To use a chest strap or not ?

Murph_D

Lazare wrote: »

I can understand how the TT may give you a max HR, but can't understand how it can give you a LT HR.

I know my LT HR to be 145bpm, well it was in Feb, may be a couple of beats away from that now, but if I ran 30 min flat out today the average HR for the final 20 mins or so would be in the 170s. My max is 178.

Maybe your max is higher than you think. Or you might peak near it at the end of such a run but certainly could not average it as Casey says.

Casey78

lulublue22 wrote: »

Its based off 80/ 20 by Matt Fitzgerald. In his book he recommends 3 options - percieved effort , talk test or 30 min TT.
I went with the TT as it seemed the most reliable to me. In the book he recommends warm up and then running as fast as you can maintain for 30 mins ( keeping each 10 mins similar pace as in not blowing up in the first ten mins) and taking your average HR during the last 10 mins as your LTHR. His on line platform training peaks has you take the average HR from the last 20 mins. Im not sure why they are slightly different. There is a calculator on training peaks which allows you to calculate your HR zones based off your LTHR.
I can see a difference already. Im back enjoying running again and Im happy enough to stick with HR training now more so than before I tried the TT.
re accuracy - he does say that it is subject to the conditions on the day - weather , how well you’ve slept etc etc . and that it will need to be repeated as you gain fitness.
However In my opinion there will always be questions around methods / application / interpretation of methods etc.
case in point - a poster pointed out that the chest strap wasnt accurate during the TT as strava heart rate graph is too uniform. A valid point. Yet when I look at the same heart rate graph in connect and runalyse there are clear peaks and troughs while all three follow the same basic trajectory. So question is was the chest strap not accurate or is it how strava is presenting the graph ?

I will say that I’m not chasing times . I’m building up miles slowly to hopefully gain consistency with my running and to that end I’m happy with 80/20 HR zones.

I wouldn't be worrying about graphs on some app to be honest. If you did the test as laid out in the 80/20 book and got numbers to set out zones then go with that. Do the test again in a month or 6 weeks to get further numbers and see how they match up.
As you say, you are enjoying your running now and that's the main thing.
Good luck.

Lazare

Casey78 wrote: »

If your HR average for 20 mins was in the 170s and your Max HR is only 178 then would that not mean you would be in Zone 5 for nearly all the 20mins?. Didn't think that would be possible.
From anything I read you shouldn't be able last more than a few mins in Zone 5 if you are truly in Zone 5.

Murph_D wrote: »

Maybe your max is higher than you think. Or you might peak near it at the end of such a run but certainly could not average it as Casey says.

Good points, maybe so. I still can't see a situation where my average would be 145 though, so am still confused.

Ceepo

Lazare wrote: »

I can understand how the TT may give you a max HR, but can't understand how it can give you a LT HR.

I know my LT HR to be 145bpm, well it was in Feb, may be a couple of beats away from that now, but if I ran 30 min flat out today the average HR for the final 20 mins or so would be in the 170s. My max is 178.

Forgive me here, but from memory didn't you do a sub max hr test, and not a max hr test.

Lazare

Just checked a parkrun I ran in Feb, warmed up before it then ran flat out, average HR was 166.

Can imagine the figure being close to that in that TT test. How do I get my LT HR from that?

Lazare

Ceepo wrote: »

Forgive me here, but from memory didn't you do a sub max hr test, and not a max hr test.

Max wasn't tested at all that time, just AnT. I'm basing the 178 off training stats and also a hospital stress test I did three years ago. Could well be a beat or two above it.

Don't use it as a guide so it's not vitally important to know it, I don't think.

Ceepo

Lazare wrote: »

Max wasn't tested at all that time, just AnT. I'm basing the 178 off training stats and also a hospital stress test I did three years ago. Could well be a beat or two above it.

Don't use it as a guide so it's not vitally important to know it, I don't think.

Gotcha. Though 178 may have been your max on that day and you were basing zones around that.

Lazare

Ceepo wrote: »

Gotcha. Though 178 may have been your max on that day and you were basing zones around that.

Looking at the results now, I maxed out at 168 that day. Have all my zones based around 145 which was the AnT rate that day.

That's why I'm really curious to hear about a way to accurately determine it by a field test.

Lazare

Apologies Lulublue for hijacking your thread

Murph_D

Lazare wrote: »

Looking at the results now, I maxed out at 168 that day. Have all my zones based around 145 which was the AnT rate that day.

That's why I'm really curious to hear about a way to accurately determine it by a field test.

Lots of different field tests you can use. I suppose this one is as good as any:

https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20806124/how-to-find-your-max-heart-rate/

Lazare

Murph_D wrote: »

Lots of different field tests you can use. I suppose this one is as good as any:

https://www.runnersworld.com/training/a20806124/how-to-find-your-max-heart-rate/

Cheers D, that's to determine max though. Am trying to figure out how it's possible to get HR @ LT from a test like that.

Murph_D

Lazare wrote: »

Cheers D, that's to determine max though. Am trying to figure out how it's possible to get HR @ LT from a test like that.

Well, then I suppose the one Lulublue posted is as good as any - that's the one Fitzgerald recommends.

skyblue46

Lazare wrote: »

Cheers D, that's to determine max though. Am trying to figure out how it's possible to get HR @ LT from a test like that.

Garmin have a guided threshold test on most watches. I did it and it gave me a threshold pace which was bang in the middle of the range that Tinman gave as my threshold based on the 5k TT. Obviously I have no idea if the HR it gave would stand up to scrutiny in a lab test but it seemed accurate enough. You should try it and compare. I'd love to know how you'd get on.

Murph_D

skyblue46 wrote: »

Garmin have a guided threshold test on most watches. I did it and it gave me a threshold pace which was bang in the middle of the range that Tinman gave as my threshold based on the 5k TT. Obviously I have no idea if the HR it gave would stand up to scrutiny in a lab test but it seemed accurate enough. You should try it and compare. I'd love to know how you'd get on.

Don’t see why it wouldn’t be quite accurate as long as the HR data is good. So I’d be using a strap if doing this. Mind you maybe the later watches are better than my 235 in terms of the optical sensor.

skyblue46

Murph_D wrote: »

Don’t see why it wouldn’t be quite accurate as long as the HR data is good. So I’d be using a strap if doing this. Mind you maybe the later watches are better than my 235 in terms of the optical sensor.

No, the optical sensor is shocking for running. I use a strap.

ILoveYourVibes

One thing i find about running outdoors rather than a treadmill is that its not a flat path etc where as you can keep pace on a treadmill you can't outside AND keep your HR constant. So your HR is going to go unless you are keeping a really uneven pace. If the path rise into a hill etc my heart rate might go up by 5 beats.

Its why i never got seriously into HR training. I could keep a strap in place on a treadmill but never outdoors.

jimbobaloobob

OP Do an eBay/amazon search for a book Scientific Heart Rate Training by Neil Craig

https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Heart-Rate-Training-Craig/dp/0646297023

Follow the scientific advice and protocols and you will see success. I would also recommend a chest strap monitor. You can pair one with the 235 and it wouldn’t cost you much.

https://www.decathlon.ie/ie_en/dual-ant-bluetooth-smart-runner-s-heart-rate-monitor-belt-en-s128085-683345.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwwYP2BRBGEiwAkoBpAjlr40pIk68zau2MknbbSVSorFPZv1IYC9fTzaXDV2YRlUNekewF2BoCAa4QAvD_BwE

Let me know if I can be any help. Good luck

Casey78

jimbobaloobob wrote: »

OP Do an eBay/amazon search for a book Scientific Heart Rate Training by Neil Craig

https://www.amazon.com/Scientific-Heart-Rate-Training-Craig/dp/0646297023

Follow the scientific advice and protocols and you will see success. I would also recommend a chest strap monitor. You can pair one with the 235 and it wouldn’t cost you much.

https://www.decathlon.ie/ie_en/dual-ant-bluetooth-smart-runner-s-heart-rate-monitor-belt-en-s128085-683345.html?gclid=CjwKCAjwwYP2BRBGEiwAkoBpAjlr40pIk68zau2MknbbSVSorFPZv1IYC9fTzaXDV2YRlUNekewF2BoCAa4QAvD_BwE

Let me know if I can be any help. Good luck

Is that a good book?
I've always gone by John L Parkers book Heart Rate Training for the Compleat Idiot.
Never a bad thing to have another book on the subject though so think I'll buy that one also.

Chest monitors are accurate but very awkward to wear imo, I've bought a few over the years and always find them uncomfortable to wear. I bought a Wahoo tickr fit armband and it's so much better to wear when running and very accurate results.

The optical wristbased sensor on the watch is grand for slow runs though, compares almost exactly to any chest strap I have for that type of run. Not so good for anything else.

jimbobaloobob

Casey78 wrote: »

Is that a good book?
I've always gone by John L Parkers book Heart Rate Training for the Compleat Idiot.
Never a bad thing to have another book on the subject though so think I'll buy that one also.

Chest monitors are accurate but very awkward to wear imo, I've bought a few over the years and always find them uncomfortable to wear. I bought a Wahoo tickr fit armband and it's so much better to wear when running and very accurate results.

The optical wristbased sensor on the watch is grand for slow runs though, compares almost exactly to any chest strap I have for that type of run. Not so good for anything else.

It’s very good Casey and useful for anyone that runs swims or cycles or those that do all three. You can get a pre read version for sometimes €2 Neil Craig worked at the Australian Institute of Sport

Lazare

skyblue46 wrote: »

Garmin have a guided threshold test on most watches. I did it and it gave me a threshold pace which was bang in the middle of the range that Tinman gave as my threshold based on the 5k TT. Obviously I have no idea if the HR it gave would stand up to scrutiny in a lab test but it seemed accurate enough. You should try it and compare. I'd love to know how you'd get on.

I'll definitely check that out S. Cheers.

Lazare

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

One thing i find about running outdoors rather than a treadmill is that its not a flat path etc where as you can keep pace on a treadmill you can't outside AND keep your HR constant. So your HR is going to go unless you are keeping a really uneven pace. If the path rise into a hill etc my heart rate might go up by 5 beats.

Its why i never got seriously into HR training. I could keep a strap in place on a treadmill but never outdoors.

For me that's the point of HR training. You're training by effort and forgetting about pace.

I'm talking about that 80% block of your volume that's supposed to be aerobic. Obv you change things up for hill training and speed workouts etc but an even effort means an uneven pace.

ILoveYourVibes

Lazare wrote: »

For me that's the point of HR training. You're training by effort and forgetting about pace.

I'm talking about that 80% block of your volume that's supposed to be aerobic. Obv you change things up for hill training and speed workouts etc but an even effort means an uneven pace.

I know ..but its very annoying! :mad: I don't like to let hills win!

Lazare

Lazare wrote: »

I'll definitely check that out S. Cheers.

Ah, feature not available on the 235. That's a pity.

ILoveYourVibes

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I know ..but its very annoying! :mad: I don't like to let hills win!

TBH tho..i prob need to go faster on the downhills and flats ...then kill the hills !

I actually wanna find a run where its all uphill.

jimbobaloobob

This is also a good solution. Polar used to make a bra that allowed you thread the monitor chest strap through. This one just needs the front transponder

Lolë Smart Bra X and MI Pulse Universal Hear

ariana`

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

One thing i find about running outdoors rather than a treadmill is that its not a flat path etc where as you can keep pace on a treadmill you can't outside AND keep your HR constant. So your HR is going to go unless you are keeping a really uneven pace. If the path rise into a hill etc my heart rate might go up by 5 beats.

Its why i never got seriously into HR training. I could keep a strap in place on a treadmill but never outdoors.

In Faster Road Racing where the different types of runs are prescribed by HR, they say to allow an increase of up to 8 bpm going uphill. Other HR based plans should have some guidance in this also i'd expect.

robinph

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

I know ..but its very annoying! :mad: I don't like to let hills win!

The idea is not to beat the hills, it's to make sure the hills beat everyone else in the race. If you are in a pack going up a hill and you ease off a tiny bit, maybe slot in behind them and still keep in touch on the way up and still keep your HR level'ish then when you get to the top and the rest of them are all blowing out of every orifice if you then keep your effort level the same going back down the other side you'll leave them all in your dust.

It's actually quite hard to run fast enough on some downhills to be able to keep your effort level even, but get that nailed and you'll bust the rest of the field wide. If you can then manage to also tag back onto the back of the next group ahead before the bottom of the next hill and get another tow up you'll be laughing.

Of course no telling when we'll get to put that kind of thing into practice, but if all we get is some time trial races, then the same thing applies. If you can go easy on the ups and hammer it on the downs you'll be doing way better times.

partyguinness

I started HR 3 months ago after having my VO2 tested and I was given a aerobic base training plan.

I used my Garmin watch for the first few weeks before I got a chest strap. The watch had my HR a lot lower than the strap and the pace of my runs dropped to keep it under MAF. The VO2 tester had two strapped to me during the test.

The general consensus is that chest straps are better.

partyguinness

Has anyone else followed Dr Phil Maffetone and his low HR training?

partyguinness

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

TBH tho..i prob need to go faster on the downhills and flats ...then kill the hills !

I actually wanna find a run where its all uphill.

Attacking hills is not generally advised. I used to have that mentality: hit the hills hard and sure I can recover on the way down.

What was pointed out to me is that hitting the hills hard mean you burn through your glycogen, hit anaerobic and then you are fit for nothing at the top.

Sure you have smashed it but then your legs are empty for the downhill and that puts even more pressure on your legs and downhills are not so easy. A whole pile of unnecessary strain and pain.