so frustrated with HR training, help please! (Page 2)

X2. HR is a great tool if used right. Like Bryan, it's served me very well. There's a reason almost every pro uses a hrm as part of their training. To the point of your max hr, I think you might be picking up extra beats in that count. either you're getting the pulse of you're neck and your finger (especially if you use your index finger) or you're getting the "lub" and the "dub" from your neck. Try using your ring finger on your neck or try getting a pulse from your wrist to see if there's a difference.

x3.  If you don't use a HRM (which you really should if you are going to train by HR -- you can get a basic one very cheap), use your ring finger and your wrist.  When your pulse is screaming, the result of using index finger + neck can be quite inaccurate.

I don't know what to say about the max HR, but I have a suggestion for your zone calculation. The common way to calculate is 220-age and then figure out the percentage zones. An alternative method is to use heart rate reserve HHR using age predicted max HR then deducting resting heart rate, and figure out the percentage zones with the remaining number - then adding your resting HR back into it. This will raise all of your HR zones if you have a healthy resting heart rate.

EG. I'm 25 and RHR is about 65

70% =

220-25=195, 195-65=130, 130x0.7=91, 91+65=156

Do not do this.

There is no age-based formula for calculating zones that should be used.  Ever.

The only way to establish zones accurately (if you can even use this word when discussing HR zones) is through various testing protocols.

Not arguing with that comment at all, but I don't think it's a horrible place to start. Obviously I would agree to go test if you want to be more accurate, but the law of percentages and the fact that most train in "zones" allows for a pretty healthly margin of error. 80% of a number (or whatever percentage)and then allowing for a zone of 10-15+ beats means there's a good chance you'll be reasonably close to the mark when you step out the door for the first time. Once you actually wear off a little rubber from your running shoes you need to dial it in.

Again you have chosen to quote only part of the ongoing thread. In a second part I have stated that for races you need to keep an eye on and defer to HR/RPE based on the conditions/type of day during the race. During training you can afford to set goal W and pace and train on that. 'Useless' may have been too harsh of a word but I won't back down from the gist of the statement.

Training by pace may be appropriate for more experienced runners and/or for certain types of runs. The OP is in the process of (re)building a running base, and IMO has no business trying to train by pace, but should rather get out there and just run, regardless of pace, at an easy effort for a while. You point out that HR is dependent on various external factors, but so is pace. The pace I can comfortably sustain, or push to sustain, will vary depending on how well rested I am, how my nutrition has been, terrain of the run, weather.... just to name a few....

HR, RPE and pace are all measures of effort, no?  I assure you that running more at a lower effort will get you faster.  So if you are gassed at 9mm run at 10-11mm.  Most of my training runs are at 9-10mm but I just ran a 20k at an 8:40 pace.  Am I fast, absolutely not, but the addage of "run lots, mostly slow, sometimes fast" does work.  it just takes time to apply, there are no short cuts. I wish there were.  I figure by teh time I am 50 I may be a halfway decent runner

If I remember correctly, the standard deviation associated with most formulas is roughly the equivalent of a zone.  So, roughly speaking, there's a decent (~35%) chance that an individual will be one zone off.  I leave it to others to say whether that's close enough.

The reason I suggested using age based is because it's what she was already trying to do, and I was trying to improve her zones so that she can train above walking in the low zones. Not everyone has access to or is interested in going through testing, although I agree that it's much more accurate and beneficial to training. Using heart rate reserve is better than using age predicted alone.

Your suggesting training using one method, pace, and racing using another, HR/RPE?  Or am I miss understanding you?  I train by HR.  I could never train by pace.  Sometimes my runs are flat, sometimes very hilly, sometimes it's 70, others are approaching 100.  RPE/HR is the only method I know that stays constant.  Your pace always has to fluxuate to deal with all the other variables. 

'eye on' and 'defer to'. Forget it. Keep training on HR.

de·fer /d?'f?r/ – verb. To yield respectfully in judgment or opinion.

Your choice of words certainly implied using heart rate as a guide. "Defer to heart rate" says to me "use heart rate as your primary guide". Perhaps you meant "refer"?

I understand what you were doing, but I wouldn't describe using heart rate reserve as "better than" age predicted alone.  I think of it as "less wrong".

My point is if you can't/won't bother to establish HR zones properly through testing, then you're better off using another method, such as RPE.

As far as using pace goes, that would be useless to me on most of my rides and runs, because I live in an area that is fairly hilly.  I'm rarely riding or running on a flat surface, it's almost always either uphill or downhill.  IMO, if you live in a region like I do, pace is much harder to use.

The problem is that if she truly is hitting 240, then even if the age based formulae worked and if determining training zones as a percentage of maxHR was a good way to set training zones, your method would provide zones that were as useless as what she had started with.

As to testing, if someone has a HRM and wants to train with HR then a field test should be completed in order to establish zones.

For the OP, if you want to train by HR you need a HRM.  If you don't have one, then you will need to use another method, either pace or RPE in order to monitor intensity.

Shane

thanks everyone for all the feedback, it's interesting to see all different perspectives and methods.

I had an easy run this morning with my 16 month old in the jogging stroller (all together I estimate at least 35 lbs) and had to walk up the hills due to the extra weight. I was able to talk to him easily for the entire outing and the highest HR count I found was 35 beats in 10 secs.

I then swam 1500y at the pool and found my hr count to be anywhere from 23-27 beats in 10 secs.

I hadn't read any of the latest posts so I did not check my HR with my ring finger as suggested. But I will try tomorrow.

I also didn't realize that there were some relatively inexpensive HR monitors out there until I saw it mentioned here (thank you! I had seen $300 Garmins previously!). So I ordered one online and got free express shipping. I will be able to try it out next week.

I will update as I learn more, thanks again everyone!

I'm sure some will think I'm splitting hairs here, but HR is a measure of stress, RPE is an opinion of stress, and pace (as well as speed and power) are outputs.

Your quote is right on the money.