Use a Heart Rate Monitor!

Before I had a Monitor, I was always hurt. What I found out when I started using one is that I was training too hard on my Rest Days. When I'm training hard, it also keeps me from slacking off, when I set a bottom HR limit.

I went the other way than DJTubs, I bought a Polar S720i, which will also read bicycle information, and the data can be downloaded to your computer. Then, the engineer inside me allows me to really analyze the data.

One other point worth noting about a heart rate monitor:
The food or (FUEL) you take in during your training rides and runs, MAY ONLY WORK FOR YOU WHILE YOU ARE IN A CERTAIN HEART RATE RANGE. I found that to be the case, anyway. So if you're NOT monitoring your heartrate, and you let it get too high, then the fig newtons and pbj sandwich that worked fine on all your training rides done at 135 beats per minute, may give you extreme gut trouble if you are racing at 165 beats per minute, and when you are having gut trouble, then your body is not able to process and digest all the calories you are taking in for energy,...then you bonk, and wonder what the &*#! went wrong!

I am gonna offer a different POV on this. Depending on your background... IF you are an experienced runner or cyclist, I believe that for sprint distances, a HR monitor really is not necessary. For Olys and IMs, the value of the HR is def. there, but over the shorter distances, it is not a vital, must have tool.

The principle of training w/ or w/out a monitor is the same: you run some time trials to guage your effort and results, then base your training off of that. I have ued a HRM twice in my lifetime, and never gained much from it, BUT I know body and my capabilities, if you are totally new at any of this, then I suggest you go with on. Find one that displays your HR as a % of your max.

A HR monitor is good for a tool however certain factors will affect your HR readings. If you are dehydrated, or in extreme heat this can make your HR fluctuate a few beats higher, where as by the same token if you are fatigued or overtrained then it is hard to get your HR up to the higher levels. It is better than nothing but should be used as a tool and not an absolute. If you want absolutes (at least on the bike) use a power meter, wattage never changes 225 watts in cold weather is 225 watts in hot weather.

Brett

Hitman don't rip on the Garmin GPS - I have the 301 and love it - Though it does come with a heart rate monitor!
Like BrettD58 said a HRM is a tool. There is good information there. It is all how you use it.

Thanks for asking this I did want to know. I think I am gonna skip on one for my first tri and maybe down the road get one.

I thought I might get this response. :rolleyes: I'm not ripping the Garmin (didn't know it had a HR monitor). But in terms of both price and usefulness, is there any question that a heart rate monitor is substantially more useful than a GPS at a fraction of the cost?

thehitman

makscooter -

I think you proved my point.
You pace your effort, not your speed. Or do you ride 15 mph both up a hill, and down a hill?
The HR monitor tells you your effort, a GPS your speed.

thehitman

makscooter -

You may not care how much of an effort you put in, but your body does. And you'll achieve your PR a lot faster (literally) if your training is based upon intensity levels --- better measured by your heart rate than your speed.

Of course you can base your training on perceived levels, and on various charts; and many athletes do just that. But I'm surprised that you apparently think that heart rate monitoring is not only somehow less accurate, but in fact, "useless."

thehitman

If it works for you, do it.
In any event, good luck in your training for Boston.

thehitman

RV -

Like I previously said, I didn't realize the 301 included a HRM --- I was addressing the statement that a HRM is "pretty useless." As far as I know, modern bicycle training is based primarily upon intensity levels, rather than pace. That is not to say that pace is not important --- its fundamental to swim and run training.

In "The Ultimate Ride," for example, Chris Carmichael details the training program he developed to launch Lance Armstrong's comeback seven years ago --- a program that heavily relies on heart rate monitoring of intensity levels. Joe Friel, and other well-known triathlon gurus all emphasize the importance of training according to intensity levels. Costing as little as $50, I think a HRM is an invaluable training tool.

thehitman

Let me throw in .02 from someone who is more of a beginner with lower endurance than many of you (who are my role models - so don't think I'm detracting from your comments at all!), since looking at the initial questioner's fitjournal.com indicates that he might be more of a beginner like me.

Obviously pace is important, but at these beginning stages I really thinking that focusing on intensity and duration is far more critical. Yeah, I'd love to run 6:30miles but it would be more like 1/2mi before I was whipped and staggered home frustrated and defeated. And my natural stride inclination is to run about an 8:30min/mile, but again I can only last a mile or two right now. Instead, if I stay in my aerobic zone and train at 10min miles I can run 7 or 8mi without stopping. Now which is more valuable to me both in terms of improving performance and staying motivated? I've been using a HRM since April and have already seen marked improvement in my cardiovascular fitness, which is then translating into both increased pace and increased duration.

I'm not saying that an HRM is the only tool on the planet - there are all sorts of mechanisms for helping you improve performance, and the more advanced you get the more intricate the gadgets and theories of performance. But, for someone starting out, an HRM can be an important indicator in allowing you to balance pace with exertion in order to get the most out of any given workout.

i am definitely a beginner (still haven't done a tri). Right now my training is go ride and try and have a good pace but not really worry about it. I have been focusing on going the distance. if i got a HR monitor i would then have to plan my training around my HR. How do you do this? I don't need to worry about the run, i have had 2 back surgeys and the doc says no running. That is why i got into this in the first place. one to work my back on the swim and two lose weight on the bike.

That doesn't mean i don't want to be the fastest at those two things but right now i can't swim far enough yet, but the bike, the bike is coming along nicely. i have moved from a 15.2 mph pace on a 14 mile loop to a 18mph (this morning) on that same loop. i am able to do long rides 40+.

The reason i started this thread is that i am having a birthday in a few weeks and need some presents. i was thinking a new computer for my training. if HR what that important than i would want it during the swim as well and therefore, have to get a wrist style computer. If HR is not then i was going to get a computer with cadence (which i don't worry about now).

So with this new info, what should i be working on? I am loving the training and don't ever have a problem with making myself get out. it is what i think about all day. Heck i am at work talking to you guys.

All thoughts are very much welcomed.

to continue on this any suggestions as to if they should be together or two seperate gadgets.

Also which one are you guys using and why?

I just wanted to jump into the HR monitor topic because I have spent a lot of time on both sides of the coin. I ran for twenty years without using a monitor. Everything was based upon pace and perceived effort. I was getting injured a little too often so I got a heart rate monitor. What it really did was to get me to go easier on easy days and harder on hard days (I was afraid to go hard because if injury).

However, I did become too much of slave to it. It is just one more additional tool to use in training. Pace, perceived effort still play an important role and HR is just another piece to the puzzle. I still go out on runs without the monitor just to be free sometimes. But I can tell you that I am running faster and recover quicker than I ever did without the monitor.

Definately get one, learn to use it properly and don't be a slave to it.

Unfortuntely I forget which model I have but it was pretty cheap, $30-$35 and it works great.

Mark

You seriously think your heart rate does not go up while swimming? Swimming is an aerobic activity the same as running. Your heart rate does go up, and depending on how hard you work, your heart rate my reach higher than your heart rate while running.

I got an Astral 8 in the spring of last year. Paid less than $30 for it at Nashbar. It worked great for a month, and then the cadence feature went kaput. Probably the wire -- I'll go wireless when I eventually replace it. In the month the cadence worked, I learned to gauge 90 rpm fairly accurately, so its no longer a priority.

My Sports Instruments ECG-4 heart rate monitor cost about $40 online, and there are many others under $50 --- look at nashbar.com and performance.com for a good selection.

thehitman

i hope your joking wildstar, of course your heart rate goes up during swimming but not as high as the bike and in turn nowhere near as high as running, and even so how would you measure heart rate whilst swimming? :D

Thanks; and good luck in your future races. I'm sure you'll find success with your HRM.
I'm beginning to think this discussion is turning out to be a Mac vs. PC type issue.

I'm just old school when it comes to training. When my track coach said he wanted a 65 sec. quarter mile, we gave him a 65 sec. quarter mile. He really didn't give a rip what our effort or perceived effort was. He got us where we needed to go. I also realise technology moves forward; I'm just not convinced that all the technology is all that useful. Most old school marathoners wouldn't give a rip what their max HR was or what their VO2 Max was, or what zone they were running in. The general consensus is that American marathoning has been declining with all the technology rather than improving. (In absolute times; not relative to the Kenyans or Ethiopians). So if HR training is superior then why don't we see any better marathon times among the Americans. Is it because they're lazy? Because they play video games?

I realise there are no easy answers, but I don't think HRM's are the salvation of endurance athletes.

sorry, that sounded real rude, my point is that it could just be that there arent any super talented athletes in this generation of american runners, and heart rate monitors have been used for ages, i think the finnish runner lasse viren was the first to use it training: now hes old school, and although were getting fancier models the better models just make it easier to work out zones and stuff

lol, i dont im too young :confused: not really too sure what happening with distance running either, but im reading a sweet book called ''lore of running'' and its probably due to genetics rather than training that american distance running has dropped off, cuz it cant be that the kenyans just have better training emthods than everyone else :)

makscooter -

This afternoon, I put on my HRM before my run, although I usually don't. Towards to end, I finally looked at it, and it was exactly where I thought it would be - 10 beats below my LT. And it crossed my mind that you're old school. And so am I.

We both run and swim primarily according to pace. But some old dogs learn new tricks, and I highly recommend using a HR Monitor on the bike at least some of the time, so that you can more accurately gauge your intensity levels all of the time.

And when its race time, leave the gadgets at home and go for it.
Old school.

thehitman

I may take you up on using a HRM on a bike; but I have a couple of things on the shopping list ahead of a HRM. 1) a new bike, 2) a tri-suit (I had a hell of a time putting ON a running jersey after my swim, and it occurred to me that a tri-suit under my wetsuit would have been just the thing).

When you get to the wall take your pulse for 10 or 15 seconds then multiply up. And no I'm not kidding. I come from a NCAA Div I swimming program and a degree in Exercise Physiology. I've been through every kind of physical test imaginable, including the Bruce Prot. and swimming at the Colorado US Training Facility.

I know we are way off topic by now, but I thought I'd put my .02 in on this too. One source I read attributes the loss of US dominance in running to the recruiting of high school and college runners. In his opinion (and I agree), the good runners are usually overtrained and over-raced too early in their careers and end up with injuries or just burning out of the sport before they hit their prime. Why can't we just let kids be kids instead of pressing them to be world-class athletes before they're ready?

On the HRM, I just bought one simply because I'm curious about my heart rate. I have no doubt that my curiousness will help me discover times when I am over/underexerting during training. I'll probably use it in races as well just to try to make sure I don't bonk.

I say go for it, they are cheap and a great tool...but echoing what someone else said, "Don't be a slave to it!" Let it validate your perceived effort instead of dictating it. Also, I think it is fairly well known that your perceptions can be misaligned on race day because of the excitement of the race. If you do races all the time, this may not be the case, but for the rest of us that don't, I usually go out and feel great and about halfway decide I don't feel quite as good as I thought. ;o)