Tuesday, April 15, 2008

To monitor or not to monitor

Gina Kolata, of the NY Times, has published a good article on heart rate monitors. I will admit, I have not used my HR monitor since my fiasco at the Rocket City Marathon in December. If you weren't following my blog back then, I used my Garmin 305 HR monitor for most of my training. I kept a watch on my average heart rate during most every training run, and I felt like it usually pretty accurately reflected my perceived level of effort. My intentions for race day were to go out easy for the first 5 miles and then step it a notch for the next 15 miles, but all the while saving enough to 'feel good' at mile 20 so that I could hammer it home and bring back the sub-4. But is there even such a thing as 'feeling good at mile 20'? To elites, maybe, but to a mere mortal whose number one weapon is a great big heart and a will that refuses to give up - I don't think so. The term 'feel good at mile 20' is obviously relative...but relatively speaking, I have still never been anywhere close to feeling anything that remotely resembled the word "good" at mile 20 of 26.2.

I do now know the difference in feeling well enough to hold my pace(but I wouldn't call it 'good') and feeling like death at mile 20, though. You see, what I never factored into all my HR training was that I was running in fairly normal conditions during my long runs. Sometimes it was cool, sometimes it was just plain butt-cold, and sometimes it was windy, but it was never hot and humid. Not the extent it turned out to be on race day, anyways. I had nothing with which to compare my soaring heart rate at mile 2. The same heart rate that continued to climb during mile 3 as I continued to stay close to my planned marathon pace, and that eventually at mile 13 got about as high as it could go before a complete breakdown of all systems, i.e, a bonk. In retrospect, at mile 19, I realized that my effort to maintain my goal race pace in the humidity had prevented my body from processing all the fluid I had been feeding it...and I vomited multiple times before being able to shuffle/walk the last 7 miles.

The moral of the story? The heart rate monitor doesn't do you any good if you are going to disregard the data it's giving you and continue to push the pace despite unfavorable conditions. I think some people are able to use them effectively, and some people are not. I fall into the latter category. I am going to push the pace, and I am not going to feel good at mile 20. If I've been training for a sub 4 marathon for 5 months, I'm going to lay it out on the line and go for that sub 4, regardless of unfavorable conditions and elevated heart rates. Maybe someday I'll be able to reign myself in and be able to use that HR monitor more effectively, but for now...I'm just swimming, biking and running, and loving the hell out of it.

Ironman may be a different story, though. I will HAVE to reign myself in for Ironman. The difference, though, is that the goal is to finish, and not to "sub" anything other than the 17 hour cutoff. Up until this point, I really haven't felt the need to get the HR monitor out. What do you think? Should I dust it off and use it on these long training rides and runs? I'm doing fine without it - but feel free to chime with your iron-thoughts on this.

Speaking of Iron, and speaking of big hearts and will power, this girl has neither as compared to that of my Iron-buddy Commodore. If you don't know already, he fought tooth and nail against the course, against himself, and against a kidney condition that I never knew he had, this weekend at IMAZ. He refused to give up, until his body demanded so, as it shut down his kidneys and liver. Ironman knows no greater competitor than Comm. Send up some prayers or some healing thoughts for him and his family.

Congratulations to Kathleen who fought the AZ heat and became an Ironman Sunday! Way to go, girl!!

9 comments:

TJ said...

I'm a bit of a data geek and wear my heart rate monitor during pretty much every session and log the numbers religiously.
One thing you could do is wear it, ignore it during the session and go on perceived effort as you've been doing. Then record the data(avg/max) afterwards to analyze at a later time. I like looking back in my logs to see how my hr has changed overtime relative to how my paces have changed.

Or...if you're enjoying training without it....keep the good thing rolling.

Phil said...

You already know what I think about wearing HR monitors in races, but I'll repeat for all your fans. HR monitors are great for some workouts, but cause people like you and me to do stupid things in races. Your HR is a function of many factors, stress on the body, humidity, heat, anxiety ... maybe more. At the end of the day, we all need to learn how to race by how we feel. I still believe you wuould have done a whole lot better if yoú would have trusted your body and run your race. That damn HR monitor screamig at you that you were going too fast just increased your anxiety levels.

They can help in training .. leave them at home for the race.

Your training is coming along great.

Bigun said...

Your HR moniter is your Tacometer. It rarely lies about outside factors effecting your effort level (heat, sickness, humitidy, fatigue, etc)...ignore it and you bonk. I ignored it when I was sick for my mary, and I really really hurt myself.

Lance Notstrong said...

I train with mine but then on race day, I wear it but just go by how I feel. When I look at my splits, I will even cover up the HR number.

Now for Ironman (not that I know anything about it but....), if it were me, I would stick with a HR range just so that I know I could finish. You're right, some races are "sub whatever" and some are about finishing.

Michele said...

I didn't wear mine in B-ham and I am not wearing it at CMM.

I haven't even thought about Ironman.

I have been wearing it for all my training but that is just cause I am a number geek.

jahowie said...

Let me know how that works out for you. I have yet to run a marathon so I cannot fully comment on this one. That sounds like one rough race that you had though. I would trust it next time. ;-)

triguyjt said...

this old bird has done 3 ironmans ..never used a heart rate monitor on race day...just went on perceived effort.

I agree with others..if you use it...take into account the elements et all...

i took my hr to mexico and the first day about 30 minutes into a run, it was at about 163...close to max for me. (i'm 54) and I was going as fast as a snail on qualudes..i even backed off from THAT pace..

faithrunner said...

Hey, I don't know whether or not you should wear the monitor (I've never had one/worn one) but it sounds like your training is going great without it so far. You're simply amazing and I think you're going to soar through the half IM! Keep up the great work.

Steve Stenzel said...

I'm not a HR monitor sorta guy. But my vote is to use it on the training. But only use it while actively knowing how your body is feeling, so that if/when you don't have it, you'll know how you're doing. That's my 2 cents...