I just asked a very similar question in my "Who uses HR monitors?" Thread below. I was trying to get a cross-section of people that do use one method or the other or both, and how they feel about it.

HR monitoring sounds appealing to me, in that it is another window into the human body. It just seems that people are slaves to HR monitors. I wonder to what extent HR monitoring is the best way of measuring exertion. There's some interesting posts in reply to my question.

I would like to know more about how many people still are just using perceived exertion in training without the HR monitor.

---

---------------------------------------------------------

"What the mind can conceive and believe, the mind and body can achieve; and those who stay will be champions."

I am a big adherent to PE training, but there are caveats. First, I believe this is not for "beginners" which is to say that you need to have a really solid idea (i.e. "feel") of where your aerobic (AeT) and anaerobic (AT) thresholds are. The best way to do this initially is with a good base of HR training. Once you've achieved this "feel" I believe there are many benefits to training from PE, esp. during certain phases. Example - three weeks ago I rode a 70 mile course, with a HRM and finished with an average HR right in my aerobic sweet spot. This past weekend (my peak week) I rode the same course in the same time, but due to all my peak training my average HR was around 10 bpm lower. B/c I knew that my HR would be lower due the my training volume, I was able to ride on PE and achieve the same performance. I believe this is true for racing as well - if your training and taper have gone correctly, you may be doing yourself a disservice by going on HRM as theoretically you should be performing *better* than your best training pace (based on HR that is). I have found the same thing on my runs. In fact, I rarely use my HRM when run training now - I use a Timex S+D system, which I have found incredible (no, I am not a shill, I just think it is an excellent system). Much like using a PowerTap or SRM on the bike, I think using the S+D system on the run and going on pace (vs. HR) is a far better training method. NOTE: One thing I do to make sure this is accurate is to do a mini time-trial with my HRM about once a month when I am fresh. That is, I run a mile at just under my AT and use this as my training pace with the Timex. If you are training correctly, the pace resulting from this test should drop gradually over the course of the season.

So, does it work? I can't say just yet. I feel faster but my first race (in two weeks) will be the real truth. I'll letcha know. :)

---

---

"To give less than your best is to sacrifice the gift." - Pre

MattMizenko.com

Hi.

I have used HRM's on and off for years, and I have known for sure for three years now that I never train as well as when I only rely on my own perception of my effort. HRM have taught me a few things that I don't regret but I now view them only as a tool to learn about oneself but one that should be dropped after a while. I train and race better now, I can pinpoint exactly where I am at in terms of effort level wherease the HRM will only give a heart rate, and the heart rate varies daily with shape and fatigue. I found the HRM to often be unreliable or at least to show data that I didn't need to know and that bothered me more than anything. The heart doesn't work exactly the same way every day, and sometimes following what it does under effort can become an obsession and a deterrent from the actual workout. There is nothing like knowing one's own work level simply through sensations and just relying on them. It's a bit like knowing exactly how to deliver an exact swim time over 100m or an exact run time over 400m. After enough practice one no longer needs tools to check, and watch and so on. For instance I have a ten km loop around a lake in Victoria, BC that I can run in exactly the time I decide, more or less 30sec, almost anytime (unless I decided to run a sub-31mn like Simon Whitfield yesterday). Or I can run it without thinking of my time, and by the end I know what my time is. I have dumped HRM and bike computer and I rarely use my stopwatch other than for specific track workouts when I prepare for an actual track race like 400m or 800m. I recommend trying the more natural approach of focusing on your body and sensations and dropping everything electronics. I even spend most of my bike mileage on a singlespeed with a 42/17 and I have never been a better cyclist.

My two cents worth...

I know what you mean about the HR monitor giving you information that you didn't really want to see. There were times when I've been hell bent trying to keep a specific HR and other times when my HR seemed entirely too low for a given work-out.

I spent 14 weeks building a solid base using the HR monitor and following specific zones assigned by my coach. I was starting to feel like a robot and training felt less natural. I am just recovering from a serious illness that floored me for two months. I am back to 2 a day workouts and I am thinking about ditching the HR monitor and training how I feel. I still plan on using the workouts that my coach gives me, but as far as keeping strict tabs on HR, I am not going to do that anymore. I really like to go out and train how I feel that day.

That's it Graz!

I had a few experiences that lead me to a cardiologist and an ECG with no conclusion other than the fact that I should drop the HRM: right at the top of that long hill nearby, where my heart would go to 170/175, there is a traffic light and when I would stop there at the peak of my effort my HR would drop immediately to 60!! The HRM was working but the cardiologist did an effort test with me and found that everything was fine and he had no explanation and asked me to just go and ride. I became paranoid and started to modulate my sessions entirely on what the HRM was saying and wound up wasting the whole season being tired, overtrained, or undertrained at times, and worried all the time.

With all our gizmos we behave more and more like guinea pigs obsessed by how many times the little wheel turns. I like triathlon because I like to feel the effort, I like being outside, I like the sweat and the pain and the highs of being endurant, I like swimming in lakes and the sea and going up hills and feeling my breathing change and the little burning in my quads and it should be a very sensual experience. I don't really care what my speed is, it means nothing. I want to go fast, so I read the books and used a HRM to learn to feel where my threasholds are and I know where to train, but I wouldn't want a machine to tell me how to use my heart and my muscles. It would take half of the pleasure away. But we don't all have the same motivations.

The same way, I rediscovered cycling when I built a road single speed bike. It's like being a kid again, with all my attention focused on my effort and the changng terrain and my effort level, and the scenry. Except that at the same time my legs are getting used to spinning very fast, and to mashing big gears as well. It's a gratifying feeling, off-season, to not cheat the terrain with a derailleur but to assume the topography by the shear adaptability of my legs. And when I hop on my racing bike, I feel much more powerful and in control.