i know most say pace is more important than HR for run run training, others go by HR. i am incorporating pace(mcmillan calculator) and hr for my open marathon prep but during the long runs do i stick with pace still or base on HR? long run felt more steady that easy the other day and HR was higher than normal compared to the other long runs i`ve done wherein pace was really easy.
Both can work well assuming you really have an understanding of the advantages and limitations of either protocol.
I ran HR based plans for years, did well, qualified for Boston. Then got a Garmin and used the F.I.R.S.T plan that is pace based and ran a PR at age 48. I still monitor HR closely, but you might find that the pace based forces you to train even 15 to 30 seconds faster in both tempo and long runs, which you find your body can handle, even get used to, and it pays off on race day.
Depends on your goal. Not being sarcastic but I’d assume your goal is to get faster. If you want to get faster then you have to apply a periodic overload while still maintaining the appropriate stress balance.
HR can help you achieve the above to a certain degree but it clearly lacks the ability to consistently and accurately reflect the true physiological cost of your run. Pace does a much better job of that as long as you have an understanding of long run pace as a % of threshold (eg T pace).
Thanks, Chris
Thanks guys! 
its just now that i have been consistent with using the HR so every run i know my hr is consistent regarldess of how many cups of coffee ive had for the day. i did yesterdays long run at 146 ave but this got me confused even more, real time HR was in the 150-156ish at times but still felt steady. pace was still spot on and ran the last half 2-3 mins faster. No for the HRM users, do i follow what the ave says and just constantly check the real time HR, just like in cycling you look at the ave speed over the course of race/workout. so i`m just making it more complicated
Both can work well assuming you really have an understanding of the advantages and limitations of either protocol.
Exactly.
Perhaps the higher than normal heart rate is telling you something? Therefore HR is important
However
HR tends to creep up over the course of longer durations regardless of increases in load. Therefore you need to focus on pace as well.
These are just tools in the toolbox.
I’m a Garmin junkie. My 305 goes with me on every run and every ride. That said, I keep HR off-screen whenever possible, especially on long runs. If the pace intrinsically feels sustainable, keep it up. Unless you’re specifically out for a recovery run, I believe that trying to stay below a set HR has little benefit. You won’t increase your aerobic threshold by training within it; you need to push yourself. Use HR retrospectively to see whether you’re improving, and use it in real-time when you need to stay aerobic. Otherwise, listen to your body.
//Edward
I look at my HR from time to time depending on how I feel. If I know I am pushing a little hard I will take a look and I know now that if my HR is anywhere above 162 I will be getting tired soon! If my HR is around 150 to 155 then I am at my race pace (marathon distance), if I am below that then I am relaxed and could run and run and run.
I run the same rout for my longer run every time now. Its 24k and I know it well so I know where I normally feel the pain and where I can relax and up the pace so now I tend just to run to how I feel rather than pace or HR.
I have time goals for my marathon, half etc so I know what pace I need to be racing at, thats what I train to do. The shorter the distance the harder that is for me as I know that if I run at 100% I will burn out and injur myself but for the marathon I tend to run a max of 25k long runs and so I can easily go faster than my marathon race pace, then when I do the marathon I can sit back a little and feel like I am taking it easy compared to training.
I also strongly believe in rest and mixing up the training. I went away for a week of cycling where I pushed my self 110% every day for 6 days. I only did 2 small runs that week and then rested for 4 days. My next training run was a PB for the half marathon and felt no harder than my normal fast run. I think if you just run and do the same training scheme all the time you hit a wall where it becomes very hard to improve, thats when its time to change you attack slightly and change the workout.
I’m a Garmin junkie too, but had some really good success training with HR last year so I’m doing again this year. I did my long run yesterday with the goal of staying between 75-78% of max HR. I didn’t even look at pace until I got home and I was really happy with where it was. It was my fastest long run of the year. But I typically just look at the current HR and try to stay in that range the whole time and I don’t worry that much about average HR. If I go by average it screws up my run because it will take a while to get the average in the zone because you’ll be below your target for the beginning of the run and you’ll find yourself running above your target to get your average up where you want it and then you’ll have to back off. It’s too erratic, I think. So I just look at current and look at average at the end of the run to see if it falls in my the range, which it should if I stayed in my range for most of the run.
I also had good luck with a HR tempo run last year. I would run about 30 minutes around 75% of max and then run the final 30 at 90% of HR. It’s a tough run but I found that once I got used to that 90% HR and got my breathing in a rhythm I was able to get in a zone and stay there. Pace can be tougher sometimes because there are a lot of things that affect pace and you might find you’re working really hard sometimes and not hard enough other times.
I think it’s good to mix things up a bit. Run by HR sometimes but other times I think you need to go by pace and see where your HR is at a given pace. I think your HR at a given pace is a good way to determine how long you can hold that pace.
Thanks for the inputs again. i guess i need to have all 3 in the mix, HR,pace and perceived effort. i was running in the 150-155 range the second half of my run and it felt ok and steady.
Pace and RPE. Every now and then I’ll look at HR just to see what it’s doing. That being said, I used to be a slave to HR, but since using Pace and RPE, I run better and more consistently not controlling my pace by HR. Also, I’m talking in terms of marathon / IM training.
+1 on what you said, not really a slave to the HR but just go me thinking because i just dont want to fall into the racing the long run because i need to meet the target pace but then again after doing my runs below 150 bpms for the past couple of months i was just surprised how easy/steady the pace felt during my long run was just surprised that i was hitting 150ish but then again my Aet is in the 154-155 bpm range, im not a fast runner compared to you folks here so i just want to get to the starting line injury free and enjoy the journey as well.