Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive

Dan, Shane & Scout,

I agree that for training you can only use one protocol.  Pick a method, whether RPE, HR or pace and stick with it.

That being said, it's still an interesting observation and speaks to the differences in the methods.  I ran using Daniels v-dot paces last year and this year have been doing heart rate.  With RPE being the only real judge of how hard I'm actually running, I can tell you that my HR Z1 running is a lot harder/faster than my Easy Pace running from last year.  Same holds true for all my HR zones compared to my other paces per Daniels formula.  My fitness has improved since last year, but there is still a big disparity between the two.

So what does this say about the training stress being applied?  If you took two otherwise identical plans but based one on HR and the other on paces you could end up with very different training loads.  They doesn't seem like different but equally valid methods.  I don't know that one could be described as 'better' than the other, but I think the OP makes a valid observation.

I agree with everything you're saying.  I just find it interesting that an "Easy" effort can be so different between the different methods.  An easy 45 min run for one could be much harder than an easy 45 run for another.  The workout descriptions are the same, but the training load is different.  Along that vein, one method may result in more training stress that leads to better fitness gains but may also set a person up for injury.  I don't know if that's the case, but based on my observations it seems possible. 

I'm not looking to change my training, but I can use it as an example.  Last year, my Easy VDot pace was around 8:15 which felt pretty easy.  That was established based on several field tests and races as prescribed by Jorge, who was my coach at the time.  This year, based on HR, my Zone 1-2 running is between 7:00 - 7:30 min/mile.  So much faster, it feels harder, but my HR stays low.  Yeah, I'm faster than last year, but based on RPE, I know that one "Easy" is significantly different training stress than the other "Easy." 

Anyway, like I said, I'm in total agreement with you.  I just find it interesting. 

Based on my comments above, I'm starting to feel that you're right on this.  This assumes a person can be honest with themselves on their RPE and be willing to push themselves on the hard days and go easy on easy days without the use of a metric telling them to speed up or slow down!

So Dave, as a coach, how do you communicate intensity to your athletes using RPE?  How can you ensure they're meeting your intent without a metric or data?

When it comes to running, I know my body and have a good feel for gaging intensity using RPE.  But I also overthink my training, which is why I have a coach.  I like structured training and will follow a plan/workout EXACTLY as prescribed, which is hard to do without a clear means of communicating the inteded intensity.  Conversely, the metrics help a coach gage what the athlete is actually doing and how to plan training in the future.

Getting back to the OP though, I'm still struck by how different methods of measurement can result in such different intensities, even for the same "easy," "moderate" or "hard" efforts.  Kind of makes you realize how arbitrary these methods really are.