Heart rate training - is it a hoax?

OK, that was an overstated attention grabber but here is my situation, please help!!!

I’ve been racing for about 3 years now and I finally decided to hire a coach over the winter. He is an acomplished Ironman (low 9’s) AND holds a PhD in exercise phys. My plan was to work on the run and maintain the bike times.

The thing is I haven’t been progressing a bit on the run using heart rate centered training. I’ve had faster 5k splits before (by 40 sec) , and I’m emphasizing the run way more than in the past.

Previously, in self coaching mode, I dropped the HR monitor because I thought it was a limiter (my HR is always really high), and my races started to improve shortly after. I just pushed harder on the track.

Am I crazy or should I just revert back to the Daniels formula? This is really frustrating because I want to have “trust in the method” but I’m starting to have doubts.

Thanks in advance!!!

You’ve raised two questions with your post…I’m no world class triathlete but I know a lil about running so here is my two cents worth…Heart Rate training, and racing, does work! The two most important things my polar does for me is helps to make sure my easy days are easy enough, and race pacing for distances of 10k and more. Now to your second question, does the Daniels program work? I’m not that well versed in what specificly you are refering to but I’ll guess it is Lactate Threshhold work…personally, I don’t think LT is a adaquate substitute for flat out 99.5% speedwork…my experience is a reduction in speedwork and substituting LT will make you run…not quite as fast. I know it is way to simple for most people to buy in this day and age but the best way to run faster is to practice running fast…as fast as you can! Of course how that fits in to your overall tri training program is between you and your coach…and all other posters on this site!

I’ve also hired a coach for the past few years (remarkably similar credentials to yours–last aussie to win IMOZ before Macca, MSc in exercise physio). Like you, the hardest thing I had to learn with him was to go slower. He would prescribe these really low heart rates (determined by LT testing) that seemed like warm-up pace to me and I would sometimes have to walk to stay in the zone. I asked him if this is really how it should be and he said the reason I had plateaued before hiring him was because I was going too hard all the time. Result–after the 1st year of training PR’d my olympic by 11 minutes.

Of course, as the race neared, intensity naturally went up, too. But majority of my whole season was just aerobic, in the zone.

Kim

“I don’t think LT is a adaquate substitute for flat out 99.5% speedwork”

I’m kind of thinking the same thing. I have been doing some speed work every week, but it’s not on the track. I don’t really think I’m getting fast enough leg turnover.

For instance I used to go run 4 milers descending at faster than 5k pace with like 1:30 rest. I thought I was at my best when doing this. Now I’m that I’m getting farther from breaking 18 I’m thinking about trying to re-incorperate this sort of a workout back in.

What kind of stuff is effective for you?

Thanks for the reply!

“Like you, the hardest thing I had to learn with him was to go slower”

Who ever thought it would be so hard to go slow :slight_smile: I did the LT testing too…man that hurt! I thought I was going to fall off the treadmill for sure. It’s only been a couple of months - two four week cycles - so I’m going to stick it out for a while longer. How long before you started to see any improvements? Did you do any races to use as indicators, like just a 10k run race to see if there was any improvement along the way?

Thanks for the reply…

mobiusnc

Hi Mobius,

A couple of questions for you…

How many run workouts do you do per week? What is your average weekly mileage?

In your initial post, you said the following:

“Previously, in self coaching mode, I dropped the HR monitor because I thought it was a limiter (my HR is always really high), and my races started to improve shortly after. I just pushed harder on the track.”

When you say that your “HR is always really high”, it makes me wonder if you recover adequately in between hard workouts and if your running form is inefficient. As you push your weekly mileage up (especially during base building), I think it is important to get some LSD runs in. I think people find that they have to run really slow to keep their HR down around zone 2, but after doing these workouts for a while, the speed improves (with similar HRs).

Good luck!

Cheers,
Matt

I certainly do not have an experience level worthy of commenting myself. But I’ll post these comments by Mark Allen. I come from a sports background where if you want to be good at something you need to practice it, so I figured to run fast in a race you should “run fast in practice” (literally).

These comments helped me to at least accept the idea well enough to give it a go. I use Mike Pigg’s PC Coach and it’s based on the same principles (designed by the same guy) as the training described in the excerpts below. Here it is …


I came from a swimming background, which in the 70’s and 80’s when I competed was a sport that lived by the “No Pain, No Gain” motto. My coach would give us workouts that were designed to push us to our limit every single day. I would go home dead, sleep as much as I could, then come back the next day for another round of punishing interval sets.

It was all I knew. So, when I entered the sport of triathlon in the early 1980’s, my mentality was to go as hard as I could at some point in every single workout I did. And to gauge how fast that might have to be, I looked at how fast the best triathletes were running at the end of the short distance races. Guys like Dave Scott, Scott Tinley and Scott Molina were able to hold close to 5 minute miles for their 10ks after swimming and biking!

So that’s what I did. Every run, even the slow ones, for at least one mile, I would try to get close to 5 minute pace. And it worked…sort of. I had some good races the first year or two, but I also suffered from minor injuries and was always feeling one run away from being too burned out to want to continue with my training.

Then came the heart rate monitor. A man named Phil Maffetone, who had done a lot of research with the monitors, contacted me. He had me try one out according to a very specific protocol. Phil said that I was doing too much anaerobic training, too much speed work, too many high end/high heart rate sessions. I was forcing my body into a chemistry that only burns carbohydrates for fuel by elevating my heart rate so high each time I went out and ran.

So he told me to go to the track, strap on the heart rate monitor, and keep my heart rate below 155 beats per minute. Maffetone told me that below this number that my body would be able to take in enough oxygen to burn fat as the main source of fuel for my muscle to move. I was going to develop my aerobic/fat burning system. What I discovered was a shock.

To keep my heart rate below 155 beats/minute, I had to slow my pace down to an 8:15 mile. That’s three minutes/mile SLOWER than I had been trying to hit in every single workout I did! My body just couldn’t utilize fat for fuel.

So, for the next four months, I did exclusively aerobic training keeping my heart rate at or below my maximum aerobic heart rate, using the monitor every single workout. And at the end of that period, my pace at the same heart rate of 155 beats/minute had improved by over a minute. And after nearly a year of doing mostly aerobic training, which by the way was much more comfortable and less taxing than the anaerobic style that I was used to, my pace at 155 beats/minute had improved to a blistering 5:20 mile.

That means that I was now able to burn fat for fuel efficiently enough to hold a pace that a year before was redlining my effort at a maximum heart rate of about 190. I had become an aerobic machine! On top of the speed benefit at lower heart rates, I was no longer feeling like I was ready for an injury the next run I went on, and I was feeling fresh after my workouts instead of being totally wasted from them.


TripleT’s post had several phrases that are very important, such as “no injury”, “more efficient”, “burning fat for fuel”, “recovery”. Those are some of the reasons for going slower with the HR method of training.

However, to a certain extent, your training method should be dictated by your goals…if all you are going to do is sprint triathlons, your training should be different than if all you are going to do is Iron-distance triathlons. BUT, if you could only do one kind of training and you wanted to do both kinds of triathlons…you’d better be training the Iron-distance variety of workouts!

“Like you, the hardest thing I had to learn with him was to go slower”

Who ever thought it would be so hard to go slow :slight_smile: I did the LT testing too…man that hurt! I thought I was going to fall off the treadmill for sure. It’s only been a couple of months - two four week cycles - so I’m going to stick it out for a while longer. How long before you started to see any improvements? Did you do any races to use as indicators, like just a 10k run race to see if there was any improvement along the way?

Thanks for the reply…

mobiusnc

I do Sprint races and my season basically looks like this:

(January - March) - Building Base, pure aerobic work.

(March - April) - Strength and Power

(April - End of June) - Mostly Speed stuff, lots and lots of races (like 5-6). Big A race in May.

(July - Mid August) - A little power and mostly hills. Start doing TT and hard Intervals.

(Mid August - Early September) - LT and Speed work, 2nd A race.

(Late September - Early November) - 2 week break at the beginning, then base again.

(Early November - December) - Speed and lots of speed (+ TT and hills).

(December) - Biggest ‘A’ Race followed by a break.

Lots of Aerobic work, especially because this is my 2nd season and the first I’ll actually be doing adequate volumes. Last year I did way too much anerobic and was injured a lot.

Right now it’s a bitch to keep my HR down. I have to run at close to 10 minute per mile pace to keep my HR below 160. Arghhhhhhhh. Last year before I bought a Polar I was running at around 8:20 for most of these runs. Shows how much aerobic work I did.

well that didn’t turn out well…

as i was saying, be patient with results. they will be incremental but nonetheless encouraging. i would do LTHR testing after every 6 week training block (1000m, 20k bike, 5k run, done on different days within the week) and practically all my tests would show higher LTHR (up to a certain point) and faster times. during blocks that i wasn’t as focused because of work, personal matters, etc., the test results would definitely go down. concrete results started from the very first race of the season and throughout the summer i PR’d practically every race and even podiumed a few times. there was only one lousy “b” race which came at the tail end of almost 2 months of weekend racing. i recovered in time though and still PR’d my “a” race.

this was back in 2001. had to stop for 2 years after that because of medical clerkship and internship. started again last April (w/ the same coach) and i’ve been doing nothing but aerobic and strength/endurance work until december. haven’t raced yet but i’ve already set PRs in swimming and on the bike. my running is still off by less than 30secs. this is all with NO interval-type work. was just about to start the hard stuff in time for IMOZ but was diagnosed with a medical condition (not training-related) which i had to take care of. anyway, the point is, keep the majority of your workouts aerobic. the less experienced/fit you are, the more this is paramount. and, lastly, always be modest when assessing you abilities. the more it feels like it’s too easy, the more likely you are on the right track.

good luck,

Kim

Quick Q about something I have wondered.

The common thing in tri’s seem to be to start short and then climb the ladder to longer races. Sprint, Oly, 1/2IM, IM.

Since most seem to think newbies should train long and slow and speed work is less important than increasing distance … wouldn’t new triathlete’s be ebtter served to try and finish longer races during their first year, and then focus on jsut “getting faster” for shorter races the following year?

It seems like it would be easier to do it that way, than to try and increase speed and distance simultaneously (i.e. go from sprint to Oly, or Oly to 1/2IM or IM)

How long have you used the coach?

Long periods of aerobic work is going to improve your aerobic fitness substantially. It may seem frustrating, but probably in week twelve, it will all make sense.

My advice? Stick to the coach for at least a year.

I think TDB said it best when he said that before finally winning Kona he realized he was only training to be able to train to race (and win eventually). doing long aerobic work although it feels easy is not. you can just as easily hurt yourself doing it as you would doing interval-type stuff. I personally did not even think of attempting my (supposed to be) first IM until after 6 years of training. sure you can do an IM on your first year. it’s not too hard to finish but if you are at all competitive and motivated in anyway, i don’t think finishing in 17 will do it for you. at least for me it won’t.

Kim

I personally did not even think of attempting my (supposed to be) first IM until after 6 years of training. sure you can do an IM on your first year. it’s not too hard to finish but if you are at all competitive and motivated in anyway, i don’t think finishing in 17 will do it for you. at least for me it won’t.

Kim, really I wasn’t even considering an IM for a newbie. That seems like an awful lot. I was thinking more in terms of a 1/2 or close to that, where 6-7 (or even a little more) hours at a nice steady pace is doable.

Looking at the winning times for sprint, and even Oly races in my area and AG, there’s probably no chance for a newbie to compete for a good placing. So, I was thinking that instead of focusing on speed for a race they’re (I’m) not going to win or even compete, maybe a better plan would be to train for distance (as in a 1/2IM, maybe a 1/2Marathon, etc), so that the next season all you have to do is “get faster at shorter (or same) distances” … rather than making the jump to longer distances while trying to be faster than your first year.

This thinking may be flawed. It arises from other sports where there’s a “basics first” mentality. I applied it to triathloning where “basics” is longer distance, and the “icing” or “specialty stuff” would be speed training. If this is a goofy idea, I’m sure it’ll be corrected.

TripleT, I know what you are saying about long slow training being most important, speedwork should come only after a good base, so why not do an Ironman first then progress to Sprints…well there are several reasons.

Olympic/International distances are about as far as an average person can race on natural athletic ability and some good training. But, Sprints are an obvious starting point for the newbie…mostly because of the manageable distances. For me, it was the swim distance that was the limiter. I still remember hoping I could complete the 300 yard pool swim decently when I first did a triathlon in 1987, I believe. It was the same year I won a Duathlon, so the biking and running didn’t phase me. For some people it may be the biking distance or run distance. It’s only been recently that a 1/4 mile open water swim didn’t concern me at least a little. Olympic/International distances still cause some trepidation in my non-fish soul.

1/2 Ironman distance is about as far as one can race without a gargantuan commitment level. A 1/2 is a big deal, though. However, you’re talking about a whole 'nother ball of wax when you consider RACING an Ironman. Surviving an Ironman is an accomplishment in itself…but RACING one is HUGE.

So, that’s a couple of reasons why people don’t do it Long course first, and progress to Sprints as they mature.

Another misconception I hear a lot is that long, slow training keeps you from getting hurt. It can, and does result in injury. It just depends on how long you are going, what your body can tolerate, how you recover, etc. Shorter, faster training doesn’t neccesarily mean you get hurt, either. It depends upon what you are used to doing, as well as the above mentioned factors.

Any type of training can result in an injury. If you sit on a couch all day, you’ll even get couch injuries. The key is to mix it up appropriately…one of the reasons triathlon is such a good sport…it sort of keeps the athlete changing the workouts enough to lessen the overuse injury problems seen in single-sport athletes.

“Any type of training can result in an injury. If you sit on a couch all day, you’ll even get couch injuries.”

So that’s my problem. Should I wear my HRM while flipping with the remote control? What % of my Max HR should I target? DARN THOSE COUCH INJURIES!!

LOL. All in good humor. Kidding around, of course. :slight_smile:

was that quote from Mark Allen from Phillip Maffetone’s book ‘Training for Endurance’? I have seen it somewhere but can’t recall where.

in his book Maffetone stipulates only aerobic training as per his formula, makes for quite a good read. However I have also seen articles by Mark Allen where he says he followed this format for a period then he would introduce some anaerobic work to lift him once he had reached a plateau. Then he would go aerobic for another period etc.

I know a guy training for ironman who followed the formula and every 3 weeks there was a 5km time trial and he said that his time improved on every test while maintaining same heartrate, so there is definitely a basis to the theory. By the way this guy is 40+ and was running around 18.5 minutes for the 5km.

That’s how the PC Coach works also (again, written by Maf), you evaluate yourself every 3 weeks with the MAF test – a 3, 4, or 5-mile run at a specific determined HR. Whenever your time for this distance plateaus … theh you’re ready to switch to anaerobic work.

Whenever your anaerobic time plateaus, you switch back.

Hello there,

Here is a real-world example to add to a huge “AMEN” to the quoted statement by Mark Allen. I used to run 25 miles a week and ran hard three times a week. Intervals, tempo, but mostly just hard. I was younger and my body handled it. My PR for 10K was about 33:30. Certainly nothing to scoff at, but not what I should have run if you consider my college mile time. The longer the distance, the worse the comparison would get.

About 18 months ago I decided to go with more miles and averaged 40 a week over 52 weeks. I still couldn’t give up the speed though, so I have a number of bouts with illness, almost always associated with running too hard and this cut down my average volume.

At the beginning of December '03, I decided it was time to ditch all speedwork and see what volume could do for me. For five weeks I averaged 50 miles per week, had a rest week and ran 186 miles over the last three weeks. All of it was done between 70-80 percent max heart rate. As the weeks progressed I began to notice my average pace dropping, with no perceived increase in effort. I would stop and check my heart rate, by hand, and sure enough I will still bopping along at 145. The difference is, I can now run 6:30 miles completely aerobic. In essence that means I could run an entire marathon in 2 hours 45 minutes without ever running anything but aerobic heart rates. (Actually I imagine there would be a little caridiac creep by the end) I’m sure this is the case because I finished up the last eight miles of a 22-mile run the other day at 6:40 per mile pace and felt better than I ever had at the end of a long run.

Runners and swimmers have too much institutional baggage developed from years of coaches telling them they had to run two sessions of speed each week, or swim coaches who go hard every day. I can’t wait for the weather to warm up here in the D.C. area so I can go out and test myself on my old bike-run course to see where I am.

The key is to stay in that high aerobic range and not to go higher. The aerobic engine is the most efficient and will get you to the finish line.

Chad Walton