Using HR for run zones

jritter

Ok, this is new for me. I've been running for years, way before doing tri's... and have never used HR to determine training zones for my run times. Have always used a 5k time or 10k time and then mcmillan running calculator to determine appropriate training zones. I'm willing to give the HR approach a try, but just wondering how people find this compares? I guess I'll find out soon enough anyway. 5k run test coming up at stupid o'clock tomorrow morning! Thanks  

 

ezellrh

Jenn, n=1 from a runner who has trained with both HR and pace plans. I find running with assigned paces is a much better target. For whatever reason, comparing HR zones with pace zones for the same VDOT, I tend to run a bit quicker with pace targets than I would using whatever HR resulted from my test on any individual day. I tend to get better quality workouts and season results from targeting pace which is constant vic targeting HR zones, which for me, is extremely variable based on tons of individual (daily) stresses. I believe the EN plans give pace/HR zone/perceived effort targets, depending on which metric you prefer to use.

jritter

Thanks Roy... Having moved away from HR on the bike due to how variable I am, I will likely stay away from it on the run as well, and use prescribed paces as I have done in the past. I did use a hr monitor to run this morning...just to see. For my efforts, I got annoyed with the strap and hated watching my hr climb so high, so for me, I'd rather just ignore it and work!  

Daniela

Given the choice between HR and Pace, almost all people here will train by Pace. I still wear a HR monitor and just use the data after the fact to see how it compares week to week, but I use pace during the workout.

kkiefer

I am new as well. i am used slightly different zones and LTHR tests.

I have been training HR first and than used pace.



For interval work at z4/z5 i find - as roy said - pace more powerful, but i use HR to back down if things are too wild (heat, wind or hills).

On long z2/3 ones i go rather by HR and RPE, use pace only in the 1st quarter to get calibrated.



That said i noticed that the EN tests lead to higher LTHR than i am used to.

If the approach will still be effective to manage injury prevention i need to see.

Jenn, if you are expierienced runner, as it sounds - i think Pace and RPE will work you better. 

Steve West

IRRC - you should test for pace (collecting HR is plus but not a requirement) and train with pace. There are way too many variables that will effect your HR on any given day beyond heat, wind and hills like hydration, fatigue and illness.



For me, HR is an interesting metric I do pay attention to while training and racing but not something I set pace by - mostly. I see it more as a govonor to reign me on long runs and open marathons to keep me from blowing up. For example I know I can go 3+ hours at or below 166 but I only have about 25-30 minutes above 172. Even more important is if I burn those Z4 minutes early, I can't get the 3+ hours in Z3 - meaning I boogered the race!



Go here https://www.box.net/shared/xmtk9hg6j6 for the ebook

Coach Rich

What everyone else says:

• If you have pace (GPS, marked course, etc), use pace as primary, RPE second, HR third
• If you have power, use power as primary, RPE second, HR third

RPE second = you are paying attention to what pace X, power Y feels like -- breathing, etc

HR third = you are observing what HR you typically see at pace/power/RPE X. Over time, as you collect enough training time and informal seat of your pants data you'll develop an internal table of what X you should expect to see with the corresponding Y above.

You'll use this on race day and in training to identify disconnects between the objective metrics of pace and power vs subjective metrics of HR and RPE. IOW, you'll develop a 3 dimensional picture of your training and a better understanding of your body.

That said, in the OS your goal is to become much faster. We recommend that, at least for interval sessions, you just push the pace/power and ignore HR.

I haven't seen my HR on the bike or run since about 2006. I may integrate HR back into my training this year to see what observations I can make.

colinmil

Very interesting and informative. I've been finding that when I'm at my Z4 run pace as per the datatool my HR strays up to 3-4 BPM into the Z5 range, depending on hydration, sleep the night before and temperature (treadmill or outside). I've basically been ignoring the HR and continuing with teh suggested pace unless it hits 5 BPM into Z5. Seems from the responses on this thread that's not too uncommon. What a relief! I was starting to wonder if I'd made a real error somewhere in my testing.