Running HR zones and pace zones don't jive (Page 2)

Experior - 2010-03-10 12:50 PM

Well, I guess I'm a minority of one -- rarely a good thing -- but I haven't seen anything (yet) to make me rethink.  As Scout said, all of the methods mentioned (RPE, HR, pace) have their downsides (their upsides too, IMO).  I just think that each of them gives me some (imperfect) information about my training, both in the context of a single workout and over time.  I don't see any reason to ignore that information and it doesn't seem overly complex to ask questions like "my pace was the same as last week, but it felt harder and my HR was higher - why?" and try to learn something from whatever appears to be the answer.

I also think that some methods are preferable in certain circumstances.  Using HRM to gauge effort for 400m intervals, for example, is not very helpful (for me).  But my easy pace can be all over the place depending on how I'm feeling.  RPE and HRM work better for me there.

As for OP:  I agree it sounds like OP might not have tested properly.  I still wonder, as well, whether the HR at the lower paces really represents a 'settled in' HR for OP at those paces, given that he couldn't have spent much time there if the average pace was 6:05.

AndrewMT - 2010-03-10 11:49 AM

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. 

daijoubu - 2010-03-10 2:00 PM

But they are totally arbitrary.  What is the difference in adaptation after a zone 4 run versus a zone 3 run?  What if I run 30 mins in Zone 3 but put 5x2' in zone 4 in the middle of the run?  How does a Coggan zone 4 compare to a Friel zone 4?  

Your body doesn't have any magic switches as you move from zone 3 to zone 4 to zone 5, it's a continuum and it's a convenient way for your coach to differentiate workouts.  

bryancd - 2010-03-10 2:57 PM



Count me in on your club of one! I agree 100% and I would also add that when it comes to long course racing, having a well understood guage of pacing you can use across bike/run is even more valuable. Short course is much easier to use RPE only than long course, where power and HR abring a lot more value to the table.

Scout7 - 2010-03-10 3:08 PM In your opinion, they bring more value. Regrading Experior's statement about asking questions: You can do that sort of analysis, and I don't necessarily see a problem with it. HOWEVER.....Analyzing data is NOT the same as using one metric to gauge effort. If anything, what I am advocating is finding the most appropriate method for the individual, and using that as your PRIMARY metric. In other words, when you're out on a ride or run, and you have your HR zones locked in, then you use HR, and only HR, to determine your effort level. If your pace is slower or faster, you take note, but do not adjust to match the pace. And that's where the problem comes in. Most people start to second-guess themselves, and want to train at a faster pace that day than what RPE or HR tell them. And that's how things get screwed up; people push harder than they should. But it was an "easy pace", so it gets mislabeled, and then there's a possible issue. The fact that your easy pace is all over the place doesn't mean a whole lot. Weather changes, terrain changes, your recovery from the last run affects it, etc. etc. etc. Heck, you could have an elevated HR due to stress from work, and now you're running at a slower pace. How many of us track work/life stress and correlate it to training?

AndrewMT - 2010-03-10 12:49 PM

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.

AndrewMT - 2010-03-10 12:03 PM

It sounds like you were trying to disagree with what I wrote, but what you wrote is in exact agreement with me!

daijoubu - 2010-03-10 2:49 PM

It seemed like you were surprised to see that they are arbitrary.  

AndrewMT - 2010-03-10 1:07 PM

Certainly not surprised.  They're complete man made, and intensity is obviously measured on a continuum, not in discrete zones.  The examples you listed Z3 vs Z4 or Coggan Z4 vs Friel Z4 are all close enough on that continuum that it doesn't really matter what you call it, the training load will be similar.

However, I think we'd agree that the training load for a workout in Z4 vs an eay Z1 or Z2 is very different, regardless of the scale.  My surprise is at the disparity between an "easy" paced VDot run at 8:15min/mile versus an "easy" Z1 HR run that has me running anywhere between 7:00-7:30 min/mile.  To put those on the same scale, my HR in the first would be anywhere from 20-40bpm lower than in the second, yet both are described as "Easy" workouts. 

Is the intent for an easy run is completely different for a VDot runner than for a HR runner?  I wouldn't think so, but at least in what I've seen, there will be times that an easy run produces a very different workout depending on the system used. 

Like I said, I just find it interesting.  None of the methods are ideal for all situations. 

daijoubu - 2010-03-10 4:56 PM

Comparing training methodologies is even harder to understand.  Daniels seems to be closer to Lydiard's belief in long slow distance and running slow enough to minimize risk of injury.   Up to 80% of your running should be at that easy pace.  Friel and especially Coggan trade off time for intensity.  You can get similar results (to a point) by running hard for shorter durations.  Don't even ask about Phil Maffetone and his philosophy.  It worked for Mark Allen, but it's bizarre.

Ultimately you have to use the tool and zones that go with your training philosophy (plan).  

Apparently I find it interesting too because I keep trying to read as much as I can about the different systems.  

UrsusAdiposimus - 2010-03-10 3:57 PM

I am referring to what my HR is when I am doing a normal workout at those respective paces - not during the LT field test. I spent virtually no time at those paces during the test. When I go for a long run, an 8:00 mile feels about right, which if you base my zones off of my test set pace (6:05), is zone 2. But on those runs my heart rate is usually around 130-135, which puts me in Z1-active recovery, going on my LT heart rate from that same test (165bpm).