The Psychological Fallacy of HRMs

You’ve haven’t done any testing to define bike/run training zones, yet you think your training zones might seem too easy based on Max HR? Wow, now that’s shocking!

Until you do testing for each, you won’t know whether you are training at the right intensities or not.

Ignore

Max

HeartRate

I can only give my experience with the HRM and I would agree with the statement above that it took 3-4 mo's to notice.  I ran my first half in 2:10 with only training as I knew how.  Run a distance and run as fast as I think I can sustain.  Hard work would equal good times ect... The next year or rather right after the race I got a HRM and decided to train with it.  When I set my zones, my pace for Z1 & Z2 were like almost walking to me.  But I made a commitment to train the next year this way and stuck to it.  After 4 months I ran my PB 5K.  The next year when I ran my half I knocked 18 min's off my time.  Part of this can be explained as a culimation of several factors.  I did run more because I wanted to improve but it allowed my body to not be beaten up and such allowed me to run more. 

I never would of believed running slower would make me faster but I do think it works.  You still have to have your interval runs, your tempo runs ect...so you aren't always running slow.  It just forces you to take a day for a LSD run and actually be a LSD run.  With time my pace had quickened to the point where my LSD run wasn't walking anymore but a very nice pace at Z1 & Z2 ect...

Don't know if that helps...Good luck!

two weeks is not nearly long enough to draw that conclusion

Do the LT tests -> Set your zones appropriately -> Then give it several MONTHS before you dismiss HRM-based training as worthless

I'm not a big fan of HR training, but I have been tested. my HRM cannot guide me any better than I can guide myself. If you feel like you are running too slow, then I can assure you, you are. I know several people who train via HR and have made little to no progress as far as getting stronger and faster.

But, get tested, learn your zones, and give it a chance. It may work for you..

Frankly, I agree with the title of you post. HR training is a Psychological Fallacy.. at least for me.

Weird... I train at easy pace (both pace or HR) and I continue to improve AND getting faster... maybe people don't improve cuz they don’t train consistent or enough and rather blame it on their training approach or HRM?

It could be argued, and is probable, that you get faster as a result of quality training, Tempo, Intervals, etc. Not as a result of staying in Zone 1 or low 2 for a long run. It could also be argued that the people I know who are not improving, do not do this type of quality training in order to get faster.

In the end, all a HRM is, is data that people use to guide what they do. Some use that data to their advantage, and for some it becomes a crutch. I'm not saying HRM's are bad, or evil, I'm just saying that they are not the holy grail for training athletes. Also, if the athlete has a coach, that coach has the responsibility to use instinct as well as HRM and testing data as opposed to just looking at the numbers.

All to often, I hear.. "I have to stay below 158 etc" for todays run.. That makes no sense to me at all.  For a recovery run, maybe.

Agree that 2 weeks isn't long enough.  I started HR/Zone training a year ago, with an easy pace of well over 11 minutes per mile.  Like you, I thought it was stupid and would never work.  My easy pace now is around 10 minutes/mile, and will go down to about 9:30/mile when it's not blazing hot out like it has been lately.  I haven't done a road race since May, but at that race, I did take 1.5 minutes off of my 4 mile time over last year, strictly on easy pace training.  So I'm pretty confident it has improved my fitness and will continue to work.

I tend to keep my E pace runs in low Zone 2, because my Zone 1 is a fast walk and it always has been.  I don't know if Zone 1 will ever exist for me.  I also will use training paces if I know it's a day where conditions won't allow for a good HR reading (if it's hot and humid, if I am tired, or if I am dehydrated).  When training for a specific race goal, I use those paces in training (M pace, T pace). 

You could try a plan that uses a combination of paces if you are concerned about not working hard enough.  Here's one: http://www.furman.edu/FIRST/2006%20half%20marathon%20training%20program.pdf

You can also test run LT with a 5 mile or 10K race in your area if you have one coming up.  It's a good method because the race setting means you are probably working hard, and then you can do the same race next year to look at your progress and see how awesome you are becoming.  Unless you mess up your foot like I did

Here are some instructions.  I think instructions are all over the place, but I just like to provide links to everything.
http://www.d3multisport.com/articles/determinezones.html

It could be argued, and is probable, that you get faster as a result of quality training, Tempo, Intervals, etc. Not as a result of staying in Zone 1 or low 2 for a long run. >>> You could, but you would be wrong. From Jan to May I 90% of my runs were at easy pace (Z1) and within that time I only did two LT runs (tests) and 6 tempo runs (marathon pace) as final prep for the FL 70.3 and most tempo runs were done the last few weeks of April and 1^st two weeks of May, IOW I spent around 14-16 weeks doing easy runs

It could also be argued that the people I know who are not improving, do not do this type of quality training in order to get faster. >>> if we break down their training I’ll bet you that the lack of hard intensity sessions has little do with the reason why they are not improving. Doing sets at LT or VO2Max will only produce so many adaptations in a short period of time (3-6 weeks) and after that you’ll plateau and will need a bigger dose of intensity or more volume. Both would be a risky business if you don’t have the base to train at that workload. OTOH, training at or below your VT1 will allow you to produce greater and longer adaptations to improve your fitness. (We have a lot room for improvement in this area and as discussed a million times, the biggest limiter for 99% of the AGers I a lack of aerobic fitness) Furthermore training at this intensity will also improve your LT or V02Max on a lesser degree, but it will. By the time you get to train at those intensities the results should be greater because you will better handle greater doses of intensity.

In the end, all a HRM is, is data that people use to guide what they do. Some use that data to their advantage, and for some it becomes a crutch. I'm not saying HRM's are bad, or evil, I'm just saying that they are not the holy grail for training athletes. Also, if the athlete has a coach, that coach has the responsibility to use instinct as well as HRM and testing data as opposed to just looking at the numbers. >>> I agree with you on this, but the majority of beginners don’t have the experience to gauge their effort correctly. Most feel their easy pace is too easy but when we determine their training zones they in fact have been training faster than they should. For that reason a HRM is a great tool to help you training at the right intensity. If you learn how to correlate this with RPE and pace, you will enhance your training. As a coach I encourage athletes to train with HRM, GPS, power meter, etc cuz that gives me a deeper insight on each sessions completed. I can analyze the file and break it down in different ways and get some of the guessing/instinct out of the equation.

All to often, I hear.. "I have to stay below 158 etc" for todays run.. That makes no sense to me at all.  For a recovery run, maybe.  >>> we could break this down in different ways but lets just assume that the athletes VT1 is around 160 and the goal of the run is to complete a steady long run; then I would say he/she has a particular goal and running below that HR will produce longer specific training adaptations and better improvements than just running at whatever he/she feel like.

Jorge - I was thinking the same exact thing! How many times do we hear this? Funny but true. Good thing you are here to help the lost souls.

I hope you are doing well my man.

DerekWL - 2007-08-31 12:31 PM Wow, this thread has taken off. Again, sorry about the title, I would change it if I could. Regardless, I did my LT test about 1 hour ago (15 min. warmup 90 rpm+/30 minutes HARD (got my average HR for the last 20 min)/15 min. warmdown 90 rpm+) and since the original plan was for a brick, after my bike warmdown, I headed out for a 30 min. run! So, my average heart rate over the last 20 minutes of the half hour bike was 183 bpm. My average cadence was 91, and my overall distance over the half hour was 18.59km. The course wasn't exactly flat, but it was definitely the best (and flattest) course I could find, with the least lights/stops. I guess now it's time to play around with some numbers! Thanks for your input everyone! It's infinitely appreciated! Derek

Derek,

As much as I am a proponent of HRM training, especially for newbies, I also wrote an article about why HRMS aren't always the best way to race -

http://www.d3multisport.com/articles/hrms.htm

And, I wrote about many things you mentioned but its still importatn, imo, to know your zones to ensure that you don't blow sky high on race day.