Thoughts on Racing the IM / HIM Run by HEART RATE, not Pace
Here's a blog post (draft) on what I did this year and part of last for my run. While I love training with pace, I have found racing by HR on the run to be much more user-friendly and effective (for me). BUT I know the timing of this discussion is not the best (but it had to be done) so if you are curious please read and reply...if you have files you want to send in for us to look at in terms of IM or HIM runs in WKO, please send them to patrick@endurancenation.us. Otherwise read on and let the discussion begin!!!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Part One: Pacing The Run in Your Next Triathlon by Heart Rate
One of the best metrics that a coach can use to evaluate an overall Ironman performance is an athlete's run heart rate (HR) file. Heart rate, during the marathon of an Ironman, wraps most of the key factors of the entire day into a single metric. Not only can you evaluate run pacing, it's easy to see how appropriately the bike was paced, gain an understanding of the athlete's general durability, whether or not the race fueling protocol was appropriate, and the athlete's mental ability to keep driving to the finish. If ANY one of these variables is not executed properly, HR will drop off.
EN Races the Run with Pace
As of this post (August 2012), TeamEN races Ironman and Half Iron events using Pace. We initiated this protocol in mid-2008 when it became clear that the vast majority of our athletes, and Ironman athletes in particular, would blow up on the second half of the run.
To solve for this issue, our Pace guidance was designed to eliminate the urge to race at the outset by putting significant caps on your running performance.
Specifically, for an Ironman the guidance is as follows:
Miles 0-6: Your LRP pace + 30secs per mile. NO FRIENDS, run your own pace. Give us 30" per mile, a total of 3' and we will make your day.
Miles 6-18: Drop into LRP pace or a comfortable pace, getting what you need. NO FRIENDS, run your own pace.
Miles 0-18: You are in the defense. Fairies, gumdrops, happy faces. Did we mention NO RACING!!!
Miles 18-26: You now have permission to race. Count people, get mean, get angry, focus on your one thing. Find allies on the course but drop them if they slow you down. Find your teammates and encourage each other. Get it done!
How EN Paces the IM & HIM Bike
Our focus is on the steady application of power across the entire bike. A steady ride with power yields the most efficient use of your energy. This is reflected in both a steady heart rate line as well as an extremely variable range of speed and cadence.
Go here to learn more about the value of riding a steady bike leg.
We focus on power on the bike because of the real-time value of the objective data it gives us. A power meter lets me know, in real time, whether or not I'm going too hard -- a high-dollar "stoopid-o-meter" that enables me to see how I am trying to prematurely end my race.
In a way, the Endurance Nation athlete is conditioned to ride a steady heart rate by virtue of the application of power and the Four Keys strategy on the bike.
However, this master plan doesn't always turn into the best execution of pacing on the run.
The Current Problem with Pace as a Racing Guide
There are three major issues I see with using Pace only as a race day tool.#1 -- A Slow First Six Miles Eliminates Free Speed: Even though the EN Pace protocol was designed such that our athletes would run the first six miles of an Ironman at 30” slower than LRP/Zone 1 effort (or first 3 miles of a 70.3 at LRP/Zone 1), it doesn’t actually prevent a major slowdown over the run.
In other words, everyone slows down: fit/not fit, good/bad nutrition, optimal/crappy weather, it doesn’t matter....everyone slows down. S/he who slows down the least wins, but a slow first six miles doesn’t guarantee a faster second half. It does guarantee that the athlete will miss out on the fast early miles, when their HR is relatively low coming off the bike, to log some good miles.
But stepping away from the performance vs “give us three minutes over the first six miles” debate, I think the slower pace almost puts the brakes on your current performance, prematurely initiating the inevitable slowing that will happen (naturally) on your day. Few athletes can return to a sustainably faster pace one having slowed down -- they simply lose that gear.
#2 -- Steady Pace Does Not Yield A Steady Heart Rate: As steady as we ride the bike using our focus on Power, it turns out that using pace as a guide for the run doesn't always yield the most steady Heart Rate line. For example, the 9:00 min/mile pace you ran in your training runs has nothing to do with the 9:00 min/mile pace you're running right now at mile six of an Ironman. Race day can be significantly more difficult and confusing, as we often observe a large disconnect between heart rate, pace, and rate of perceived exertion (RPE) on the Ironman run, especially in the first six to eight miles.
#3 -- Pace Doesn’t Automatically Account for the Impact of Terrain and Weather: An athlete racing with pace has to constantly adjust their desired race effort to the terrain situation at hand -- hills, downhill, winds, etc.
For example, Jimmy is running at 9:00/mile pace at mile three of his Ironman, following the EN prescribed guidance of 30 seconds per mile slower than LRP. He should be in a good place, however there are some other considerations that he must account for:
- The Terrain: Jimmy is running uphill, which means that his 9 minute per mile goal pace isn't applicable. Instead, he must adjust his 9:00 flat-mile pace to an effort that “feels like the effort” of a 9:00 mile on this hill, yielding perhaps a 9:30 per mile pace on the hill. And Jimmy has to do this on the fly, ignoring the numbers right on his watch and his plan. Simply put, Pace and RPE can be very disconnected in the first miles of the run so this situation above is very difficult to dial in correctly.
- The Conditions: It's also 85° out right now, which requires Jimmy to adjust his already adjusted 9:30 pace. If he's lucky, Jimmy has a mind like a steel trap and he can remember exactly what the pace calculator told him to do in this situation. If he is not so gifted, he might simply guess at the number of seconds per mile he needs to be slower. If he's not lucky, he makes the call that 9:30 pace is already slow enough despite the heat, effectively ending his day before the finish line arrives.
All of this begs the question, what is Jimmy not doing?
- Jimmy is not focusing on his fluids.
- Jimmy is not focusing on his nutrition.
- Jimmy is not taking stock of his body, or how hard it is to run right now off the bike.
Instead, Jimmy is lost in a math problem precisely at the time that he is almost incapable of reading what the numbers on his watch are telling him.
My solution is simple: go back to heart rate as our run pacing guide.
HR vs Pace on Race Day
Wait!, you cry, my HR lags 30 seconds or more behind what my body is really doing. If it's not as good as Pace in training, why would I use it on race day?Actually the answer is one and the same -- we use Pace in training because we are only talking about a one mile interval that needs to be right on the redline for maximum training effect. On race day, we simply can't be concerned with this level of detail -- think of it like having a different readout on your bike computer for each of your gearing options -- you'd be paralyzed with information.
Tracking heart rate provides you with critical information in an easy to understand format:
- Generalities Are Better on Race Day: The slightly "imprecise" measure of Heart Rate is actually easier to track. Up, down or flat…you have one number to track. You are always below / at / over that number, so adjusting is simple.
- Race Day Conditions “Included”: When it's really hot, your HR will be higher for that same pace -- effectively capturing the extra "work" of racing in the heat. If it's cooler, your HR will also be lower giving you additional bandwidth for running harder given the temperatures.
At a hot race like Kona, tracking heart rate can account for eventual heat accumulation, where a pace based strategy can fall short. When heat accumulation occurs, heart rate will continue to increase through the opening miles, while pace slows or remains steady. In these situations, the athlete is accumulating heat stress more quickly than s/he is dissipating. In most cases, holding your pace constant while your heart rate increases will cause stomach bloating and eventual unraveling due to heat related stress.
The athlete’s only option is to then slow the pace and allow the system to rebalance itself. This can be very difficult for the minds of well-trained athletes to grasp, as they are often hard-wired to maintain some pre-determined pace, no matter what. On the other hand, heart rate based pacing, in hot environments, allows the athlete to identify heat accumulation and adjust the pacing accordingly.
- Can Easily Link the Bike to Your Run: A review of your average HR on the bike, specifically the last hour of your bike ride, gives you a launching platform for your run performance. You will already know your target HR for the run, but this HR information from the bike will allow you to adjust your target given the effort you have put into the bike.
The athlete who is able to keep their HR the most stimulated, as in not dropping throughout the day, will typically have the best result relative to their abilities.
A Proposed Heart Rate Race Strategy
Heart Rate is essentially an incredibly "true" indicator of your race day performance. Typical race day issues that negatively impact a race will cause an athlete's heart rate to decrease during the run. For example, poor nutrition, over-pacing the bike, going out too hard on the run, and bathroom breaks -- all result in a falling heart rate over the course of the run.
Here is an image from Coach Patrick's 2011 Kona performance on the run, where his early steady miles led to heat accumulation and then a subsequent meltdown on the run. Of course this was still my best ever run performance, but still, there's a long way to go!
Contrast this with my performance at Ironman Texas 2012. Also a very hot race but one where I sat on a specific heart rate number the majority of my run. As a result my early miles were faster than normal and slowed, but I was still faster overall.
A steady HR meant I could eat and drink all day long on the run with minimal consequences. I was able to back off the pace starting in miles 9 to 10 when it was clear I was running myself into trouble.
Thanks to the early pacing and quality food & fluid intake I never bonked. I never looked at my pacing, just my heart rate, and I ran my best Ironman marathon by six minutes (3:15).
Your primary race day objective is to maintain a steady heart rate throughout the entire run based off of data from previous races or from your testing & training. If you are a rockstar, you'll be able to even raise your HR in in the final 10k (of an Ironman) or final 5k (or a 70.3).
A steady heart rate starts with excellent, conservative pacing in the first 60 to 90 minutes of the bike (30 minutes if a Half Iron). This is followed by steady riding according to the power/HR targets of your race plan -- no spikes for hills or surging past draft packs, etc. On the run you move to a solid effort targeting your key HR Avg number. Settle into your pace and focus on eating / drinking / staying cool as best you can.
Eventually your HR will go from a target you aim for to a bar you are trying to get under. Reducing pace, staying cool, great technique…these are all potential solutions here.
Conclusion
At the end of the day, your goal is to be as steady as possible across all three disciplines. Using HR as your primary run target can provide a more tangible, simplified metric by which to gauge and adjust your race day performance. Stay tuned for Part Two where I discuss how to determine your race day HR zones.Part Two: Determining Your Heart Rate Target
If you are interested in exploring the use of Heart Rate in your next Ironman or 70.3, here are our suggested recommendations. Confirm and practice these in both your long runs and early season “B” and “C” level races so that you show up to race day with your best possible number.
- Perform the regular tests and determine your zones, per your EN training plan. Be sure to wear a Heart Rate Monitor!!!
- Train using both Heart Rate and Pace zones, and identify the relationship between these two, and your Rate of Perceived Exertion in a variety of situations.
- A hot day will yield a higher HR/RPE for a given pace; consequently a cooler day/conditions will allow you to run a given pace with a lower HR.
- Training fatigue, whether from your overall week or from a recent workout, can cause a higher Heart Rate for a given pace, as can the use of caffeine or other stimulants before or during your workout.
- Please Note: You should still train to your pace numbers; but race to your target Heart Rate.
Analyzing Your 5k Test Heart Rate
Insert your Heart Rate data from your recent 5k test into the EN Data Tool. Than use the zones according to the description below.Please Note: All of the data below should be confirmed via your long runs and “B” or “C” level races; the 5k test metric isn’t as targeted as what you experience on the open road.
- For Ironman, it's the bottom half of Endurance Nation's Zone 2. So if your Zone 2 is 141 to 149, your Run Avg HR Target would be between 141 and 145 beats per minute.
- For Half Iron, your run target is the upper end of Endurance Nation's Zone 2, aka “Upper Steady.” So if your Zone 2 is 141 to 149, your Run Avg HR Target would be between 145 and 149 beats per minute. In other words, your Run Avg HR Target is approximately 5 to 7 beats higher for the HIM distance vs the IM, all things being equal. Beginner HIM folks should stick to a hard number / cap to get it right the first time, while stronger athletes will see something more like a progression. Since there is more running / racing in a HIM, this HR avg will mostly likely work itself out like this:
- ~3 miles @ mid-high Z2
- ~6 miles mid Z3
- 3+ miles at Z3-ish...basically what you have left.
- Calibrate the specifics of your ideal “zone” in your long runs and early season races.
Your Racing History
The best indicator is previous race performance review…all that data does matter! You'll actually be able to find the point in your run heart rate file where your HR peaked and began to decline. From that point you can assume that your actual target HR will be 2 to 4 beats lower than that peak. Of course, you can compare to your test data to also determine an appropriate range.Race Day Reality
More often than not, you will find that race day has an alternate plan for you versus what you had trained for. Especially for the run at the end of your long day. Do your best to run the zones you have trained for, but know that even if you can’t the overall goal remains the same: run the Heart Rate number you believe you can sustain for the longest, using the early miles to dial in your nutrition and prepare for the final push. Good luck!
0
Comments
Apostasy!
Actually, this is in line with what's being said in this thread in the Power and Pace forum. I think this is a good approach to race day for reasons I mentioned in my reply to that thread.
My biggest worry is your recommended HR level to hold for the race. Unlike EN's power guidelines for the bike, we don't yet have data for AGer's from the "real world" (unlike the training history and racing world that your or I operate in) which demonstrates the safest HR zone in which to race an IM.
The recommended level of "low Z2" may indeed be the right one, but it doesn't jibe with what I experienced as I was teaching myself how to race an IM marathon at a steady pace using RPE and HR. I found myself starting in the upper Z1, and ending up at the very bottom rung of Z2. I have multiple index cards with my pace and HR data from IM marathons 2006-2010 which I just reviewed which tell me this.
I'm worried we may see a lot of people blowing up on the run in the next 3 IMs in the coming weeks as they try to start out in low Z2 and go from there.
The suggestion to "start your run at the HR where you ended the bike" does agree with my own experience over the years; it's just that I end the bike with an HR in the upper reaches of my run Z1.
P and I discussed this at length, and I'm in agreement that the hardest part of the whole thing is figuring out what that target HR should be. It would be interesting to collect a bunch more data and run it through the ringer to get more specific vis-a-vis the relationship between IM HR and zones based on a 5k Vdot test. I'm not sure how reliable that is going to end up being at the end of it all.
I agree that planning to start at the HR you get off the bike at, and keeping about a 5bpm cap on that, is probably close enough for government work. Of course, that only works if you did your job and paced the bike well, rather than limping into T2.
I also think that it's worthwhile to consider RPE in the equation. At IMLP '10, I basically threw pacing guidance out the window after about 6-8 miles, because I could tell that there was no way I was a) going to drop in to E-pace (I was massively undertrained) and b) make it to the finish line if I tried to push. So I listened to the body, took it to the limit of where cramp/spasms felt like they were just around the next corner, backed off a touch, and held it there. If anything, I think the long runs in the training plan are the time to spend some quality time inside your own head, owning the space of RPE and understanding it well. Knowing that RPE tends to be out of whack for the first several miles of the IM run means that the HR cap is very helpful.
I'm also inclined to suggest that, whenever a shadow of doubt creeps in about whether or not you're running too fast, you probably are. "Leaving speed on the table" is almost never a problem in the IM marathon (almost!). So, using Al's proposal or the one in P's draft post, always remember to listen to that voice in your head.
Just to add some more personal data before I disappear to a wedding in BC for the weekend; these % ages are based on my own HR numbers, and my most recent IM marathon, which I ran at an even pace except for a few miles around mile 20, when I picked the pace up to pass a competitor; all these are where I started out, with my final HR being 3.25% higher than my starting:
• 76% of my maximum HR
• 80% of my 5K HR
• 82% of a recent half marathon HR
• 90% of what I would race a marathon at, if I were ever to do one again.
• 100% of my HR when I got off the bike
Someone younger with a broader band width in their HR might see different %ages. (My resting HR is 38, max is 162).
I will put myself out as a guinnie pig for this method. I was going to do try racing austin 70.3 by heart rate anyway.
The thing I would add, is that I think there is a ton of value in using HR as a secondary metric during training as well. I've been running with pace/HR/cadence for pretty much every run this year and there are days I can hit my pace targets but my HR or cadence are noticeably higher/lower than usual. Additionally I pay attention to my HR during my WU/CD and recovery intervals(i.e. how fast i recover). By watching those things I can start to see when the cumulative fatigue (or other stresses from life) are building. This give me a way to proactively watch my training load instead of reviewing my PMC after the fact.
BTW, did you put a cup on before you told Coach Rich you were going to post this in the middle of IM season?
P showed me the draft, I added a lot of edits and gave my opinion that this needed to be delivered cautiously. So I'd like everyone to reread the first paragraph, the tone of which is "this is what I did, what worked for me, we are moving towards this direction, everything is not complete (and probably never will be) but we are all SMART people who can solve the questions around the edges by being SMART and talking about it."
As you know, RnP are always trying to improve everything we do -- customer service, resources, training methods, and our race execution guidance. And we because our training and racing and YOU are our datasets, we prefer to work with you whenever possible to involve you in this process.
We're all workers in the EN Sausage Factory, basically
.
I have to confess it's been about 6yrs since I've seen my HR on the bike or run. But I like to think I have a very finely tuned sense of RPE and it's interaction with power and pace. At IMWI last year I knew, by RPE, what pace I needed to run and it was not the pace I had planned to run. I didn't need HR to tell me that and, as I said, HR wouldn't be very useful to me anyway because I haven't seen it in so long...
I think it would be best to break this guidance down for the audiences reading this:
Racing IMLou and IMCA:
Racing IMWI:
Kona:
You have time to get mostly on board with this and participate, learn from, help us with these discussions without freaking yourself out.
FL and AZ:
You're in an even better place than the Kona folks above. Specifically, you have many long runs left in which to pay attention to the interactions of pace, HR, and RPE and refine these tools to use on race day.
After Quassy I decided that targeting pace zones just does not work for me, and running by primarily HR (target paces secondary) might be more effective. My Zone 2 HR is 157 - 166 bpm, and Zone 3 is 167 - 175 bpm. Over a month ago, based on racing and training data, I decided that for Rev3 Maine I would aim to keep my HR capped at 166 (upper Zone 2). Later in the race, if I am feeling good, I might let it slide into the low 170's. Then along comes Patrick's post, and verifies everything I had been planning! Nice!!
The piece by Patrick is a really good explanation of the difficulties of sticking to pace to guide the execution of an IM marathon. I look forward to reading about how folks do using this HR based protocol. I, for one, will be using it once again next Sunday at IMC!
---Ann.
Ironman performance is about survival is about performance. Got it? You can decide and execute on a pace on the bike, but by the time the run comes, by and large, your pace has already been determined. Evidenced by the fact that there are very few pace changes on a run that aren't positive -- as in going slower.
The very nature of what heart rate you choose is highly subjective for sure -- evidenced that Al T runs at 100% of his bike HR, but I run at 105-107%. That said, it's not like either one of us is really choosing to run at that HR instead of running much faster. That is simply our maximum sustainable effort.
If your race is soon, don't worry. Run your race as you would but be 100% sure to have your HRM on. As you are running, note your HR. You'll find a "happy" zone where you are okay, and then you'll find an unhappy space…for me 145 is easy; but 146 feels terrible. So as your opportunity to run by pace fades (rather quickly!) transition to using that HR to manage the rest of your day. After the fact we can become more intentional about how to approach your race….for those of you not racing, just start logging HR, especially if you are doing Half Marathons, etc.
Another hard part to nail here is the difference between a HIM and an IM. There is more racing in a Half (fewer walkers!) and more pace changes (you have more energy), but not everyone is in a racing place...while 10% of an IM field is racing, I'd say 40% of a HIM is. Where you fall on the HR scale then is personal not only to your fitness levels but how you choose to race....so the more data the better.
Looking forward to more input or files to look at, etc!
P
I've been using heart rate as my back-up data for a good portion of this season. For me, it is a) a really good way to see if something is going wrong and b)an invaluable whip of ftp/vdot tests.
How do you account for all the weird stuff heart rate does in racing versus training and what happened to fitness being in our legs and not in our hearts?
Will be interested to see where all of this ends up, but I don't know if I would be so cautious in a shorter race.
On the bike, power works because it allows you to flatten a course and basically take the guesswork of hills out of the exertion equation. As a result, the bike and its metrics using power are more consistent day to day, in various weather conditions, and various terrain conditions, than running. While heat has an effect - I personally find it effects the bike less than it does running. I'm thinking because running uses more muscles, and there is less wind to provide for cooling, but that is just a guess.
Anyway, my point is that if we had a way to measure exertion of the muscles during running directly, that would be closer to an analog of the power used on the bike. But we don't - we just have pace and HR. I think at a certain point, the elevated HR as a result of fatigue, heat and such have to be taken into account and pace adjusted accordingly. Afterall, if one were to charge up the hills at IMLP at their long run pace, the HR would shoot through the roof and then you can forget any ability of the digestive system to actually process fuel and water for some period of time.
Also consider the effect of using power on HR - flattens it like a board. So if one were to consider power a mechanism by which to steady the HR, which results in better performance, it certainly puts a different spin on things as to what the real goal of training with power is.
Just my $0.02.
In other words, the HMP/MP/EP data STILL GIVE YOU ABOUT WHAT THE PACE SHOULD BE as a starting point! They will still tell you if you are in the right neighborhood. If you get off on the run and are super-fatigued for some reason, it is entirely possible that you won't be able to get your heart rate up high enough. (One of my two IM's, I was a little sick and had either super high or super low HR for the first 3/4 of the marathon...it was ugly!) If you think that someone who is fatigued and can't raise his/her heart rate should be running faster and faster to try to get it up...especially at the beginning of an IM marathon, I fear that this is a recipe for disaster.
Everybody knows that pace measurements fail when it comes to describing the effects of slight hills and wind. We wave our hands and make estimated adjustments, but here is one place where HR as a secondary indicator has always been extremely valuable. Knowing what your HR "should be" at a flat pace has ALWAYS been a good tool that you could use to deal with extended hills, wind etc. Conversely, I think knowing pace targets should be a similarly useful secondary indicator for those racing primarily by Heart Rate.
Perhaps I am wrong, but with training, I absolutely believe in pace and if an interval set requires a certain pace, regardless of HR (whether hot, cold, raining, etc), then that pace must be reached. I think that allowing HR to determine our effort could allow for the possibility that we allow ourselves a weaker or slower effort. But because the intervals are being used to 'work' the muscles, not test the heart, then the paces must be hit - IE, the muscles must be called upon to get it done - period. Granted, when going up hill, this pace will have to be a bit slower, but shouldn't be TOO slow. I just think that if we allow HR to define these workouts, we set ourselves up to giving ourselves a possible "out" to going all in. Part of this believe comes from the 2008 Webinar on HR Training Redefined where RnP discuss HR and simply state that fitness is in the muscle, not the cardiovascular system. I still believe that in training, that message applies.
That said, I think collecting HR data on the long runs and comparing to pace is reasonable - although the long runs also have some portions of hard work in them as well. So I think pacing should again be used during those parts. But for the slow WU, CD, and "just running" portions, getting data could be very valuable and could then be used on race day.
Very interesting thread - will be interested to see how it all shakes out.
@Greg... I think the suggestion is to train using pace, observe and correlate HR and RPE during various training efforts and environments, then use HR as a steadying rein during a long race like HIM or IM.
This weekend @ IM Canada, I'll guinea pig myself and run based on RPE, but also try to keep my HR in a range which starts at the HR at the "end" of the bike (I may have to finnesse this due to the downhill nature of the last 12 miles @ Penticton), and goes up to my LRP avg HR. I expect this range to be 118 to 127, but may have to drift up to 132 if the temp is in the low 80s as predicted.
The we'll see what happens to my pace. I'm hoping this keeps megoing somewhat slow, I don't want to work real hard on the run, and need a way to rein myself in.
@ William ... Isn't Garmin working on a shoe based power meter?
I have to say that if I had not had the knowledge and ability to watch both Power & HR on the bike and Pace & HR on the run this past weekend at IMLOU I would not have been able to manage my day as well as I would have with only Power & Pace. HR really helped me keep tabs of what was going on physiologically with my body and gave me another meaningful measure of my effort; This was especially important given the heat & humidity....and I think this is where HR can play an extremely valuable role...the only thing that Power & Pace could have reflected (and not with much accuracy) was less/slower due to the impact of environmental conditions onthe functioning of my body or on physiologial changes going on in my body.....a changing heart rate (not short term changes but steady consistent change) is able to relect that....so I knew despite riding below my target in easy zone....that with my HR in Z3 I was not going to be able to keep that up all day...I needed to adjust................(and I had data from from races and rr's that showed me my normal ranges for HR).... I was not 100% succesful but the alternative was no guidance and perhaps a worse outcome....
However, I am an experienced runner and have always used pace rather than HR to guide my racing strategy. I also know how to put my perceived exertion together with pace and make adjustments on the fly during race day. I'm in touch enough with this over the years that I believe it trumps HR. I knew Saturday that I felt great the second 1/2 of the marathon regardless of what my heart race said.
The bike to me seems very busy and fast without much time for me to think about perceived exertion and so HR/power numbers seem like better guidance in the heat of battle. But as the day settles out on the run, there is a lot of time to get in touch with how you feel. If one doesn't have a good feel for their body in training, then I guess HR would be valuable to them and take the heat/conditions into account. But I'm not ready to go there yet on the run.
Rob, I very much am in tune with your thoughst here. I did IM Canada on the weekend with my pacing strategy ready based on pace with intention of glancing at HR just to monitor when my Garmin went south and I used all my run experience to guide effort. As I struggled with my garmin 405 and my sticky sweating hands which caused the bezel to mis behave i would catch pace or hr every now and then and say to myself that feels about right. Then it totally froze. At about mile 20 I caught up with EN'r Terri Cashmore and she gave me her Garmin readout and we were at 9:13 my goal was 9:15 miles (though in Km's) so with all my experience I just knew without the electronics my exertion was bang on. Now after the race and looking back, i went out harder than I wished and HR feedback I believe would have told me that.
I think I am going to like this plan...
Report from my recent experiement with this concept @ IM Canada.
Background: I have been racing my most recent 6 or 7 IM Marathons without HR or a pace watch, by RPE only. I also have routinely NOT gone 30 sec/mile slower the first 6 miles, generally hitting a steady pace with an even or negative split. I wanted to see what my actual race day metrics would be, folowing my usual RPE method, while recording HR and pace.
Plan/Goal: I wanted to have my HR in the first 11-12 miles (the only part I actually "raced") of the run be the same as my HR at the end of the bike. Since IM Eh?'s bike ends in a 12 mile downhill, for purposes of this analysis, I looked at my HR up the final climb, Yellow Lake, which comes at about 90-100 miles in, and is mostly 2-6% gradient, with one section @ 8%.
MY HR during those 10 miles was 123, peaking at 126 in the final few hundred meters as I crested the climb.
My avg HR during each of the first 10 miles was 123 (122, and 124 once each), and I hit 126 on mile 12, which has the only significant extended climb on the run course. My paces were: 9:43, 10:30, 10:30, 10:04, 9:21, 9:56, 10:00, 9:40, 10:23, 9:55 for each of these miles. It's important to note that my avg HR each mile was extremely stable, varying only between 122-4, and the pace times reflect the slightly rolling nature of the run course. My LRP race pace would be 8:40 in 60F weather; the heat pace calulator said I should go 14% slower, which would be about 10:10-15. FWIW, my cadence was 84-88, again correlated perfectly with pace; faster pace = faster cadence.
So my two conclusions: I think the goal of attempting to keep one's run HR at the same level as the end of the bike (assuming one is biking with proper restraint, EN style) is appropriate. I don't know how that translates into Zones for others, but for me it's the VERY bottom of Zone 2 on the bike and the very top of Zone 1 on the run. I think getting into very low Zone two in the last 6-8 miles is probably what will happen naturally with this plan.
Second, I will revert to my usual race day format of no pace or HR data (no strap, no pace watch) during the run. I showed myself that my RPE, even on this relatively warm day @ 84F, is a good governor on and correlate to an appropriate pace and HR.
I have never actively monitored HR in a race during the run portion (unlike on the bike portion, where I moniitor it and look for decoupling from power).
That said:
(a) During races for me there comes a point where pace is really the outcome of an RPE-based strategy. It just happens that way. At some point I'm making a judgement call like "I better hold back, I'm only at mile 4, this isn't sustainable" or "fu*k it, time to empty the tank, 1.5 miles left, I can make it". Stuff like that.
(b) I do look at it after each workout and have a good feel for my max HR, my HR correlation with pace zones, and the day-to-day and conditions-based fluctuations to expect
In the case of (a), if active monitoring of HR can put more structure and optimize the outcome relative to the RPE-based approach (the result of which is subject to all sorts of mind games and "negotiations" between the body and brain), then I'm all for it. And the great thing is that although I have no "tested" HR, point (b) gives me the confidence to know what sorts of numbers are the "right ones". In fact, I like the fact that I have numbers that I'm comfortable with and recognize, rather than using a "tested" number that might have resulted from a hot day, cold day, good HR day, bad HR day, etc.
So what to target? As I review data from my last two HIM runs (run by pace+RPE), it is just striking how similar the HR patterns are...at Kansas I ran the first half in the very high 160's, the second half in the low 170's, and the last mile and a half in the mid 180s. At Racine it was mid-high 160's followed by very low 170's, and then jacking to low 180s at the very end. Both were good runs on pretty flat courses in incredibly hot weather. My splits were 1:38:37 and 1:35:48. So at Racine it was a lower HR and a faster run. BUT in Kansas I battled bad quad cramps, a side stitch and made a bathroom stop. So in general I can see how it all unfolded. So, again, what to target? Well, I guess I should mentiont that both of the above were negative-split runs, pace-wise. It looks like for a "push it to the next level" run, I should try to get into the low 170's faster, look for 170-171 or so early, then hold it until it's time to empty the tank.
I'll try the strategy tomorrow in Vegas and let you all know how it goes. The course topography precludes a pace-based strategy (or at least means a pace-based strategy without another governor will run you into the ground), so I was expecting an RPE run in some form anyway. HR has been added to the Garmin screens and we'll see howit goes..........
p.s. I am in full agreement with this strategy for RACING. It would take a LOT of convicing -- convincing based on hard data -- to change my view that the approached based on pace and time (NOT distance and/or HR) is optimal.