On Tuesday I was looking for a cheap Timex Ironman watch, just so I could time my runs, and I discovered that they had an ironman w/ a HRM integrated.  It had pretty good reviews on Amazon, so I bought it.  It came yesterday and I read the booklet that came w/ it.  Now, I want to know the straight poop.  How do I use this thing to get the most use out of it?

Goal:  4 mile run now (pretty easy).  I'm signed up for a half marathon on 10/17.  Unfortunately, the week and a half before the marathon I'll be in Germany drinking a lot of beer for work.  I'll be arriving home Friday night, running the half on Sunday.  Should be fun to do that w/ jet lag!!

I'm currently doing the Stronglifts 5x5 program.  I figured I'd stop doing the squats while working up my run.  

How do I use the HRM to get me to my half marathon goal in 8 weeks??

Thanks!
K

I have never used one execept just playing around, but I here some of them dont work if your wrist is sweaty.

Any HRM that is a stand alone unit with the wrist only really isnt all that accurate regardless.  During a testing lab, we found some to be as far off as +/- 8 bpm, which is almost 1 standard deviation and really isnt all that good when it comes to accuracy.  That doesnt account for when the unit doesnt work as stated above.

The Ironman has a chest strap that transmits to the watch.

K

To get any benefit from the HR monitor, you'll have to correlate a heart rate zone with your current lactate threshold (also called anaerobic threshold). Google either of those terms. Also google "cardiac drift".

With time short before the event, you'll need to spend time around, and pushing through, your lactate threshold to increase fitness. Helping to determining where your threshold is and when you're in that zone, is the only use for the HR monitor, IMO.

Or you could just ditch the monitor and do lots of sprint intervals and steady-state runs at a given "perceived exertion".

Disclaimer: I'm not a coach or trainer but I use a similar approach for cycling.

This

Pace is a much better tool than an HRM for such a task.

What are you using to track pace?

Perhaps**. But I lump pace in with perceived exertion.

HRM can be used too. OP asked about how to incorporate his into training, not whether it was the best tool.



**Actually a power meter is the best tool for such a task, but we're not talking cycling so it's moot.

Pace is a bit more standardized for everyone as far as numbers are concerned, perceived exertion is going to change from person to person...everyone is going to have a different idea of whats hard.

I do agree though, I think HR has a much higher correlation to determining lactate threshold than pace.

/hijack/

I'm likely confused on the definition of pace then. Would it be similar to cadence or speed? Both? Could the pace numbers be used like a percentage of VO2 max or LT?

I thought pace would also vary person to person and would be a reflection of individual fitness. Up the pace, up the exertion, that sort of thing. For instance, I know what kind of effort puts my HR around 180-185, and what keeps it down around 140 (without using a HRM). That's what I'm calling perceived exertion, which terminology I may also be using incorrectly.

No youre using it correctly.  percieived exertion is on a scale 4-20, and will likely change drastically from person to person.

Pace is like 7min/mile for example.  It should be the same for everyone (i.e the standardization number x#min per mile). The problem with pace is that people be working at different rates to get that number based on how trained/untrained they are.

HR is a much better indicator as it will plateau when approaching VO2 max, so hitting/predicting threshold intensities is much easier and is individualized as well as generalized.

Gotcha. This no-longer-a-runner was a little slow on the uptake. Didn't get into this sort of stuff until cycling.

HR is subject to a number of confounding variables such as sleep, hydration, nerves, time of day, etc.  People will have different paces at lactate threshold or VO2max; they will have different HRs at those levels of effort as well.  Determining threshold pace or HR with any accuracy require field or lab testing.  For example, when my g/f was ironman training, she had her run LT measured in a lab while running on a treadmill.  At the age of 38, her LTHR was 174 - higher than standard formulas would predict.  LTHR varies with mode of exercise for most folks as well.

Most of what I've read about pacing indicates that even pacing tends to be fastest, at least for anything longer than middle distance.  Pacing by constant HR means that one will be slowing during the course of the event.

I don't use a HR strap with either my power meter (cycling) or GPS (running).  I don't see that HR adds any useful information to pace/power; at best it's redundant, at worst confusing.

HR can be a good tool - a quality downloadable HRM is certainly less expensive than a running GPS or power meter.  It's my belief, though, that pace is a better tool than HR for measuring run effort/work than HR.  I don't see many elite runners using HRMs, though I do see a number of triathletes using them.  One has to ask though, why elite runners and swimmers don't seem to use HRMs and instead train by pace.

I would be surmise that it is because the elite athletes are trained to plateau/near plateau levels. They're not just trying to finish it, they are no longer training for fitness, they are training for performance. If this was the OP's 550th half marathon, he would have no surprises on the heart rate front, he would know that he needs to do X:XX pace to reach his time goal. The time would dictate his workout, not the heart rate.
Now for the OP's case, moving from a 4 mile to a 13 mile is moving into unknown territory as far as his body is concerned. Pace would be useless to him, because he doesn't know what his 13 mile pace is, and with his level of training, his pace would be constantly changing as he becomes more fit (should he continue running 1/2 marathons). At some point, he would plateau out, and pace would become a more helpful figure for him.
 

I think I get what youre trying to say, but like Nostock stated as well bodies hit physical limits.  Elite athletes train like they do because they know what they need to hit to get where theyre going.  Novice athletes use the tools that they do because theyre constantly improving because of training and these tools do a much better job of letting them know where they are.  I think it mostly has to do with the modality.  The trainers for a lot of those elite runners and bikers may not believe in HR...I know a lot that do and who think that besides LT thats the only number that matters.  

For example, one of the hardest sports Ive ever done is rowing.  Its a total body workout that just no other sport can get.  The elite athletes in this sport are always wearing HR monitors.

Id have to say that outside of the Lab for elite athletes, pace may be a better tool.  But inside of the Lab, for any athlete HR is king.

Elite athletes have a much greater need for precision in training than recreational athletes.  It's also pretty common to have a higher HR during racing than in training at a given pace/power; that's certainly my experience.



If the OP doesn't have an idea as to what pace should be when moving from 4 to 13 miles because it's "unknown country" than how would the OP know what HR to use?  There are several pace-based calculators.  McMillan running offers a free online pace-based calculator.  One very good running book that uses pace-based training is Jack Daniels - it's one of the best tomes on the subject.

I ask, what does HR tell you that pace does not?

The cutting edge of cycling uses power as a measure, not HR.  I would argue that pace over a distance/power are better tools for measuring training dose and fitness gains than HR, though HR is certainly less expensive.  I also don't know of many races that occur in a lab.

What does HR tell you that pace/power and PE don't?

It tells you how hard you are working, pace tells you how fast you are going. If you are working as hard as you can, your pace is what it is. Pace is trivia, unless you are chasing specific times.



ETA: I'm no expert, so if I am wrong or misunderstanding pace, please educate me.  It just seems to me that HR is a more useful tool for a recreational runner.





 

I agree pace is a better standardized number, but everyone will have to work differently for a 7 min mile.  HRs will vary to between people but theyre a much better indicator about how hard someone is working.

Yes true labs are the same as a race, but you can put forth the same effort you do racing as you can in the lab,(i.e: Vo2 max test) and youre using cycling as an example for running.  Youve got a place to mount your power meter. whats a runner supposed to do? He cant carry a laptop to constantly be entering his pace into a calculator to see if hes in the right zone.  He wants real world updates just like you do, and HR at this point can give it to him.

Pace will also tell you how hard you are working.  In order for either pace or HR to be relevant, an athlete has to test.  HR is subject to a number of confounding variables.  If I drink a couple of cups of coffee before I run; if I have slept poorly; or if I'm in a race (vice training), my HR will be higher.  Should I run slower because my HR is elevated?

I'll try another question that might help show what I'm getting at.  A couple years back when I was running more, I raced two 5K road races as fast as I could go.  Both were on flat courses, light wind, with relatively warm temperatures.  The times were within 5 seconds of each other, but my HR was 5 bpm lower during one of the races.  Since I ran one of the races with a lower HR, does that mean I was more fit?

I would say no, since both races were maximal efforts and the times were equivalent.

Isn't the goal of all this training a race.

More experienced runners develop an innate feel for pace and can check splits during a race or training.  Those less experienced runners could use a running GPS to give them additional pace feedback.  There is no more need to carry a laptop to enter pace into a calculator then there is to enter HR into a laptop calculator.

Additionally, pacing by iso-HR, which is what most folks do, ensures that an athlete will consistently slow during the course of an event due to cardiac drift.  Most pacing recommendations I've seen call for an even pace (at longer than middle distance) or a slight negative split.

Isn't the goal of all this training a race.

More experienced runners develop an innate feel for pace and can check splits during a race or training.  Those less experienced runners could use a running GPS to give them additional pace feedback.  ETA - or by using a watch on a known distance course or track.  There is no more need to carry a laptop to enter pace into a calculator then there is to enter HR into a laptop calculator.

Additionally, pacing by iso-HR, which is what most folks do, ensures that an athlete will consistently slow during the course of an event due to cardiac drift.  Most pacing recommendations I've seen call for an even pace (at longer than middle distance) or a slight negative split.

To best use the HRM, you're going to need to do some field testing.

Here is a link to beginner triathlete which gives directions for the field test and provides you with a calculator to help shape your training levels:  http://www.beginnertriathlete.com/cms/article-detail.asp?articleid=633

Damn!  And all I asked what how to use a HRM!!  

I strapped it on yesterday for 9 holes of walking golf w/ my kids and wife.  Kept 80-95 or so.

Went kayaking this morning.  10 minutes into the wind at 145-155 bpm, rested 2 min, and stroked back 10 min at the same HR.

As a tool, I think it helped me keep from giving up before the 10 min was up (I told my wife that I'd be gone for 20 min).  How that helped my fitness level, I don't know!

I guess I've got some reading to do about lactate thresholds and stuff!

K

I wouldnt worry about LT and cardiac drift.  Youre no were near the level of training to have to worry about that stuff...

This has obviously turned from a discussion about modality into training level.  Were debating elite vs novice at this point and the OP is obviously a novice, so most of that stuff isnt going to do him any good.

Your HR when kayaking has just about zero to do with your HR when running because there is so much less muscle mass involved and you are sitting - less gravity for your heart to work against to return blood.

Read the info at the link from beginner triathlete I posted a few posts back if you want to learn to use your new tool effectively.

Working muscles actually aid in venus return...

More than gravity costs?

Hard to say.  I would say his heart is working just as hard when hes kayaking as when hes running.  Its not like he stops pumping blood to his legs when sitting, he just doesnt have to work through the systems of capilaries in the legs muscles as there arent any active muscle groups.

Not if his HR is lower.  How could it be working just as hard?

I meant if his HRs were the same...his heart would be working just as hard whether he was using his legs or not...

Jacked up on caffiene, dehydrated for my weightloss challenge weigh-in, I ran 4 miles in 90 degree heat w/ stops along the way for calesthetics.  1hr work-out, avg HR 180, peak 195, min 148.  One minute recovery at the end was 15 beats less than the start.

The caffein difference was CRAZY!  Before the run I was sitting at 115, when I would normally be around 80 or so.

As stated earlier, I'm definately a novice!  

K

You guys are getting into BPs not HRs now. He's not wearing a cuff he is wearing a heart rate monitor. At lower rates the heart could be working just as hard dependent on how much volume it is able to put out.

heart Rate * stroke volume = cardiac output

The problem with training by HR is that many people don't understand what HR is and what it isn't.  Heart rate is an indirect indicator of the strain on the cardiovascular system.  Performance is determined and limited by many factors such as metabolic events occuring in the muscles, not just cardiovascular strain.

This is why it is possible to race successfuly at heart rates higher than possible under "normal" or training conditions.  Heat, altitude, lack of sleep, simulant use all can result in increased heart rate.  If heart rate limited or determined endurance performance, success at higher HRs wouldn't be possible.

HR can still be a useful tool, but it is nowhere near the "body tachometer" than many believe it to be.

I agree heart rate may not be the best, but neither is pace, there are other things such as VO2 max, lactic threshold that are much better indicators of overall performance. These will give you body limits, where your training is at and where to change.

but these things arent available to the average joe. The issue with pace is that it is a standardized number ie 7 minute mile is going to be harder for some individuals than others. Where as HR can give us a fairly close indicator of where your training may be at. Being able to get an accurate resting HR, knowing where your max HR is and training within your threshold level. Based on what your training for you are going to be able to hit that percentage and be able improve.

VO2max is only loosely correlated with performance in endurance sports.  A high VO2max is a prerequisite, but not sufficient, for endurance success.  Most athletes, especially non-elites, are far more limited by the ability of their muscles to do sustainable work than they are by the ability of their cardiovascular system to deliver oxygenated blood to the muscles.

I don't understand your aversion to the use of pace.  Of course a 7 minute mile is going to be harder for some individual than others.   So what?  No one who has any knowledge of physiology would suggest that an untrained runner go knock out long runs at 6:05 pace because that's what Ryan Hall or Kara Goucher do.   HR has similar run limitaions.  My girlfriend and I run together.  She can knock out a 14 miler with a HR of ~ 174 for the main set of the run;  for me, that HR is my 5K race pace (or at least it was when I wore a HRM - neither of us use HR anymore).  People have widely varying maximal heart rates.  The HR that people can sustain for a give duration also varies widely, both as an absolute number (say 165) or as a percentage of their maximum HR, even people of the same age and gender.

If one is going to use pace or HR as a measure of effort, one has to field test to determine appropriate training zones.  For instance, to use the McMillan running calculator, a runner either use a race time/distance that was a maximal effort, or go run a maximal effort time trial on a track or known distance course, and enter the time/distance into the calculator to get prescribed training paces.  There are several other field tests, including pace or HR in the Beginner Triathlete test I linked to earlier in this thread.

Explain how HR can "give us a fairly close indicator of where your training may be at"?  If I run for 30 minutes today at a HR of 165 and next week I do the same run, how do I know if I am fitter or not using HR?

Again, HR is an indirect measure of cardiovascular strain.  HR is a dependent variable; HR is an output.  Pace is the input.  You run a certain speed and HR happens.  To make an analogy to weight lifting, pace is how much weight you put on the bar.  HR is how much that weight hurts or how heavy it feels.  How do your assess your lifting workouts, by the amount you lift or the reaction your body has to the workout?

This is an apples and oranges discussion, heres a few thoughts.  H46 you keep bringing back your debate to the extreme trained. i.e: you.  Were looking for a tool to help someone who is a novice.  Youre putting way to much thought into this.  This isn\t about power meters and 5k race pace.  There is no way to monitor a persons muscular adaptations.  HR and HR zones can tell us a lot more than youre willing to admit, especially with someone as untrained as the OP.  The whole idea is to get him to run at a specific zone to train his muscles, pace shows him how fast hes running, HR gives him and idea to how hard his body is working.  As explained before HR varies for everyone but thats the point, the individualization.  Pace doesnt unless coupled with something else.  Comparing your pace to some elite runners pace doesnt show you anything as to how hard youre body is working, its only a comparison.  

Also VO2 is more than prereq.  It has more to do with your bodies buffer and shuttle systems that are of more importance than the O2 is.  CO2 is our bodies ability to buffer acidities in the blood (such as lactate and pyruvate) and HR plateau is a big indicator of this. (for example RER)  

The analogy doesnt really make sense to me either.  Yes weight is how people keep track of their program, but how hard the workout was is the most important and usually what people use in order to change said workout.  Without body feedback, the weight is just a number, like pace.

A HR monitor is one such tool.  A Garmin Forerunner is another such tool.  GPS is a bit more expensive, but a 205 goes for ~ $125 and is downloadable.  For $30 more you can get a 305 w/ HR.  I know plenty of new runners who are using GPS, primarily Garmin 305/310/405 units.



If a person can run faster for a given time/distance than you can tell that they are improving.  At this level, that's all you really need to know.  What does it tell you if I could run for 20 minutes at an avg HR of 165 last week and this week I can run at an avg HR of 168 for 20 minutes?  Does that mean my running is improving?



Jeez you people are hard headed about pace.  Why do you keep raising this straw man argument about comaparing one's pace to someone else's pace?  I have never recommended that nor have a ever read anyone with an ounce of knowledge recommending such a thing.  In order to establish a basis for pace training zones, you should establish either a pace at lactate threshold (proxies for this include a 30 minute time trial or a 10K run) or pace at VO2max (as per Jack Daniels plan).  To establish a basis for HR training zones requires the same sort of process as exemplified by the 30 min TT recommended by beginner triathlete and linked earlier in this thread.   Once that lactate threshold or VO2max pace is established, training zones flow from there.  HR does give you an "idea" about how hard the body is working.  Pace gives a much better idea - it IS what the muscles are doing.  Comparing YOUR current training pace to YOUR threshold pace or YOUR VO2max paces tells you how hard YOU are working.  Is that so hard to understand?

Of course comparing your pace to some elite runners pace doesn't show how hard your body is working.  Neither does comparing your heart rate to an elite runners heart rate show how hard your body is working.



The above has nothing to do with anything that I wrote.  I wrote that HR is an indirect indicator of C-V strain.  The primary limitation to endurance performance imposed by the C-V system is its ability to deliver O2 to the working muscles.   Most athetes, especially those not highly trained, are not limited by the C-V system's ability to deliver O2, at least at the distance/durations in this thread i.e. half marathon.  



How hard the workout was comes from the weight lifted, repetitions, and rest right?  Weight and reps is the training dose.  If I can lift the same weight for more reps or lift a greater weight for the same number of reps today as I could a month ago, I am stronger today than I was a month ago.

In running, speed and duration are the training dose.  The difficulty of my run workout comes from how fast I run and for how long I run.  HR is a reaction to that, but if I run 3 miles in 27 minutes today at a HR of 140 and I run 3 miles in 27 minutes at a HR of 143 tomorrow, that doesn't necessarily mean that tomorrow's workout was more intense or harder.  I can tell if my training is working because I can either travel a fixed distance in less time OR I can cover a greater distance in a fixed time.  If I can run 3 miles faster today at a max effort than I could one month ago, then I am a more fit runner today than I was a month ago, regardless of what my HR is today or was a month ago.

Finally - to the OP -  I hope that you have checked out the link I posted to Beginner Triathlete where you can get some good ideas for establishing your HR training zones.  Another good place to get some decent information is http://home.trainingpeaks.com/.  I apologize that I, with some "help" have hijacked your thread.  Hopefully the links that I provided give you some direction towards answering your original question about using your HRM to help you acheive your goals.

Hardheaded? Someone who's come out and stated they have limited knowledge of muscle phys is now the expert telling the person that does lab/field work for a living whats a better indicator?!  The problem is this field is ever-changing.  One week HR is king, next week Crossfit and Pace is all over the media and is the new thing, a month later people forget about that and move onto the next great thing.  Just because youre training modalities are the new fads doesnt make them correct.

And actually you wrote the above quote about VO2 max which is why I wrote what I did.  O2 delivery is not the only thing this test shows, they involve analyzing the data to see where LT and carbonic buffers kick in based on RERs.  And LT is what you had been preaching  on the first page.

Hardheaded referred to the implication, not just by you, that training by pace (vice HR) means pulling some pace out of the air, without reference to an individuals current fitness, and prescribing it for training.  Examples from this thread:

"The issue with pace is that it is a standardized number ie 7 minute mile is going to be harder for some individuals than others"

"The problem with pace is that people be working at different rates to get that number based on how trained/untrained they are. "

"Comparing your pace to some elite runners pace doesnt show you anything as to how hard youre body is working, its only a comparison."

I may have limited formal training in exercise physiology, but I have a good text book and listen to/read from field-leading PhDs like Andy Coggan, Andy Doyle, and Steve McGregor whenever opportunities present themselves.  You do ex phys for a living - demonstrate to me where I'm wrong in my claims - it should be easy for you.  

As far as VO2max testing goes, my understanding is that VO2max is best tested in a ramp test to exhaustion.  LT/OBLA is best tested in a more graduated test with longer steady state periods to allow stabilization of blood lactate.  IOW, a VO2max test is not a good venue for determining LT/OBLA.  Am I missing what you mean when you write about analyzing data for LT and carbonic buffers?  Also, what do you mean when you say that "your bodies buffer and shuttle systems that are of more importance than the O2 is"?

Educate me - that's why I'm here.

How do you come up with the number for the pace when starting out on a new distance? It has to be pulled out of thin air at some point.

 

You have to do some type of test, just like you should do to establish HR training zones.  It isn't pulled out of thin air.  Training paces are based on an individual's performance.

Here's an example using the McMillan running Calculator:

The athlete:  A new runner who has never raced a single event and you want to start training for a 5K that's coming up in your area.
-Go to a track with a running watch.  Do a brief warmup.  Run a mile as fast as you can. Time yourself running that mile.
-You run your mile in 9:23
-Go to the McMillan Calculator and enter 9:23 and check the mile circle

The calculator will spit out training paces for both interval work and steady state work as well as predicting your times for various distances based on your current fitness.  For someone whose best effort at a mile nets them a 9:23 time, long runs should be at 12:30 to 13:30 pace, tempo runs at 11:00-11:29 pace, etc.  Based on your level of fitness at the time of the 1 mile test, the calculator predicts a 32:30 5K.

The calulator isn't foolproof and choosing a test distance closer to your desired race will improve predictions i.e.  someone who is training exclusively as a miler and enters his/her best mile time get an overly optomistic prediction of half-marathon time.  

In general, I and many I know, have found the predictions to be generally accurate, though you should retest as you become more fit.

Here is an example of using Heart Rate to set training levels using a scheme devised by Joe Friel.  Same scenario as above - a new athlete who has never run a race.
-To find your LTHR do a 30-minute time trial all by yourself (no training partners and not in a race). Again, it should be done as if it was a race for the entire 30 minutes. But at 10 minutes into the test click the lap button on your heart rate monitor.
-When done look to see what your average heart rate was for the last 20 minutes. That number is an approximation of your LTHR. Note: I am frequently asked if you should go hard for the first 10 minutes. The answer is yes. Go hard for the entire 30 minutes. But be aware that most people doing this test go too hard the first few minutes and then gradually slow down for the remainder. That will give you inaccurate results.

-From that average HR:

Run Zones Your Zones
Zone 1 Less than 85% of LTHR
Zone 2 85% to 89% of LTHR
Zone 3 90% to 94% of LTHR
Zone 4 95% to 99% of LTHR
Zone 5a 100% to 102% of LTHR
Zone 5b 103% to 106% of LTHR
Zone 5c More than 106% of LTHR

I haven't used Friel's stuff, but here is a description of his zones

Neither of these methods is "pulling it out of thin air".  Pulling it out of thin air would be using (220-age) * XX% to set training zones.

There are other training schemes and pacing guides for both pace and heart rate.  I chose two as examples that were readily accessible, free, and relatively easy to understand.  The link to Beginner Triathlete I posted earlier in the thread uses a scheme similar to Friel's.

Yesterday morning, about 5 3/4 miles in 50 min w/ an average HR of 157.  Stopped and walked briefly at the turn-around, but really didn't need to, and I wasn't sucking wind at the end.  Actually, I had a conversation w/ a woman who had just finished her walk.  Recovery was pretty quick.

Nice run on Zane's Landing Trail in Zanesville, OH.  I ran early morning, and saw two doe and a fearless rabbit who let me get w/in 5 feet of him.

K

How many days/week and miles/day are you getting?

Zanesville?  My mom's family is from that neck of the woods - East Liverpool.

I was just there for business.  I'm normally in the Metro Detroit area.

Sunday I ran 8 miles in 1hr 16 min w/ a 2min break at the turn-around.  Avg HR was around 160.

This mornig I did 4 miles at 34min (w/ 2min at half-way).  Avg HR of 163.

I think I'll be getting out on Thurs for 6 miles or so, and do 9 or 10 on Sat or Sun.

I'm also lifting 2 days/week w/ light squats 1 of those days.  Mostly upper body.

K