Some basic guidlines:

recovery runs - very easy effort. You should end these feeling like you've barely scratched the surface of your workout

regular training runs - maybe slightly harder than a recovery run. You should end these feeling envigorated, like you've put in some effort but would be just about able to do the workout (or at least most of it) again. This is still conversational pace.

Tempo, LT or cruise interval running - "Comfortably hard". You should be able to answer questions with one or two words, but not able to speak in full sentances. You'll typically end these workouts feeling you could do a bit more...but are glad you don't have to.

Interval training - at or slightly faster than race pace depending on length of interval and distance you're training for. Again, you'll be glad your workout's over but could still do a few more reps if your life depended on it.

Usually referred to as perceived exertion, this type of training can be done effectively but it takes a lot of focus and experience to really dial it in. I've seen people train exclusively with PE and do quite well at the Ironman distanc triathlon, however, I know their potential and can see that almost every one of them could do better using HR training.

You see, there are so many variables in training, particularly weather and body state that come into play. If you are just starting to fight a cold you may not feel it but your body is not up to speed and you can fatigue faster and get more sick by drawing down your immune system. A HR moitor will help you see the cardiac drift issues associated with overtraining and immune compromise much faster.

Also, with a HR monitor you can get a pretty accurate estimate of your lactate threshold (LT), which is hard to estimate by feel. Too many athletes I see in my training classes are working in too high of an aerobic zone and really not working at the economy rate they should be in zone 2.

As for how it works.... (PE) is a usually a scale developed between the athlete and coach. Sometimes it's the Borg scale, which is a number from 6-22. These numbers roughly correlate to a 60 HR to a 220 HR. This scale is based on the 220-age formula which is so wrong I won't even get into why here. Many coaches and athletes like to use a 1-10 scale. That way a recovery number would be 2-3, a LT training number would be 4-5 with limited 6 work, while anerobic training would happen around 7-8. At 9 you are above your AT and need to be careful. At 10 your heart blows up. Just kidding, at 10 you will last about 10 seconds at most before you just have to back off. For a rought estimate I use the 5 word check. If the athlete can say 5 or more words when they run by me at the track, I'm pretty confident they are in zone 2-3 on the 1-10 scale. If they can get 3 or less words, I know they are approaching a 5 level, sometimes a good thing to do as with this method of training I am trying to elevate their LT with a little push now and then with ample recovery.

I'm in the low HR training camp myself, my athletes all are training for Ironman and right now they are all training at low HR for 95% of their workouts until we start a build phase in easrly January. I require they work with a HR monitor, I don't have time to run alongside every one of them all the time to see if they can spit out three or more words.

Hope this helps.

AB

http://This message has been edited by Aikobear (edited Dec-12-2007).

http://This message has been edited by Aikobear (edited Dec-12-2007).

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Aikobear:
Usually referred to as perceived exertion, this type of training can be done effectively but it takes a lot of focus and experience to really dial it in. <HR>

I guess it depends on what you read and who you talk to, but I've found "effort-based training" to be described most often almost exactly like mrinertia described it - at least conceptually, verbage may be different. Actually the talk test for many can be quite effective to learn this since VT zone is somewhat near LT zone. And neither a coach nor a hrm is going to be accurate or fast enough response to help the new runner recognize the body signs when near LT turnpoint on steep hills.

I did learn "effort-based training" ala Roy Benson's software pgm using a hrm as a learning tool. (beginners with no coaches and not knowing someone have to start somewhere) Yes, I'm slow, but my goals are fun running for longer distances on hilly terrain so have focused on endurance and strength endurance. I still use a hrm to log my data and look at the data later. During the run I'm too busy to look at any devices, but may occasionally estimate my hr then look. I'm usually within a few bpms, if not right on. Sometimes I just need to wait for a few seconds for the hrm to catch up with the actual effort.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Aikobear:
You see, there are so many variables in training, particularly weather and body state that come into play.....

Also, with a HR monitor you can get a pretty accurate estimate of your lactate threshold (LT), which is hard to estimate by feel.<HR>

Yes, a hrm in a laboratory is the ideal way to estimate your LT in a laboratory on a given day.

Yes, it is true that some people can talk above LT, but for many people their breathing and heart rate are tied fairly closely. As you know, there's several definitions of LT and it does change somewhat on a daily basis as a result of all the variables you mentioned above and larger variations based on training. This is one of the purposes of training. My "feeling" has me much more closely tied with LT (as loosely represented by VT) than a fixed hr does, recognizing the daily variations.

quote:<HR>Originally posted by Aikobear:
As for how it works.... (PE) is a usually a scale developed between the athlete and coach. <HR>

Yes, those types of scales can be difficult to use, esp. if you need a coach to create one. With all due respect, why not just refer to things like recovery, easy, high-end aerobic / sub-LT / "aerobic speed" / tempo, LT, and whatever comes above that (VO2max).

PS: I think a lot of training focuses on the same principles, but different people have found different ways of describing the different efforts. Some, like Aikobear, are more comfortable with a zone 1,5,10, or whatever concept. Others, like myself, are more comfortable calling the general zones by what they mean to us in training, esp. since certain primary efforts, like mrinertia described, are pretty widely recognized. Because of my quantitative background, I do like using a hrm to log my data, but because of my wanting to run freely and focus on running while I'm out there, I don't like artificial thingies intruding into my run (may be in my pack).
http://This message has been edited by AKTrail (edited Dec-12-2007).

http://This message has been edited by AKTrail (edited Dec-12-2007).

http://This message has been edited by AKTrail (edited Dec-12-2007).