What's more important...heart rate or pace? (Read 1541 times)

much better prepared for a lifetime of running.

Sounds like your focus is in exactly the right place. And its not because you haven't been running for years. Its because you're slow

AKTrail: Hmmm…. An interesting point. In most cases, people would come to me and ask some questions. In general, they would ask about certain formula and I would suggest to them to ignore them and go by how you feel. I actually think it’s important to show some point of reference.... I think numbers are like a safety blanket. They make them feel safe because, as long as you follow exact numbers, you’re safe, right? Okay, here I’m generalizing things but I feel Americans love numbers. ... Once again, I actually think beginners, more so than experienced people, would probably need points of references. ... I know you're not saying that; trying to see A or B. But, yes, I think, this day and age when we have SOOOO much information out there, especially on www, we actually get too much information. There are TONS of junk out there. And people LOVE to talk numbers and figures; because it makes them look sophisticated. Some mathematical formula makes them look impressive. "Do 5 times 1km at the pace 5 seconds slower than your current 5k race time because at that effort you'll stimulate your lactate threshold level..." Wow! He knows what he's talking about! On the other hand, if I tell you; "Why don't you go down to the trail and run down to the bridge and jog back and stop when you get tired..."; they'll look at you like, huh?

Thanks, Nobby. Yea, where I am or at least the runners I'm around most, they're more likely to be able to go to the bridge and back (if they don't go exploring on a side trail as a distraction ) than doing reps/intervals as you describe. It's only when I'm online that I bump into these other things. I do admit to liking to play with numbers and maps after and before runs/races, but I've played with topos since I was a kid. Half the fun of a backpacking trip in my early 20s was planning it on topo. (I digress) I definitely recognize what you're saying about beginners needing a reference. I know I used a hrm to help me understand "conversational" (seemed really broad, but that was before I'd seen the gradient version of it) and "comfortably hard". Maybe it was the pgm encouraging me to learn to run by feel, or not being able to hear hrm beeps over traffic or crunch of snow (still ran roads back then), or tripping on a dang root everytime I looked at the thing or ending up gasping for breath partway up a hill, I soon learned how to avoid pain. Just like pigeons pecking at lights - green light gets food, red light gets nothing. I gravitated toward intensity rather than pace since most pace-based stuff is based on runners that are much faster. That is 1km might be 4-5 min for some runners, but closer to 8-10 min for me on trails. That's not the intended workout, usually - because one can't maintain the intended 4-min intensity for 8 min. As you know, I've done mostly base work (LT and below) most of the year, and that variation provided lots of benefits. "Speed" work to me is being more agile on the rocks and roots so I don't lose as much time there. It gets me to the finish faster than VO2max work might - and reduces injuries with fewer face plants. At any rate, I was thinking about how to up the intensity of my workouts in a meaningful way - that is, result in faster race times, not just a higher LT or VO2max or whatever. What was I really lacking - besides lots of things - but where could I get the most gains from the time spent before the snow flies again. Conceptually, I knew that I could do more intense work for shorter time intervals, and the stairs (25-50 sec up) helped somewhat (I'm gasping / almost passing out on the top step running as slowly as possible and still be running). I ended up doing some repeats at the base of a mountain (30% slope) - up to the 1st rock and back; up to the spring was too far for the intensity I wanted. I wanted to be able to push beyond LT and hold it a bit. It turned out "up to the rock" is about 3.5 to 4-min for me; up to the spring is about 10+ min. I could feel the different stimulus in my legs that day, and it carried over to other workouts. Cardio was secondary, it was the power stimulus I was lacking. Four-five years ago, doing that at all was a struggle, and I think contributed to some hip flexor problems I had. Seems to me that 3-5 min hitting a range at or above LT for part of it is a fairly standard workout (I just can't remember which one and don't have my books handy). This was partly a digression, partly an example of discovering by feel, and partly an example of rediscovering the wheel, albeit a bit different structure than traditional ones. But for me, it had to be on those 30% runnable slopes for 3-5 min (my other hills are shorter or steeper). That's probably not reproducible by me again, certainly not with the feelings I got that day, but I will revisit. And I only did 3, iirc, but some other hiking and flat running that day. (Between a 42 mi run and 13 mi "race", I have 2 recovery wks, 2 workout wks, 2 taper wks, so didn't want to risk compromising too many workouts, esp. with snow being possible by end of month. For me, it's more about consistent running and less about PR's.) At any rate, while thinking about improved stimuluses, I got Joe Friel's book on Total Heart Rate Training. Yea, I needed some numbers and a little different thought process for the next step, which was relatively new territory for me. For me, the benefit of Friel's book is that it's endurance oriented and doesn't stop at marathon distance. Ultras and IM go for 12+ hrs, not just because someone's slow, but because the races are that long. It's been helpful since it's provided some backup to some thinking I've done (that might disagree with JD, but his approach is for races of a few hrs or less). So, yes, I definitely understand the need for guidelines and numbers to start - but once partway down that road, one should be getting the feel of the workout and not using numbers as a crutch. What's suggested for a general population needs to be adapted to an individual's training background, lifestyle, topography, etc. for optimal benefits. Some will do it by pace right on the numbers provided by some pgm, some will do it by variations on pace, some by HRM, some by feel, some by breathing. Whatever gets people out the door running is the best approach.

I know that if I'm getting breathless, I'm running too fast.

Wouldn't this be true during the entire year?

My point, with this thread, wasn't to restart the debate of tech vs non-tech or running by feel vs running by a measured number. My point was that for a large percentage of those people that are taking up running on their own with no structure other than a book, website, or magazine (or most likely none of the above) that there is much more fixture on pace than would seem prudent. If I had titled this thread "Why do so many beginners seem obsessed with pace" then I don't think there would have been as much backlash. Of course I realize that not all beginners are young Type-A males that are out there trying to kill themselves by running way too fast but I think my argument is just as valid for the other side. When I started running I was slow. A 12:00 minute mile was a challenging pace. A lot of the people out there in that situation seem concerned with the fact that they are too slow. All those people afraid to join a running club because they worry they can't keep up are just as worried about pace as the person out running too fast. If you want to disagree then that's fine. If you want to misinterpret what I've written and preach from your own personal soap box then God Bless America. If you want to tell me I'm wrong or stupid or ugly or whatever then go for it. I've tried not to offend or disrespect anyone in this thread and if I did then I apologize. I honestly do not understand the polarity and hostility from what I thought was a simple premise. Hopefully this can come to an end now.

If you want to disagree then that's fine. If you want to misinterpret what I've written and preach from your own personal soap box then God Bless America. If you want to tell me I'm wrong or stupid or ugly or whatever then go for it. I've tried not to offend or disrespect anyone in this thread and if I did then I apologize. I honestly do not understand the polarity and hostility from what I thought was a simple premise.

The key is never to make any statements that may be in any way controversial or write book long essays. I disagree with you here and glad you aren't taking it personally.

I know when I was still a 'beginner' I knew nothing of pace and really didn't know my pace from anyone elses, I was more about how far I was going.

I agree with JimR here. When I started I focused on time (run for 1 hour) Then distance (endurance) Now speed (pace) Disclaimer: This is what works for me. I don't know if it's best. Everyone is different.