Jack Daniels on HRM

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by IndyRun » Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:00:00


Quote:
>We should send these two to the Middle East---if they can agree on something
>then Israel and Palestine have a shot.

Sam, as long as Mike agrees that pace training beats HR training.  :)

   David
"IndyRunr"

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by john stine » Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Do you think that Pete Pfitzinger really trained with a HRM when he
made two OG marathon teams?  I doubt it very highly!!  Pete ran up the
hill around Ithaca, NY & put in high miles.

Tell me what a HRM will tell you when you head up some the hills around
here in Ithaca, NY in the heat of the summer?

HRM tells you your heart is beating, BUT how well does it tell you
what's going on inside of the muscle tissues?

Like anything else, even the stopwatch, paying too much attention to a
"gizzmo" is what is limiting to your running.  Learn to listen to your
body!!

In my mind the athletes have always been ahead of the scienctists, just
look at all of the past prognostications about the 4 minute mile.
Trust yourself, don't fool yourself, work hard, rest, eat real food,
repeat over & over, just do it.

Here in Ithaca, NY
5 degrees this morning
John Stiner

* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by Mike Tennen » Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:


>>4) New runners should keep them in the closet until they have gained a
>>"feel" for running and exertion levels.

>I disagree. The only time I used a HRM was when I was a new runner. I would run
>until the high alarm went off and then walk until the low alarm went off. The
>rapid decline in the time spent walking convinced me I was getting fitter and
>was one of the things that kept me going. After I could run about 2 miles
>nonstop I lost interest in the HRM and began tracking my  pace. I really don't
>know how useful it would be now, but I think for a new runner it can be very
>valuable.

>-ssloth

Hi:

This is one of those areas I'm not sure of, but I put it in for
discussion.  And figured you'd disagree. <g>

Your use of it seems somewhat unique. I think what most of us would
argue is that you really didn't need the HRM to tell you to slow down.
And if the formula you used was inaccurate for you, then you may have
slowed too soon.

Now I'll also concede that that very thing may serve as a safety valve
for new runners - slowing them and preventing over-use injuries like
shin splints, etc.

Maybe we can modify that part to say a HRM is useful for new runners
in making sure they aren't pushing too hard, but at some point, <after
they're running regularly, non-stop>, they need to put it away and
start learning how to read their body.

Other opinions?

Mike Tennent
"IronPenguin"
Ironman Canada '98 16:17:03
Great Floridian '99, 17:13:38

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by Robert Grumbi » Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:00:00



Quote:

>Your use of it seems somewhat unique. I think what most of us would
>argue is that you really didn't need the HRM to tell you to slow down.

  Not in the context of beginner, but if I were to use an HRM, telling
me to slow down _is_ one of the things I'd use it for.  I've got no
difficulty on the high end of the scale, telling a 5 from a 4 from a high 3.  
But in the low/middle, 1 vs. 2 vs. 3 is very hard.  It is the 3's I'm trying
to avoid, and bracket creep from 2 is a problem.  This is one reason I
tend to do my easier runs in more controlled circumstances -- taking
some care to keep pace appropriate.

  (Numbers being arabic versions of the roman figures Sam? posts from
time to time, with the middle zone being something to avoid as it is
too hard to be easy, and too easy to train hard.  Also my result, and
reason why I'm trying to stay out of that zone.)

  Whether a HRM would do _me_ any good for this purpose, I'm not so sure.
Experimentation on the fitness center bikes (pulse counters on the handlebars)
has confirmed that altering my breathing pattern can produce a 20+ bpm
change in pulse.  Given that almost without fail my running pulse (when
I stop and count) is the same 168 regardless of whether it is a light
jog to anything short of race efforts and hard intervals, my inference
is that when running, I control the breathing (depth and rate) so as to
maintain the same pulse.  (Anyone else do this?)  

  If I'd used an HRM as an interpretive tool (as I did with the center
bike), then I'd have learned this 4 years ago and would have been able
to direct my attention more properly to my breathing rather than heart.  

--
Robert Grumbine http://www.radix.net/~bobg/ Science faqs and amateur activities notes and links.
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by Sslothr » Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:

>Sam, as long as Mike agrees that pace training beats HR training.  :)

If Mike agrees will you give up the Golan Heights?

-ssloth

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by Sslothr » Sat, 15 Jan 2000 04:00:00

I didn't find the HRM valuable for telling me when to slow down; I found it
valuable for providing objective, positive feedback. I could run further at a
lower heart rate and recover more quickly as I continued running. This, among
other things, encouraged me to keep running.
The only alternative I can think of is timing oneself. I think that using a HRM
is superior for a new runner because it prevents you from burning yourself out.

I'd also argue with this use being unique. Everything I ever read on HRM's
suggests you use them to stay within a zone.

-ssloth

Quote:

>Your use of it seems somewhat unique. I think what most of us would
>argue is that you really didn't need the HRM to tell you to slow down.
>And if the formula you used was inaccurate for you, then you may have
>slowed too soon.

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by Dave Hartma » Mon, 17 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:
>  Whether a HRM would do _me_ any good for this purpose, I'm not so sure.
>Experimentation on the fitness center bikes (pulse counters on the
handlebars)
>has confirmed that altering my breathing pattern can produce a 20+ bpm
>change in pulse.  Given that almost without fail my running pulse (when
>I stop and count) is the same 168 regardless of whether it is a light
>jog to anything short of race efforts and hard intervals, my inference
>is that when running, I control the breathing (depth and rate) so as to
>maintain the same pulse.  (Anyone else do this?)

I actually noticed this very thing only recently.  I could change slow my hr
down considerably just
by changing my breating pattern.  So yes on my easy days I definetly
maintain a certain "count"
to my breating (3 in and 3 out switching which foot I change on every so
often to avoid cramping).  If I
can't maintain this then I slow down.
 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by Dave Hartma » Mon, 17 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Quote:
>For example - if someone would want to use HRM in a race, he/she would
>most likely underperform. What I mean is - suppose someone wants to race
>a 10k at 6:00 pace. He/she goes out for a time trial - let's say, 5k,
>and determines that 6:00 pace corresponds to, let's say 180 beats per
>minute on HRM. On the day of the race he/she goes out at 180 beats per
>minute, to find that the actual pace is 6:15, not 6:00. What went wrong?
>It has been shown that HR can be considerably elevated in anticipation
>of the race - everyone being a little nervous and all.

Not that I am totally against you on this.  But I personnally experience
something very different,
although mostly in longer races where I need to taper more.  Because I taper
my body seems
to recover and although I may be a littly anxious at the begining of the
race my hr does return to
"normal" conditions, and I have always been running faster at the same hr
during races (I believe
because I have been tapering properely).  So in your ex. I would have been
running at 5:45 pace at
the same rate.  I simply learn to expect it to be a little high during the
begining.  I actually use it to kind of
force myself to calm down a little bit.  If I see it raising while waiting
for the race to start I try to breath and
calm myself down.

Dave

 
 
 

Jack Daniels on HRM

Post by Rod lawso » Thu, 20 Jan 2000 04:00:00

Sorry to come in rather late here. I've been taking a voluntary break from
rec.running. as things were seeming a little repetitive, and a change is as
good as a rest.........
It's interesting that the advice here is to pay a coach rather than buy a
heart rate monitor, as the latter has not been proven to be of benefit. I
suspect in fact there has never been a controlled trial of coaching to
demonstrate objective benefit either, and one suspects that whilst there are
good coaches around , there may well be rather poor coaches who could even
have a detrimental effect.
In fact, a trial to prove that a HRM gives more improvement than training
without is pretty difficult to do. Aside from the difficulty of quantifying
the training in the non-HRM monitored group, the effect of 'optimal'
training above general training is unlikely to be huge, if indeed it does
exist in these terms. Studies looking at healthy but not especially fit
young folk tend to show 5-15% improvements in VO2 max over 6-8 weeks. If we
take that as roughly 10 %, we might perhaps expect the range of improvement
to be anywhere between 5 and 15 %. If a HRM (used optimally, whatever that
is) improves the training effect by 25 % ( a big improvement), then we'll
see the VO2 max improve from 10 to 12.5 % on average, but perhaps the
improvement in an individual will be 7.5 to 17.5 %. If we do a statistical
power calculation using these sorts of figures (if I recalled how without
looking it up) I think we'll find that you have to study a very large number
of people to have a reasonable chance of detecting an effect. That's going
to be expensive, time consuming and difficult.  For comparison, the
mortality rate for myocardial infarction in hospital is about 10 %.
Thrombolytic therapy reduces this by around 25 %; similar to the figures
I've been suggesting above (which though made up are likely to be the right
ball park). Many small trials of thrombolytic therapy were performed over
15-20 years without any conclusive evidence, and this therapy wasn't adopted
. The pivotal trial that changed people's minds and demonstrated clear
benefit was  ISIS-2, which recruited over 30 000 patients. Trials using
around 100 had proved unhelpful. Of course, this applies to all sorts of
other trials, and in the end you have to look for a combination of
background scientific/physiological understanding (is the approach coherent
and consistent with existing knowledge) and application of common sense.
So what;s my personal opinion? My first use of a HRM was when I first
started running, having got a shoulder injury so I couldn't row. I'd never
enjoyed running, but the HRM revealed I had a tendency to start too quickly
and not pace myself. Using the HRM, I was able to even my pace out much
more, and began to enjoy running, and I think that for the novice who has
tried running and found it 'difficult', this can be very helpful. Of course,
the natural runner who just goes out, runs , and settles straight to
enjoying it doesn't require this, but I suspect such folk are relatively
rare.
Now, I can probably set out and run at 145, 155 or 165 bpm to within 5 bpm
without a HRM. However, I do still use it, and record my training sessions.
Actually, I'm pretty undertrained, unfit and slow, so it probably doesn't
matter. Neither do I think that being a few beats out here or there, or
exercising to very tightly defined schedules is critical (I could go on even
more here, but I won't for now!!!). However, I suspect many people decrying
the HRM will keep a training diary recording such things as the weather,
equipment used, length of run, time, number of repeats, etc. etc. So do I,
and in addition to that I have my HRM data; no more important, no less, but
additional, to be used and interpreted with similar cautions. If you pay
that coach, he's not going to just tell you to go out and run as you 'feel'
you should. He's probably going to get you to run the odd time trial,
suggest you do speed work with intervals of x metres run in y minutes,
suggest a long run of z miles; there's going to be some amount of
measurement and control of training sessions, and a HRM gives additional
measurement to go into the melting pot. The good coach is the one who can
put it all together!!!

Quote:
> >Heart rate monitors are a useless piece of equipment that, among other
> >things,
> >helps to take the soul,spontaneity and ultimately the fun out of running.
> >Everyone would be better off saving their money and buying another pair
of
> >shoes.
> >Stotan in South Wales

> Stotan,
> I've always suggested using the money to hire a coach or joining a serious
> running club rather han throwing it away on an HRM.
> If someone has the money to blow and wants to get one for fun and
enjoyment
> that's another thing I guess, as long as they're not mislead into thinking
it
> will benefit their performance.

>    David
> "IndyRunr"