HR data can give you an indicator of over training

I hadn't used it years and only now started using it in the last week- didn't like it on the bike, wasn't useful for me, just telling me I was blowing up or hurting which I can feel anyway. Power also can let me know this. Used it for a long run and kept me in check but I had sort of been keeping myself in check just by pace or PRE anyway for years. I'll probably ditch it again.
I can see it's use in some instances like maffetone running etc. or overtraining like mentioned above. But I would be surprised if a lot used HR.

If you are training I would continue logging your HR data. It's a better indicator of your fitness and training efficacy than monitoring power. In fact I stopped monitoring power.

So can continually tired/sore legs.

I stopped for a few years once I got power. I restarted this year to try out some new metrics, but my hrm strap is such a hit or miss thing it messes up a lot of my data, so I'm pretty much done with it.

Data didn't tell me anything I didn't already know, anyway. I just need the wattage.

^^^^ This. While I still use power numbers though, I am more swayed by HR. On the run, I use it most of the time to keep to my plan.

---

Gary Geiger
http://www.geigerphoto.com Professional photographer

TEAM KiWAMi NORTH AMERICA http://www.kiwamitri.com, Rudy Project http://www.rudyprojectusa.com, GU https://guenergy.com/shop/ ; Salming World Ambassador; https://www.shopsalming.com

I like having both HR & power, seeing HR drop for the same power helps confirm that I'm getting something back for the work.

Having said that I use optical, I can imagine straps being a pain, I'd still want to use them but might only stick it on now & again.

I've actually gone back to heart rate. Still use power to monitor progress

Yes, it's variable, it's delayed, it has issues. But focusing on it last year and sticking to a more maf style approach helped me have a breakthrough year without injury, sickness or too much fatigue for the first time in a longgg time

The big four types of data to capture and track:
RPE + ROF - How hard was that, how do I feel today
HR + HRV - How are you responding to volume and intensity
Power - How much work did you do, How hard was it
Course/Distance + Time/Speed - The ultimate integrated measure of performance.

All four types of metrics are vital - and have the added benefit of being concrete, individualised and largely repeatable and reliable.

Mark

I would stay with HR. The more data you have on HR the better it is. I agree in the short term, without much data it's not very reliable because of the factors that can affect it, but over the long term (with enough data) it's a very reliable measure for intensity. I love how the new Garmin 935 tracks your last 4 hours during rest. it's great to have for sleep so you can get a accurate measurement of your resting heart rate. great to measure intensity and what's going on inside the body whereas power is an output measurement. the correlation between the two over time can be very nice if you know what you are looking for. even if you aren't using it now i would still record it and keep logging your data should you choose to start using it again. i wrote a course with ACSM and Polar HR monitors that you can take online on how to use it. it's three webinars and fairly simple to understand and a total of about 3.5 hours. it could help get you started.

×1

I use HR to make sure I'm pushing hard enough. Sometimes i get lazy while running.

I have been thinking of using power to train but HR and PE to race.

---

http://www.sfuelsgolonger.com

Does being able to do a 40kTT at 280watts tell less about my fitness than having an average heart rate of 166bpm while doing so? Care to flesh out your reasoning? After 40 years of monitoring HR and 20+ power I really can't find a way to agree with your contention.

Thanks,

Hugh

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

I stopped using HR in 1998.

Sorry, I'm not one who steps backward in time. HR doesn't do squat for me in a 40K TT because if I use HR alone, I will be overcooking it for the first five minutes or so.

For running, yes. I found that given my hollow chest, the straps never felt comfortable running, especially in races. For me pace is a better metric anyway.

But give me a watch that measures in the wrist, and I'll go back to measuring again.

(Why would you choose less data?)

Yeah, I stopped with heartrate a few years ago because the strap got to be such a pain in the butt. The wrist measurement from a watch does intrigue me though.

---

Proud Member of Chris McDonald's 2018 Big Sexy Race Team "That which doesn't kill me, will only make me stronger"
Blog-Twitter-Instagram-Race Reports - 2018 Races: IM Florida 70.3, IM Raleigh 70.3, IM 70.3 World Championships - South Africa, IM North Carolina 70.3

I assume your training is comprised of various workouts, not just daily 40k TTs.

I find too much data overwhelming because I tend to over think things. I have a bit of an obsessive personality. I have just sold my power meter on what was my third attempt at trying to adopt riding with power. An example of my stupid brain...

The more data you have access to the more testing you (maybe) do. Do you then 'taper' for your test so it's a fair assessment every time? How often do you do your test? How much more effective would training be if you just did the work day in, day out without worrying about numbers and taking a couple of days off to perform well in a test? Is the information that helpful anyway? Numbers are down when I'm tired, I know that. Numbers are higher when I'm fresh, of course. I''m putting out good watts compared to my peers but I'm also heavier than them so a watt isn't a watt. Watts/kg I can make sense of but that's more relevant in climbing than on the flats. What if it's a scorching hot day? Do I still try and push out the watts even though my heart rate is higher due to the additional stress? Is 300 watts at a cadence of 70 the same muscular demand as 300 watts at a cadence of 100? I guess not but I don't know ...

Next step: Remove from bike... eBay... sold... I'm thinking too much. This tool is now hindering me, not helping.

Just back to the heart rate monitor now. No cadence either. I know when I'm pushing harder I have a higher cadence, and when I'm cruising gently I use a lower cadence. That's normal and the exact numbers are determined by what feels comfortable anyway. So I just use heart rate and time. Simple and already takes into account other stresses so it's always relevant. If I get some funny numbers like can't get heart rate up I know I'm cooked and need rest. On the bike it's a bit slow to react but I kinda know the feel of various intensities now so I don't tend to overdo it and then have to calm myself back down like I did when I first started.

I have gravitated more toward heat rate.

Using a scosche armband has made readings much more reliable.

Hr is great for not overcooking on hot days.

It works well in conjunction with power data, making the power data even more useful. Try holding ftp in heat and wind resistance vs cold and you'll see how variable the power can be if you don't include hr.

Also great for race pacing to not overcooking both bike and run. Id say it's better than power for this since you can swim hard on race day and find yourself in the hr red zone despite normal seeming power then eat it on the run.

Also measure resting hr first thing in am separately. If it goes up you gotta worry about overtraining. ( Not perfect but a sign you shouldn't ignore)

When there were no PMs people followed religiously the HR for controlling their training, on the bike as well as when running. Now there are PMs people use power which can be ok (although indeed not without information losses compared with HR), so they do not need HR anymore on the bike. HR was dumped then totally as being superfluous, also for running.
But it is not logical to not use heart rate while running anymore because on the bike you use power now.

The old wisdom that everyone tends to go too fast on long slow runs is still valid.

I don't bother with HR anymore, I can roughly tell where its at. I've also sold my TT bike with PM and am considering not buying another PM, I just don't use it in races. I seem to be reasonably in tune with my level of exertion. Most of my 70.3 rides have gone to plan without using HR or power. The one race I diligently stuck to my power, I overcooked it. My coach said you need to use it as a guide, some days you can put out more power than others, level of exertion is more important.

I'm definitely a cheapskate, so I don't use anything other than a watch when I'm serious about running and cycling (add the bike computer for distance if I happen to buy a new battery) and a pace clock for pool swimming. Besides saving money, this allows me to judge everything I'm doing by feel.

If I am aware of all the variables and settings of how I "feel," which include rest, temperature, time off day, amount of caffeine on board, recent nutrition, terrain, etc, I can better control training to how I feel, rather than thinking I have to keep x HR. If I'm a slave to some HR charts or numbers, and train to those while trying to decide how much to add or subtract based on variables, I'm just trying to be a robot. Biological systems are too variable to be constricted. When I was training for marathon or Ironman, I basically had a total time or distance in mind for any training bout. On long runs, I usually tried to keep mind off what my pace was, and just tried to end strong.

I've focused more on swimming in the last several years, taking short breaks after summer long course season to run (my wife has taken over my tribike for her training). I've focused mostly on pace for the events I've done over the last few years (USMS pool distance postal events and distance events at meets). This training also translates to OWS. A few years ago, I wanted to go about 2:15 for the pool 10k in a 50m pool, so I just worked on stuff around that pace, for either shorter (faster than pace) or longer (at pace) workouts. Even then, it was just about feel.

FWIW, I also felt like slightly undertaking for marathon and Ironman. I knew plenty of people from IM training groups who bragged about bricks and so on. I showed up to the races "fat and happy," and found myself chasing almost all of these people down on the run who had done 100 mile rides followed by 8m runs in the heat. I showed up ready and hungry. I'm not fat, but I don't look at all like others in my AG who've done two BQ's or gone under 11:20.

About the only trick I ever use on HR is this: in your taper, take your RHR just as you wake up every day. It should drop daily. If it doesn't, back off even more. In my late teens and early 20s as a club and NCAA swimmer, I'd be at about 50 when I started taper, and about 34 on the first day of a meet. This has also worked really well in the years since. Because nothing is cheaper than two fingers on your wrist or carotid.

I was religious about HRM based training from 1991 to 1996. Those were my best season (and yes, I was younger, but i felt I more often than not performed to potential). In early 1997 I developed this crazy rash where the HRM strap goes on and had to stop using it, but I tried to go back to it, with various straps for ~ 5 years and kept getting this stupid rash and gave up around 2001. 2009 started training and racing with power, but honestly my results did not change any different from racing without a power meter. Racing with a powermeter however made my racing more predictable, compared to nothing at all, but no different than capping effort based on HRM+Perceived exertion. I feel there are times when you just need to know how to use any tool coupled with perceived exertion. When early in a race or dehydrated, HRM was worth igorning and just going off perceived exertion. Likewise my power meter when I had my old SRM and it would be zero'd at 12C at 5:45 am and then out on the race course at noon it is 30C....my perceived exertion would tell me that my powermeter was drifting.

I recently acquired a Fenix3 that came with an HRM and have considered tryinig it out again. But given that over half my training is swimming, I don't need one for that (I go with the swim powermeter = pace clock). So until I get back to serious bike and running, I probably will leave the HRM on the shelf. But I am curious about how much different my heart rates are at 51 vs at 28. I did my marathon PB running the entire race between 170-185 bpm when my max was 193. Did my Olympic tri PB in that range too (swim a touch lower than 170, but not much)

Wow. So close to your max?

Yeah, it was funny because I went through all these tests back then to find my zones and I think it boils down to having a smaller heart that can beat fast to pump the blood around....or at least it was back then. But I remember a few other athletes who could do 2 hour of racing not far off their max. Or maybe our max heart rates were poorly measured, but I don't think so. I never saw a number above 193 in my life during all those year, but who knows. It may have been 196 or 198, but we never saw that recorded.

Correct. My training is comprised of mostly 2x20', 2x30', and VO2 Max intervals at prescribed wattages. No way in hell I'm doing them based on HR alone.

I'm pretty much with you OP as I only track for tempo/TT type efforts/FTP tests etc

And of course any actual race

Wait: I also find it important on long-slow runs, trying to make sure it stays under the LSR threshold for instance

---

//Noob triathlete//bike commuter//ex-swimmer//slower than you

No one uses HR for VO2 Max intervals. And of course you should not overdo it in the first 5 minutes of a TT. Yesterday I did an olympic distance. I do not have a PM but a HR monitor. However, I did not use the HR. I raced according to perceived exertion.
I must say I carry a HR monitor during my 2x20 intervals, but hardly use it. I noticed in the first interval the HR is lower, although the power should be the same. For these intervals I also set the pace according to perceived exertion.
I use the HR monitor though very slave-like when I do long bike workouts and long runs. No way I could do that with perceived exertion. I also use HR in a full IM. Some time ago I became sloppy in my long slow runs in that I did not take my HR monitor, I thought I can feel it. But I noticed I was more tired after the runs and needed longer regeneration. Until I started monitoring the HR again and saw I had run too fast before.

You don't neccessarily wear a hr strap to manage intensity, you do it to measure internal response to exercise.

Yep, I use HR to make sure I'm neither taking it too easy nor pushing too hard. It's not so much a performance metric for me as it is an aid to judging how hard I should push.

I use a Garmin chest strap on the bike as it's definitely the most reliable. I virtually never get spurious results.
However, I find chest straps uncomfortable and irritating on the run. They constantly threaten to slide down around my waist no matter how I adjust them (must be my triangular physique!) so I started using a Scosche Rhythm+ for running about 18 months ago and I far prefer it for running. It's not quite as reliable as the chest strap but it's usually pretty solid.

While I like having HR data, that's because I refer to it regularly both during and after training. I if the OP has been recording it but not using it than there's not much point. Just possessing data won't make your performances better! If you prefer to train with less data then that's the way to go. Most of us do this for fun. Why do it in a way you enjoy less just because everyone else does or because it might make you a little better. Do what you enjoy!
My younger brother is a far better athlete than me. He's been a competitive runner all his life. He's nearly 40 now and ever since he was 6 his sole training gadget has been a small cheap digital Casio wristwatch with a stopwatch function. No GPS, no HR, nothing but minutes and seconds and RPE. When a watch dies he goes out and buys another one for €10. He thinks I'm ridiculous with an expensive GPS watch and HR monitor. He runs because he loves it and while he is technically minded in other things, he wants to keep his running pure and simple. He enjoys his way, and it works very well for him. I enjoy mine and it works for me.

So, to the OP I'd say: Regardless of what others are doing, just decide what you enjoy and do that.

I think we're on the same track.

Also, this: https://www.trainingpeaks.com/...ance-and-decoupling/

If one is not monitoring HR, how is one looking at changes to fitness, recovery, etc.?

What if the OP could do 40km @ 280w @ 158bpm? Without a HRM, the OP would never know that HR was lower, and there was capacity to go harder—so maybe 290w...

IME: HR is also a much better metric for gauging recovery, and doing Z2 (when also used w/ a PM) on the bike. And, it's a great metric for racing in adverse conditions (too hot=high HR, cool = low HR, etc.).

---

no sponsors | no races | nothing to see here

But combined they can help paint a fuller picture.

How, exactly? What's it telling you that you don't know already?

Which is needed, for what?

At the end of the day, what matters is what you can put out, either watts or pace, not whether or not your hr is at a certain bpm.

I guess if you simply have no idea how to pace yourself or pay attention to how you're feeling, it may be useful, but if you've been doing sport for a while, at best it's redundant and at worst it's actually holding you back.

Perhaps it could tell you something about yourself while you are rested and tapered that you would not see while in deep training cycles, so at best it could let you go a little harder than power alone would suggest you are capable of.

It is measuring your response to exercise. You seem to be focusing on managing exercise intensity.

HR and HRV both bring lots of information about fatigue within and across workouts, inisghts into improvements in efficiency, illness, overtraining, undertraining etc

Its one of the 4 key metrics you should be tracking, alongside RPE and ROF, Power and Distance/Speed.

If you don't know how to get value from the data then you can could of course stop collecting it.

Mark

I don't think I've ever been held back by what I think I can do with power versus what I can. If I feel like I can go harder, I do. Again, I feel this type of reasoning is easily negated if you've ever ridden your bike before.

Response to exercise is fairly easily trackable via performance, no?

In what particular instance would knowing hr and hrv provide you with value that is unavailable in any other form?

HR response during each interval of a 2x20@85% of FTP and the recovery course during the rest intervals is very useful indeed.

"HR response during each interval of a 2x20@85% of FTP and the recovery course during the rest intervals is very useful indeed."

How would you use this info?

X2 ^^ I find if the temperature is a couple of degrees higher or lower or if the dewpoint is up or down or if I've eaten recently or not................all have a significant influence over my HR.

---

Genetics load the gun, lifestyle pulls the trigger.

actual data compared to my baseline zones can help confirm that it's could be more than just normal tired legs from lots of training. It's confirming what I feel with actual data. Some days my legs might be a little tired but my HR is fine and once I get into the workout they loosen up and I feel good. Other days I start out and I see a spike in my HR and it never comes down so I know to back off. My coach has me do some workouts specifying a target power range for say 2 hours but keeping an eye on my HR and if it gets past a certain rate and won't come back down then I'm supposed to back off for the remaining time in the ride. The more I've trained over my short triathlon career (4+ years, maybe a few years of running consistently before that) I've gotten better and better at being in tune with how I feel and my pace. I don't think that perception of feel is all that easy since often times when training for big events you're frequently tired because you're training a lot. HR is just another thing to consider.

Ok, so we've moved on from questioning if HR and HRV provide additional data and now want to work out how to interpret it alongside RPE, Power, Course etc

In a nutshell tracking fatigue, probability of overtraining and injury are the single greatest uses. HRV and HR response are great at indicating this across workouts. Obviously, you would look at other factors but HR and HRV is not /that/ unreliable.

There is lots in the literature about this, and a crapton of secondary stuff on the web. But basically low HRV is a strong indicator of fatigue, and delays in HR response (or lack of) to intensity are similar.

In this specific example, if the athlete reported RPE and ROF as higher than normal and the HR response was dulled, whilst HRV was low then you can pretty much say the athlete is fatigued. You can then look to see if you would expect that from the current training load, if maybe they need a rest, or its part and parcel of your planned overload.

Mark

I will train tough tired/sore legs all the time. I just got off the trainer and I felt beat from the jump, but all my power/hr stats were in line with just being tired/sore.

Yes, continuously tired legs even after a recovery period will point to overtraining, but by then you are in a hole. But when I'm trying to go hard and I just can't get my HR up, I've learned that is an early indicator of overtraining for me.

In that case tracking HR just saved me 2 or 3 workouts on legs that would be better off with a recovery effort. Maybe you are more in tune with your body than I am (entirely possible, no pink), but this metric helps me not overdo it, which I am *very* prone to doing.

---

Too old to go pro but doing it anyway
http://instagram.com/tgarvey4

I'm with you 100% here. Maybe it's not as reliable a metric as power, but you can glean useful training insight from your HR.

I have been training very hard for a 70.3 since February and just got a 935xt two weeks ago--started paying attention to my HR after a 6 month hiatus from the strap.

Strava says my "recovery run" pace is >8:18/mile based on my 5k PR. So my easy runs were typically around 8:20/mi. The second I ran with the 935xt in the heat I noticed that my HR at that pace was in zone 3 based on my known max, and now I know that my recovery runs/easy runs have not been as easy as they should have been.

I am also using a Garmin ConnectIQ App that shows you real time cadiac drift percentage. If in the race I see that the drift % is getting pretty high, especially early on in the race, I may need to adjust my pace down or get fluids/nutrition asap.

Also looking at my day-to-day resting heart rate has shown me when I'm ready for hard training and when I need recovery.

"Ok, so we've moved on from questioning if HR and HRV provide additional data and now want to work out how to interpret it alongside RPE, Power, Course etc"

No we haven't.

How do you monitor internal response to exercise intensity?

"How do you monitor internal response to exercise intensity?"

I don't. I'm only concerned with the external response, which is what I measure.

Why are you posting to this thread?

Mark

"Why are you posting to this thread?"

The title of the thread is "Who has given up recording HR when training?" I have. You haven't. Why are you posting in this thread?

The OP is considering stopping. I'm suggesting he doesn't, as there is good data available from it. Otherwise all he's getting is confirmation bias from folks that don't know how to use and interpret data an HR strap can provide .. the blind leading the blind.

Mark

You definitely don't need HR then

I never started recording HR data and I've been at this a long time.

If you were to follow a plan, where you varied intensity to manage overload and compensation, fatigue and recovery you wouldn't just go harder because you felt like it.

Sounds like you don't use or need any data at all tbh. So losing the HR strap is no biggie.

You keep saying things are useful without saying how or why they're useful.

How is that useful? And why would you even take a rest interval at 85%? That's something that can be done for hours.

I answered above, giving an example related to fatigue.

Is your actual performance data not telling you the same thing?

Feelings along with wattage is telling you everything. Sometimes 300w feels easy, sometimes it feels difficult, but if you're still putting out the power, then you're still getting it done. And if you can't, then you chill and go home.

When I'm training a lot/getting fatigued, my hr gets lower. It certainly doesn't peak and not come down. I did four days of racing and my hr decreased each day even though performance remained about the same and results actually improved. Of course I was tired. It was four days of hard racing. How did monitoring hr impact that in any meaningful way? It didn't, of course.

But I guess I'm just asking what difference it makes since there are quite a few people saying it makes one and should be considered. But after 7 years of hr training to get to and then stagnate at cat 1, and then zero hr training but 3 years of power training to become a significantly better cat 1, and this season throwing the hr strap back on to see what it does in relation to power training, I don't have a single solitary instance where hr has been even remotely useful or something that I should actively monitor.

We get it, you're awesome, ditch the strap and move on.

I can imagine not having the data on the run (in training, especially). But, I don't see why I shouldn't have it. The only thing I use it for (in the moment) is making sure I'm not over-cooking a workout (going too hard for the prescribed session).

I have a PM and rarely (if ever) check my HR on the bike. I have a Garmin swim HR strap.....but, I've never used it.

Eh, I essentially do. I'm quite big on the overreach and recover phase, and I've been more successful with it for the last few years than ever before. There are very specific times I push through, and specific times I recover in accordance to the timing and demands of upcoming events. I have elite road nats in two weeks so I just came off a good block that ended with an 1100+ TSS week and then a good long ride. Now I'm scaling back duration and polishing up with some intensity. HR is along for the ride just because, but it's told me nothing so far.

But I still go harder when I can. If my goal is to do this amount of power for this long, and I can do more or for longer, then I do that. And then I adjust the next workout. Likewise in the converse. It's certainly not a static plan. Everything is very dynamic and rpe and power are my driving forces.

Thanks, sunshine.

Your contributions to the distribution of knowledge and experience are noted and appreciated.

Your contributions to the distortion of knowledge and experience are noted and appreciated

It seems like almost every post on this thread deals with hr, but you keep mentioning hrv. Who is actually doing that? I think we've gotten off the subject of hr training and into something that isn't exactly mainstream here, and not particularly relevant to either the op or the myriad of responses to the op.

Ah, it's so cute when you don't actually have a retort or anything useful to say so you just start spewing irrelevant nonsense. Good for you for getting some attention, though.

You've provided nothing but personal experience.

and

You are easy to troll

Personal experience is sort of the point, here. Reread the op.

And, great, I guess congratulations are in order? Self-realization can be a powerful thing, though being a troll, probably not so much.

Modern HR straps measure BPM and R-R intervals. Modern watches and training apps* also support HRV, its not particularly esoteric or new. I mention both since they are related. You can get value from looking at BPM alone, of course.

Mark

* PolarFlow is one example.

Thanks, yeah, I see the apps. Will check one out.

I stopped recording HR several years ago since I felt RPE+Power/Pace was enough and the strap an inconvenience. This year I bought a Scosche Rhythm+, which proved to be much more convenient than the strap, since I wanted see what the aging had done with my HR and I was interested in to track VO2 Scores (https://alancouzens.com/blog/VO2Scores.html) for which I have a custom chart on GoldenCheetah.

---

Ale Martinez
www.amtriathlon.com

I stopped using a HR monitor years ago. I never found it to be all that useful as a training tool, so it only became a curiosity to me for max HR and resting HR. If I thought I might close in on the fitness I had years ago I might dust it off to see how I compare now. Short of that I doubt I will ever use it again.

Remember my screen name :)
I think a useful tool as mentioned are the HRV apps, many are free, Elite HRV is a nice one. I know people do not need devices to check morning HR, and I am not suggesting this because of an attempt to sell more H7 and now H10's, there are also other BT transmitters, but morning readiness is a hot topic. Reaching over and grabbing my transmitter and phone, perform a 3+ minute, and I get an awareness of how my body might react in a few hours. I think if you get a poor score, ignore it and hit the track ( been there) and run 800's at 4-5 seconds slower and after three call it a day and do some easy laps, you will value the morning data. Let the app do all the math and provide a colorful result, simple to understand.

This is a better view of the result

Well I was just talking with the guy in the image below and he said that you and I are so old and been at it so long that we are making him look young. But at least you are moving. The guy in the image is already dead and I am out of commission, so carry on with the racing with or without HRM

I've started to use more heart rate simply because the latest gadgets have made heart monitoring more convenient. If i were to forget my hrm strap, newer devices have optical sensor. I can do that for all sports except swimming which still needs a strap.


If power becomes more convenient and were to be able utilize it across many sports wiht one device - I would probably use power more.

Wow - that post created more response that I'd anticipated!
I value all the constructive advice, and I can see good points on either side. The result of which is I'm more knowledgeable, which is great, but I'm still undecided.
I've been wearing a cheststrap HRM for the best part of 20 years (obviously not the same one before anyone asks!), and I have no problems with it, so whether it's wrist-based optical or chest strap has no bearing on my decision.
Historically, I've almost never monitored HR during races, other than races to which I attach little or no importance to. My rationale of this has always been that I don't want something indicating to me that I should be slowing down.
The few times I've got myself into or close to an overtraining slump, I've been able to realise what was happening without needing HR to tell me.
On the other hand, I just finished my A-race IM-distance race a week ago, and decided to try the Strava MyMile challenge yesterday. I have to admit it was quite satisfying seeing my HR go up to dizzy heights again!

I think I'll probably continue with it, if for no other reason that I have the equipment so I may as well use it.

---

-----
http://www.howesgreg.com

I used to train with that guy but he couldn't take the heat!