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

I guess I should have stated when I started this thread that I wasn't talking about myself specifically. A lot of you that have chimed in are not what I would call beginning runners. I wasn't here trying to advocate one versus another but I think many of you have missed the point. BEGINNERS LOVE PACE. Find someone that's been running 3 months and you've found someone that can almost certainly tell you what the pace was for their last run. Even if they haven't extracted the number, they know how long it took them to run a certain distance. In probably 85% of those runs they ran too fast. No matter what the pace actually was or how the runner thinks he/she felt, it was probably too fast.

Hmmm, maybe where you live or online groups that's true about beginners being pace conscious. But where I live and the online group I started with (usenet), time and breathing is far more common. I know in my earliest days (dating back to late 70s, before I started doing structured running 7+ yr ago), I just ran for stress relief - around the athletic field complex before class some days or up to the high school driveway (and end of street lights, maybe 20 min rt; did 45 min around the big block, maybe once a year) after I was working up here. Why would pace or HR matter. I just ran to get the blood circulating so I could stay awake in my 8am class. I'd never even heard of logs and couldn't imagine why someone would keep a log when I first started reading stuff online in winter 2001. I know a friend of mine that was/is also a beginner (truly someone who runs occasionally, but isn't a runner) just runs occasionally. Never any worries about pace. But she does want to get to her favorite play areas on the trails. When I first started structured running, I was aware of a few races - a couple mtn races up here, Boston marathon (and maybe a couple others), Olympics, state fair parade day race (since it blocked access to the post office) - and that was about it. It's only been since I've been online that I've become aware of all these other things. I know where I am very few people are in online running groups - probably less than 10%, if that. Granted, the experienced runners talk about how many hours to run certain trails or how many minutes to run a certain mountain (in a way, it's pace, without knowing the distance, since the amount of vertical is at least as important). But where I am, most people run hilly trails, so pace doesn't mean a whole lot other than maybe time between landmarks. My hypothesis is that with the commonness of gps units or mapping pgms and online training pgms based on pace and weekly mileage games, beginners are becoming more obsessed with pace and mileage. Something that didn't used to occur. Or at least not that I'm aware of. Some of the ones that have been around longer than myself and running recreationally, not on track teams, might have more knowledge. (I left out xc teams since I'm not sure how they train. Local hs seem to be paced by coach or just run - at least when I see them on the same trails I'm using. When I've asked them about training, they usually talk about where they run, not distance or pace.) Indeed, it's much harder to find training pgms based on time and effort. I feel fortunate that I managed to find one of those when I first started structured training (7+ yr ago), although I wasn't obsessed with it. Lydiard is also based on time and effort, although the effort is more subjective, as it should be. I haven't seen Parker's book on HR training, but Burke's book's part on running was basically what I had from Benson's program that I used. Joe Friel's book (Total Heart Rate Training) is the only book I've actually seen with a complete training approach.

In my opinion, if you've been running for more than 2 or 3 years or have been coached at some point in your life then you don't need to worry about it. 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. If you don't want to look at a data point and just want to complete a distance or run for a certain number of minutes then you are more mature than the average beginner and I commend you.

I do agree with you that relative HR is more useful than pace - at least in hilly areas - and if someone is going to obsess with numbers rather than feel from the start, that's a more useful approach (in MY mind) - but unless someone has taken the time to figure out their max HR or LT HR or VO2max HR or whatever, those data can be misleading. That's why I suggest to beginning runners to run by time and effort (breathing). It's the most natural way to run - well, other than running between places like the ancient runners did in Greece, Copper Canyon in Mexico, southwest US, etc. Just running so you can talk is such a liberating feeling and relaxing. It's such an easy way to run - just go out the door for 10 min and back (or whatever works) - rather than needing a whole pgm and gadgets - which didn't exist that many years ago. Believe it or not, there's a lot of runners or people who run who aren't in online groups to even be introduced to these concepts. But if being in online groups and weekly miles games and getting gadgets (garmins, hrms, mp3s, whatever) and whatever is what gets people motivated to get out the door to meet their goals, then by all means, have at it. I would definitely encourage that. (I'm just saying that some things that are perceived as "natural" online, may not be "natural" to other runners.)

So what would he say? He would tell you to "go by how you feel." Would beginning runners like to hear that? Absolutely NOT!

Nobby, do you think that's true away from the internet also or just in recent years or ...? Most of the runners I know up here are trail and/or ultra folks, and I do recognize that Alaskans tend to be independent and not want to be told anything, esp. by a gadget. But what I see online isn't what I see in real life. Just curious about your perspective. Obviously gadgets didn't always exist - and Phedipides seemed to do just fine until he tried a marathon after a double Spartathlon. Native peoples seem to run just fine. And Lydiard in more recent times.

I think the advice that comes from the more experienced members of this group is priceless but I also think that with experience comes psychological distance from the pain.

+1. And the answer to your question is heart rate. For the newer runner, it is generally a more accurate and more direct reflection of the athlete's physiological condition and fitness.

AKTrail, it sounds like you and I have both been largely influenced by our respective environments in completely different ways. In my world, people tend to run like lemmings towards whatever shiny object other people or the media tells them to run towards. I have been just as guilty of that behavior as anyone else. Once said shiny object is acquired it is then equally important to make sure that a) all your friends know you have it and b) they know how much you paid for it. In my mind there's a correlation between that behavior and the guy that's just spent $1,500 in gear before ever running a single step and who will go out and attack that first run faster than what he thinks his neighbor can run it. I blame Starbucks and Steve Jobs.

Same is true if they had a HRM. Without someone to translate the numbers for them, 100, 140, 180 are just numbers. They might eventually latch on to 180 is yucky hard and 120 is easy enough and there's stuff in between. A lot of new runners don't really care much about learning this stuff. A lot of them have a goal they wanna write off their life list and really just want numbers and a schedule and stuff to guide them. If they're told to get a HRM and keep it around 130, they'd be fine with that. They'd religiously keep to the numbers and stick within it and be satisfied they're doing okay. They'd have no idea why they're doing it except they've been told. Tell em to run 3 miles this day and 4 the next and 6 on Sunday...all's good for them. Tell em to run 20 minutes as 140 this day and 30 minutes at 130 the next, newbies are great to take numbers. The HRM is just another number thingy for them. But there's so much to be learned by doing things wrong.

You are right. Everyone runs for different reasons. If they are running just to be able to say they finished a marathon and they want the magic formula to get them there, I can understand that. If they are taking up running as a lifetime pursuit I think running by feel is a skill that is worth learning.

In my world, people tend to run like lemmings towards whatever shiny object other people or the media tells them to run towards ......... I blame Starbucks and Steve Jobs.

Dude, you need to get outside the beltway. There's a whole other world out there that doesn't even resemble where you're from and the people around you. There is plenty blame to go around and I'm fairly sure neither of those two deserve it. Even that child lovin' pedophile called Michael Jackson knew to start with the man in the mirror. Modified to add:

Drink beer, mostly slow, some fast. Buy in bulk. Drinkers drink. It works for almost everything...

Never mind, Jay. You're OK in my book.

Granted, you have to have at least some idea of what the numbers mean, but it doesn't take long to figure out what HR you're "normally" running at and be able to at least make a rough comparison.

Of course, what you normally run at could be too difficult, and you cause yourself problems. Without either getting a test in a lab or conducting a field test to determine what HR you should be training at, you're just running at an arbitrary level. I spent some time thinking about these issues. And here's what I've come up with. I do not have anything specific against the use of HRMs. What I do take issue with is when people tout them as the end-all be-all of training, and make absolute statements akin to the one Berner made. The fact is that NONE of the metrics have any meaning whatsoever without a reference point. All the evidence points to this, regardless of the method used. If you use HR, you need to know what HR is considered easy/recovery, what is considered hard. You do this through a test, or by correlation to how you feel. With pace, same thing. You correlate to how you feel, or to a race. With feel, you correlate it to a given pace or HR. In the long run, it does not matter one iota which method you use. So long as you use one. I use RPE because that's what I know, it's the most simple thing for me, and it allows me to structure my training (when I do so). I have done pace-based training, and even tried out HR training. Pace-based worked for me to some extent, but I found I got too wrapped up in the numbers and it wasn't fun anymore. HR training was even worse. The alarm got to be most frustrating due to hills. The whole debate between technology vs. using your body has gotten too polarized. The fact is, neither side is any more right or wrong than the other. I'm not going to convince Berner that my way is the best, nor is he going to convince me his is best. As for why new runners like numbers, it's been said already. It gives them something to quantify. They get a plan, they have specific numbers to hit, and that's that. No need to make it difficult. Hey, so long as they get out the door that's what really matters. Some people need that reassurance that they are doing things right, and having something like HR may be what they need. Who am I to argue? But, we need to recognize that we all approach training based on what works for us as individuals. As Jeff stated in another thread, the only real law of running is that the more miles you run, the better you'll do. Anything else is an academic debate that has minimal meaning beyond the individual, especially as to how one judges effort. With that in mind, it become evident that the big issue people have is when someone says his or her method is the "best" method, especially for a new runner. That may be the case for the individual, but may not be the case for others.