To use a chest strap or not ?

lulublue22

Hi

I’ve been running on and off for 3 years or so - I enjoy running but find it difficult to maintain any consistency. Part of the problem is that I have very poor aerobic capacity due to the fact that I prob run all my runs too fast.
So I’ve decided to train by heart rate and slow down. I’m basing my mhr of 198 bpm on a 5k race. I’m finding it very difficult to keep my hr down around 145bpm. I’m using a garmin 235 and Im not sure how accurate it is ? It seems to bounce around a lot - yesterday mile 1 at over 12 min mikes was 150bpm ( this included running down the hill from home) mile 2 at 11:30 min miles was 140 bpm ( on the flat) The 235 had my max hr at 178 yesterday though I never saw that during the run. The constant bouncing around is driving me nuts and making running stressful. I’m wondering would a chest strap give me a more accurate picture ?

Tks

SeeMoreBut

HR built into watch is not reliable. Chest or arm ones are much better

Casey78

I bought an arm band HR monitor from Wahoo.
Cant wear a chest strap at all.
The Wahoo and my Garmin 245 match almost identical on easy runs.
On faster interval type runs is where the Wahoo armband shines over the watch.
Make sure the watch is tight on your wrist and place it further up the arm than you usually would, like I said the optical on the watch will be accurate enough for easy runs but they struggle at higher paces.

lulublue22

Tks Seemorebut and casey78.

Didn’t realise you could get an arm one. Have just bit the bullet and ordered a garmin dual hr strap from Amazon. Just have to hope it will not go awol like our last 2 orders. If nothing else it will make me realise I have to slow down more 🀪

The Muppet

Interesting topic. I've been back running by Heartrate for the last month and your post mirrors my own experience. I too use a garmin 235. Today I dug out my old garmin 220 and chest strap and I wore both on a 2 mile run.

I was surprise at how similar the readings were. I hit zones 2 3 and 4 and there was little to no difference between the chest strap and wrist monitor .

I will say I'm lacking fitness and slow at the moment so perhaps as said above slow pace is a factor in the similar readings .

lulublue22

The Muppet wrote: »

Interesting topic. I've been back running by Heartrate for the last month and your post mirrors my own experience. I too use a garmin 235. Today I dug out my old garmin 220 and chest strap and I wore both on a 2 mile run.

I was surprise at how similar the readings were. I hit zones 2 3 and 4 and there was little to no difference between the chest strap and wrist monitor .

I will say I'm lacking fitness and slow at the moment so perhaps as said above slow pace is a factor in the similar readings .

It’s frustrating isn’t it. I’m not really expecting there to be a substantial difference between the two but I’d rather know for certain. I lack consistency which doesn’t help but in the 3 years I’ve been running I’ve never reached a level of being in zone 1 which is frustrating. I’m running at around 12 - 12:30 min/ miles at the moment and I’m not sure if I can slow down any more tbh. It feels really slow as is ðŸ˜

The Muppet

That exactly the pace I'm running at too. I haven't ran much in the last year so it will take some time to improve on that pace . It is frustrating but I'm going to stick with it for a few months .

lulublue22

The Muppet wrote: »

That exactly the pace I'm running at too. I haven't ran much in the last year so it will take some time to improve on that pace . It is frustrating but I'm going to stick with it for a few months .

That’s Gas ! I’m only 3 weeks in so will have to stick with it. Trying to run faster hasn’t really worked over the last few years so hopefully slowing down will.

arybvtcw0eolkf

The Muppet wrote: »

Interesting topic. I've been back running by Heartrate for the last month and your post mirrors my own experience. I too use a garmin 235. Today I dug out my old garmin 220 and chest strap and I wore both on a 2 mile run.

I was surprise at how similar the readings were. I hit zones 2 3 and 4 and there was little to no difference between the chest strap and wrist monitor .

I will say I'm lacking fitness and slow at the moment so perhaps as said above slow pace is a factor in the similar readings .

I'm more or less the same.

When I changed from a Polar M300 (with the chest strap) to the Garmin 735 is done comparison tests and both were more or less the same every time.

Last year I got hypertension (dunno how) and went on meds, but I bought an Omron HR monitor, the same my doctor uses and it gives the same measure's as my 735 with its wrist monitor.

I've 100% confidence in my Garmin's HR readings.

IvoryTower

There's a hr thread you should read that as well. I'm in a similar boat, my easy runs are supposed to be below 135 according to my garmin(using 195 max), its very hard to keep it below that, I have to run about 10 min miles and I'm in sub 5 min mile shape so it's baffling that it's so bad. I'm going to get it tested professionally when the restrictions are lifted.

I use the 235 + chest strap

lulublue22

8/20 Running arrived today. Is it bad that I instantly hated the book ? it looks like it will fall apart in a strong wind. I like my books sturdy so I can get plenty of use out of them. Quality is atrocious! Hopefully content will keep me happy 😆

py

lulublue22 wrote: »

8/20 Running arrived today. Is it bad that I instantly hated the book ? it looks like it will fall apart in a strong wind. I like my books sturdy so I can get plenty of use out of them. Quality is atrocious! Hopefully content will keep me happy ��

I'd the exact same experience a few weeks back after receiving it from Amazon. Back cover was torn so I got on to them about it and they refunded me. Still to read it, working my way through The Maffetone Method first.

Murph_D

lulublue22 wrote: »

8/20 Running arrived today. Is it bad that I instantly hated the book ? it looks like it will fall apart in a strong wind. I like my books sturdy so I can get plenty of use out of them. Quality is atrocious! Hopefully content will keep me happy ��

Agree with this - very poor paper quality. That's one reason the book is so cheap, I suppose, but would be nice to have option to buy a more durable version. However it's still a very good book.

lulublue22

I’m enjoying this so far - chest strap came this am so I’m trying to talk myself into doing the 30 min TT to check LHR should be fun

I haven’t heard of the Maffetone Method might google it later but I’m afraid of confusing myself further ðŸ˜

Ivorytower - thanks for the heads up re the heart rate thread. Some interesting points will have to read over it again in a few weeks to see what I’ve missed / misunderstood.

lulublue22

Just a quick follow up - Im loving the chest strap. I did a 30 min TT as according to 80/20 and found my LTHR. I now have a nice range to stay within and better still the chest strap has eliminated the off the wall bouncing around. My heart rate readings are much more consistent and Im spending less time glued to the watch trying to get hr within range and more time enjoying my run. happy days ðŸ˜

skyblue46

lulublue22 wrote: »

Just a quick follow up - Im loving the chest strap. I did a 30 min TT as according to 80/20 and found my LTHR. I now have a nice range to stay within and better still the chest strap has eliminated the off the wall bouncing around. My heart rate readings are much more consistent and Im spending less time glued to the watch trying to get hr within range and more time enjoying my run. happy days ðŸ˜

When did you do the TT? Was it your run on the 14th?

lulublue22

skyblue46 wrote: »

When did you do the TT? Was it your run on the 14th?

It was on the 12th - 10 min warm up 30 min run as fast as I could. Took the average hr for the last 20 mins. Based zones off of that.

skyblue46

lulublue22 wrote: »

It was on the 12th - 10 min warm up 30 min run as fast as I could. Took the average hr for the last 20 mins. Based zones off of that.

Ok....well I hate to be the bearer of bad news but those HR readings are wrong. Make sure you have a nice tension and the strap and maybe wet the contacts a little just as you put it on. There's no point in setting up zones until you have accurate readings.

lulublue22

skyblue46 wrote: »

Ok....well I hate to be the bearer of bad news but those HR readings are wrong. Make sure you have a nice tension and the strap and maybe wet the contacts a little just as you put it on. There's no point in setting up zones until you have accurate readings.

How can you tell they are wrong ?

skyblue46

lulublue22 wrote: »

How can you tell they are wrong ?

The graphs which show the HR readings are simply too uniform.... I've seen readings like that before. Your last 2 runs show a rising line from beginning to end.

lulublue22

skyblue46 wrote: »

The graphs which show the HR readings are simply too uniform.... I've seen readings like that before. Your last 2 runs show a rising line from beginning to end.

I’ve only one run since the TT. On garmin I can see a clear rise. Either way I won’t be doing another one for 6 - 8 weeks 😠Thanks for the feedback.

skyblue46

lulublue22 wrote: »

I’ve only one run since the TT. On garmin I can see a clear rise. Either way I won’t be doing another one for 6 - 8 weeks 😠Thanks for the feedback.

I meant the two runs including the TT. Anyway I'm only trying to help....

lulublue22

skyblue46 wrote: »

I meant the two runs including the TT. Anyway I'm only trying to help....

I know I appreciate feedback and wasn’t being sarky - but I don’t want to face into another TT again so soon and had already decided to do another one in 6 weeks or so. Im enjoying running again and happy enough to focus on building up the miles till I do the next one .

skyblue46

lulublue22 wrote: »

I know I appreciate feedback and wasn’t being sarky - but I don’t want to face into another TT again so soon and had already decided to do another one in 6 weeks or so. Im enjoying running again and happy enough to focus on building up the miles till I do the next one .

Oh I wasn't suggesting another TT. Just keep an eye on the graph on Strava or Connect...it should be pretty uneven not a straight line, even if the straight line is rising.

Lazare

lulublue22 wrote: »

It was on the 12th - 10 min warm up 30 min run as fast as I could. Took the average hr for the last 20 mins. Based zones off of that.

Curious about this. Are you saying this method gave you a HR @ lactate threshold?

How accurate do you think it is?

I ask because I base all my training around my LT heart rate, got an accurate reading of it via a clinical test in Feb. Would be interested in testing it again towards the end of the summer to see if I need to make any adjustments.

lulublue22

Lazare wrote: »

Curious about this. Are you saying this method gave you a HR @ lactate threshold?

How accurate do you think it is?

I ask because I base all my training around my LT heart rate, got an accurate reading of it via a clinical test in Feb. Would be interested in testing it again towards the end of the summer to see if I need to make any adjustments.

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.

skyblue46

Yeah, today's looks like it should. Is that generally how the other two looked on Connect and Runalyze?

Casey78

Lazare wrote: »

Curious about this. Are you saying this method gave you a HR @ lactate threshold?

How accurate do you think it is?

I ask because I base all my training around my LT heart rate, got an accurate reading of it via a clinical test in Feb. Would be interested in testing it again towards the end of the summer to see if I need to make any adjustments.

This is a good article on it.
Yes it's for triathletes but the same principles apply.

https://beginnertriathlete.com/mobile/Article.html?articleId=633

Lazare

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.

Lazare

Casey78 wrote: »

This is a good article on it.
Yes it's for triathletes but the same principles apply.

https://beginnertriathlete.com/mobile/Article.html?articleId=633

After a 15 minute warm-up of easy running, finish with a few quick 20 seconds bursts to get your heart rate in the correct training zone.

The 30 minute TT begins.
At 10 minutes into the test, hit the 'Lap' button on your heart rate monitor, to get the average heart rate over the final 20 minutes of the test.
The average for the final 20 minutes is your Lactate Threshold or LT.
You should finish knowing you gave it everything you had.

I still can't understand how that can give you your LT rate.

Casey78

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.

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

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.