nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Heart Rate Training - beginners guide

Lazare

The thread title might be a bit misleading. I'm not here to guide beginners in HR training, rather I'm hoping you guys, you experts might help guide me, and other beginners thinking of switching to the method.

I've just gotten a Garmin strap, am good to go, all I need now is the smarts and the stats to use it properly.

I know I need to get an accurate MHR (maximal heart rate) in order to utilise training zones, I've got plans for that.

What else does a beginner need to know?

When I begin a marathon block, will I be able to get an accurate marathon pace heart rate that I can train to? Is that thing?

What are good HR training plans for multiple distances?

Basically, what are your tips and tricks?

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

First Up

Ceepo wrote:

As a coach I wouldn't advise any athletes to use 220 method to get their training zones, nor know any other coaches that would.

That's fine but as a coach I'd hope you are encouraging the subject to run, not confront them with a reading list or waving formulae at him.

That's OK on a nerds forum like Boards but not on the track or in the park.

Ceepo

First Up wrote: »

That's fine but as a coach I'd hope you are encouraging the subject to run, not confront them with a reading list or waving formulae at him.

That's OK on a nerds forum like Boards but not on the track or in the park.

Im confused by that statement.

If you're training by HR you will need to work out your training zone's whether using 220 formula or max hr test, the difference is you will have your individual accurate readings from max hr test.

Not sure about nerds either, from what I see, there is a wealth of knowledge and experience on this forum. Some posters have trained in physical/sports injury therapy, some have competed at a high level national and internationally, some have invested a lot of time and money educating themselves by completing coaching courses and attending coaching conferences etc.
Some have all of the above.

Now if you you want to call them nerds, that's your right. I would just say they probably know what they're talking about.

First Up

Ceepo wrote: »

Im confused by that statement.

If you're training by HR you will need to work out your training zone's whether using 220 formula or max hr test, the difference is you will have your individual accurate readings from max hr test.

Not sure about nerds either, from what I see, there is a wealth of knowledge and experience on this forum. Some posters have trained in physical/sports injury therapy, some have competed at a high level national and internationally, some have invested a lot of time and money educating themselves by completing coaching courses and attending coaching conferences etc.
Some have all of the above.

Now if you you want to call them nerds, that's your right. I would just say they probably know what they're talking about.

After a good few years of it, I am familiar with the pace/gradient/distance and gait I need to get to whatever I want to reach for the day. I don't need to scrutinise a HR monitor every time and if I'm a few percent off, then so be it.

I don't doubt the nerds know what they are talking about. What makes them nerds is wanting to keep talking about it.

Ceepo

First Up wrote: »

After a good few years of it, I am familiar with the pace/gradient/distance and gait I need to get to whatever I want to reach for the day. I don't need to scrutinise a HR monitor every time and if I'm a few percent off, then so be it.

I don't doubt the nerds know what they are talking about. What makes them nerds is wanting to keep talking about it.

But no one on here said you need to scrutinise every time.
They just said to do a simple test to give you an accurate starting point.

Laineyfrecks

First Up wrote: »

After a good few years of it, I am familiar with the pace/gradient/distance and gait I need to get to whatever I want to reach for the day. I don't need to scrutinise a HR monitor every time and if I'm a few percent off, then so be it.

I don't doubt the nerds know what they are talking about. What makes them nerds is wanting to keep talking about it.

I really don't understand what you are getting out of calling people nerds? Seems quite childish to me... If you don't like the advice or agree with it that's your choice but you are not the only one who reads the forum.

Seve OB

Jaysus
We are not nerds.
We are Geeks:

First Up

Ceepo wrote:

But no one on here said you need to scrutinise every time. They just said to do a simple test to give you an accurate starting point.

I've seen references to VO2 tests in labs, as many as seven training zones and expensive Apple and Garmin monitors.

Not that simple and a lot more complicated than I think a beginner should be expected to take on.

Ceepo

First Up wrote: »

I've seen references to VO2 tests in labs, as many as seven training zones and expensive Apple and Garmin monitors.

Not that simple and a lot more complicated than I think a beginner should be expected to take on.

Yes there's reference to individual people's vo2 lab tests, and some posters have gave there opinions on smartwatchs and specific heart rate monitor. Most of this was to give personal experience using heart rate monitor with chest straps v optical sensor and the difference in accuracy, some were questioning heart rate spikes etc.
The common thyme throughout this tread is that it doesnt need to be complicated.
Do a max heart rate test, work out your training zones and train accordingly.

While different training plans might have you doing specific work in training zone's, that is more specific to the plan you are following.

The 2 common points from the start.
1, Do a test to determine your max or vo2
2, Get and accurate heartrate monitor.

Without this vital information, you're not training to heart rate, you only think you are.

First Up

Ceepo wrote:

Without this vital information, you're not training to heart rate, you only think you are.

If you want to base a training plan around HR, then take it as seriously as you like (and can afford). I just don't think it's necessary for a beginner to take it much further than a mix of hard, easy, intervals and tempo runs.

A HRM might be interesting for some of that but it certainly isn't vital.

28064212

First Up wrote: »

If you want to base a training plan around HR, then take it as seriously as you like (and can afford). I just don't think it's necessary for a beginner to take it much further than a mix of hard, easy, intervals and tempo runs.

A HRM might be interesting for some of that but it certainly isn't vital.

This is a thread specifically about Heart Rate Training. No-one has said beginners must train by heart-rate. The point that has been made (repeatedly) is that if you are going to train by HR, you must have somewhat accurate numbers to use. No formula gives anywhere like the accuracy that is required

Ceepo

First Up wrote: »

If you want to base a training plan around HR, then take it as seriously as you like (and can afford). I just don't think it's necessary for a beginner to take it much further than a mix of hard, easy, intervals and tempo runs.

A HRM might be interesting for some of that but it certainly isn't vital.

I don't disagree with using that mix of sessions and have point that out previously. I've coached plenty of athletes who don't use HR,
Where i do disagree is if you are to use hr, then you need to accurately get you max hr or get vo2 and not use 220 minus age.
This thread is about training with heart rate.
And again as I and others have pointed out, if you do want to train using HR, you need an accurate hr monitor (it doesn't have to be expensive) and an accurate max heart rate number, again it doesn't need to expensive lab test, a field test will do.

First Up

28064212 wrote:

This is a thread specifically about Heart Rate Training. No-one has said beginners must train by heart-rate. The point that has been made (repeatedly) is that if you are going to train by HR, you must have somewhat accurate numbers to use. No formula gives anywhere like the accuracy that is required

What's the thread title?

28064212

First Up wrote: »

What's the thread title?

"Heart Rate Training - beginners guide". And?

First Up

28064212 wrote:

"Heart Rate Training - beginners guide". And?

Nothing else.

lulublue22

First Up wrote: »

Nothing else.

A guide for those beginning to train by hr not a hr guide fir beginner runners.

ariana`

lulublue22 wrote: »

A guide for those beginning to train by hr not a hr guide fir beginner runners.

Exactly my understanding of this thread having followed it from the start... unfortunately it's been derailed in the last day or two by someone who seems to think we're all nerds :rolleyes:

First Up

ariana` wrote:

Exactly my understanding of this thread having followed it from the start... unfortunately it's been derailed in the last day or two by someone who seems to think we're all nerds

No, only those who think it involves a seven zone training plan.

Annie get your Run

To be honest I'm not really sure what the purpose of going around in circles here is.

This thread is for people who want to learn about training by heart rate. No one is suggesting that a beginner runner should train by heart rate. In fact it has been pointed out a few times that beginner runners should focus on running easy runs consistently and slowly building mileage before they bring in anything else.

If someone wants to begin training by heart rate they need to go and do a max HR test to determine their max HR so they can set up the zones properly from the start. There are a number of ways to do this and these have been posted several times throughout the thread. Advising anyone to use the generic age formulas for calculating max HR is not good advice, nor is it helpful to that poster. It really is that simple.

SeeMoreBut

And if someone wants to train to hr prepare to run slower than what you think your easy runs are.

Running slower than you think is easy is probably the reason why most give up on it from people I know who have tried it. I'm running 30 seconds a km slower than what I use to. This is bs

First Up

Annie get your Run wrote:

If someone wants to begin training by heart rate they need to go and do a max HR test to determine their max HR so they can set up the zones properly from the start. There are a number of ways to do this and these have been posted several times throughout the thread. Advising anyone to use the generic age formulas for calculating max HR is not good advice, nor is it helpful to that poster. It really is that simple.

I'm not arguing against any of that. It is important to know your max heart rate; I just don't think it needs to be measured to the nth degree, any more than your target HR for any type of run needs to be.

The 220-A approximation is a good enough guide for the sort of runs most of us include in our programme. And more importantly, it might get people trying it sooner than booking a lab test.

I said earlier that the last time I compared it with my HR after some uphill runs, the difference was 4 beats a minute. I tried it again during an easy park run at lunchtime today. The difference was 3 beats a minute.

That's close enough for me but each to his own.

deconduo

First Up wrote: »

I'm not arguing against any of that. It is important to know your max heart rate; I just don't think it needs to be measured to the nth degree, any more than your target HR for any type of run needs to be.

The 220-A approximation is a good enough guide for the sort of runs most of us include in our programme. And more importantly, it might get people trying it sooner than booking a lab test.

I said earlier that the last time I compared it with my HR after some uphill runs, the difference was 4 beats a minute. I tried it again during an easy park run at lunchtime today. The difference was 3 beats a minute.

That's close enough for me but each to his own.

What's the benefit of training by HR vs PE if you have no idea what zone you're actually in? On average using the age formula you're going to be out by a full zone and some people will be out by 3-4 zones.

Seems pointless to use HR if you don't have your zones set up correctly as the data is just garbage, stick to PE instead.

Edit: Oh and no one is saying to start with a lab test, plenty of ways to do it yourself with progressive 800m or hill repeats or a 30 min all out run.

keith_d99

First Up wrote: »

I'm not arguing against any of that. It is important to know your max heart rate; I just don't think it needs to be measured to the nth degree, any more than your target HR for any type of run needs to be.

The 220-A approximation is a good enough guide for the sort of runs most of us include in our programme. And more importantly, it might get people trying it sooner than booking a lab test.

I said earlier that the last time I compared it with my HR after some uphill runs, the difference was 4 beats a minute. I tried it again during an easy park run at lunchtime today. The difference was 3 beats a minute.

That's close enough for me but each to his own.

Each to their own you say ... but you have gone to good lengths to point out how reading HR from an expensive watch is obsessive?
I'm not an experienced runner ... I started a HR based 80/20 training plan programme after 12 months of running the wrong way (too fast) ... and getting injured along the way
HR zone alerts are a way of teaching me to run slow. I'm sure with experience it will come more naturally.

I didn't buy the watch for this specifically ... had it long before I took up running.

If that makes me a nerd than so be it coach!

First Up

keith_d99 wrote:

Each to their own you say ... but you have gone to good lengths to point out how reading HR from an expensive watch is obsessive? I'm not an experienced runner ... I started a HR based 80/20 training plan programme after 12 months of running the wrong way (too fast) ... and getting injured along the way HR zone alerts are a way of teaching me to run slow. I'm sure with experience it will come more naturally.

The accepted wisdom is that an easy run should be at 50%-60%, moderate at 70%-80% and a hard run at 90%-100%. That spread is close enough for the coaching manuals so why demand precision in MHR and then apply a spread like that when using it?

I didn't invent 220-A as a way to estimate MHR but not only is it widely used, it also gives me almost exactly the same numbers as an uphill field test. It's close enough to be good enough for me.

I've had a Polar monitor for years. Like you, It helps make me slow down on long easy runs but I don't use it much otherwise.

Seve OB

Jaysus if you dig anymore you are going to end up in Australia

Reg'stoy

For those having trouble with their strap connecting at the start of a run and want to avoid licking their straps, use some ultrasound gel

I bought some for a couple of quid on amazon (warehouse deal) I have been having some problems with high heart rate recorded at the start of a run, which I thought was lack of warm up but turned out (thanks to another boards member) to be my strap using cadence rather than heart rate until I sweat enough. As you can see below heart rate and cadence are the same at the start my recovery run yesterday

Used some gel this morning for an interval run and no spike at the start and as you can see tracked my pace fairly well

So the gel seems to work, just a little dab on the sensor panels (I use a 1st generation garmin HRM strap). I also take the strap into the shower with me after every third run or after a particularly sweaty run to clean it, I don't use soap just hold it under the shower head.

Ceepo

I thought it might be a good idea to share an objective view of HR from some of the athletes that I coach, while subjectively 220 might work for some, we can clearly see how limited if not how fundamentally flawed it is.

Sex Mx HR Age 220 formula
M 187 46 174
F 183 61 159
M 192 49 171
M 188 43 177
F 183 26 194
F 168 25 195
M 198 33 187

So you can see a broad range of ages and max HR.
If we took the two female athletes of similar age and use the 220 formula, you would have one seriously over training, and maybe the other under training.

partyguinness

Reg'stoy wrote: »

For those having trouble with their strap connecting at the start of a run and want to avoid licking their straps, use some ultrasound gelhaving some problems with high heart rate recorded at the start of a run, which I thought was lack of warm up but turned out (thanks to another boards member) to be my strap using cadence rather than heart rate until I sweat enough. As you can see below heart rate and cadence are the same at the start my recovery run yesterday
.

I have been trying to source something like that. I asked at my local runing shop last year and the young girl (it actually was her first day on the job as I asked) kept showing me energy gels.

Same problem with massive spikes at the start- even last night. First 5 minutes up at 190 bpm when is should be around the 120s. It settles down after a mile or so- annoying.

Never had it on my Garmin HRM strap which died in January but I replaced it with a Viiii on the recomendation of my coach and its has happened a few times.

Unknownability

partyguinness wrote: »

I have been trying to source something like that. I asked at my local runing shop last year and the young girl (it actually was her first day on the job as I asked) kept showing me energy gels.

Same problem with massive spikes at the start- even last night. First 5 minutes up at 190 bpm when is should be around the 120s. It settles down after a mile or so- annoying.

Never had it on my Garmin HRM strap which died in January but I replaced it with a Viiii on the recomendation of my coach and its has happened a few times.

I had the exact same issue and also bought the gel which has helped, I like you have a non garmin hrm and find another solution is to absolutely drench the strap in water prior to running and that stops the spike.

First Up

Ceepo wrote:

I thought it might be a good idea to share an objective view of HR from some of the athletes that I coach, while subjectively 220 might work for some, we can clearly see how limited if not how fundamentally flawed it is.

So do you prefer the 211 - .6A formula or the 208 -.7A or any of the others knocking around? There's no shortage and all have their advocates and critics.
Should we dump them all and insist on a scientifically approved lab test?

Or just pick one because the benefits of starting a structured programme are too good to wait for the arguments over decimal points to be resolved?

28064212

First Up wrote: »

Should we dump them all and insist on a scientifically approved lab test?

Literally no-one has ever said this should be the case, and your continued bad-faith arguments are a joke