddy that took up running almost a year ago. He goes up and runs trails around a reservoir nearby. It's a little under 7 miles. His goal was to make it around without taking a walk break. Every now and then I go up with him. It's usually when I want a nice recovery run. I just let him go and follow him around, walking when he wanted to walk. I told him a few times that he was going too fast. I could tell because he could barely talk to me. Anyway, one day I decided to do an experiment. I told him that he was going to follow me. So we went around quite a bit slower than we would had he led. Guess what .... he made it around without walking. It ended up taking longer than he had been taking even with the walk breaks, but he made it. So he didn't need a watch, or an HRM, or any gadget (I had my Garmin, but did not use it to monitor pace). He did it with just a pacer. The first thing he said to me is, "Now I have to make it by myself". Well, he went the next weekend and did just that. So, in one run with someone pacing him, he learned how to slow down.