Keep It Simple, Part II

“It can scarcely be denied that the supreme goal of all theory is to make the irreducible basic elements as simple and as few as possible without having to surrender the adequate representation of a single datum of experience.”  Albert Einstein (1879-1955), during a lecture, Oxford, June 1933

Einstein’s goal of achieving simplicity without loss of the necessary holds true, especially for runners.  Figure out the amount of data you absolutely need to track progress, after that it's simple to gradually acquire the stuff which works best, or to steer clear of the stuff which won't work at all.

First, let me explain that I’m not slamming brick-and-mortar running specialty stores.  If given the choice between a major retail sports store, a locally-owned/operated running specialist and an interlink-based provider I'd much rather deal with the guy who's paying local property taxes and hiring passionate young men and women from my town's high school or local college; someone who really has some skin in the game when it comes to the running community.  Usually that's a person who's going to do the right thing.  But you can tell when a shopkeeper has become too-mercenary when (new) runners toe the line at a local 5-kilometer race with a four-bottle hydration waist belt.

I have a love-hate relationship with the consumer grade GPS receiver.  As a course measurer I love to use the GPS to provide ballpark estimations of where my intermediate splits will fall on the race course, and to get latitude/longitude references in those rare instances when no permanent reference point exists.  The hatred comes when runners who have no understanding of the necessary technological limitations of the GPS try to tell me a course is "too long."  Upload a run to Google Earth and you'll see some places you never thought you could run.  Runners who do most or all of their workouts on a treadmill or a track most likely aren't going to need GPS devices; there are times I would dare to say that for most a GPS is little more than a very expensive running watch.  I've also played with running watches which used accelerometers those little pods attach to the running shoe and track how fast and how far you ran, without the need for all those satellites.  They're a little expensive and the batteries tend to die at the wrong time, but they're very reliable if all you need is distance and speed.  If all your courses are known distances, choose a running watch or a heart rate monitor. 

Good ballpark distance figures for runs on sidewalks, roadways, and now even trails can be mapped out on map programs like MapMyRun, GMaps Pedometer, the USA Track and Field "My Running Routes" program, and Google Earth (which requires a little more patience).  There are a few disadvantages to these programs:  When flat photographs are used to try and measure distance on a rounded surface (our world) there can be varying degrees of inaccuracy; a half-marathon course I measured last year proved this to be true.  As a plus, MapMyRun allows runners to track workouts they've run on a particular route, and even gives runners the ability to print out courses...if you purchase a membership.  Go on the cheap like me and you best be able to read what can best be called “gibberish.”  A race director sent me his MMR files last year and all the street names were “Asflkue Ib.”  And worse.

You'd rather not wear a heart rate monitor, you say?  My wife is one of the many who would agree with you.  Some folks don't like to have that fabric/plastic strap around their chest, especially guys who like to run shirtless (I like data, therefore I run with a shirt).  Those persons who still want to check their intensity every so often can purchase a watch which has finger contact plates; place the two fingers of the non-watch wearing hand (of course…) on the plates and the heart rate reading appears in seconds.  Runners who use fairly modern treadmills with heart rate equipment attached can most likely forego this and use the handrail plates, which are about as accurate as chest strap monitors. 

You Luddites can lay a couple of fingers along your carotid artery on the left side of the neck immediately after the run is completed, or gauge your effort on a scale of one to ten, where one aligns to ”am I awake?” and ten means ”if I take another step my chest will explode!”  Some of the really good heart rate monitors will not only break down your workout effort by average heart rate, but by amount of time spent at a particular intensity level.  Entire books have been written about training by heart rate, and quickly leaves the beaten path to go into the weeds of the “should I use the ‘220-minus-age’ formula to calculate my heart rate?” question, the “male-versus-female max-heart-rate” debate (which my wife and I have had on many occasions), and so on.  Surprisingly enough, physiology researchers found a strong correlation between perceived effort (that “one-to-ten-scale” thing) and percentage of maximum heart rate; a perceived effort of “five” was found to be right around the fifty-percent of maximum heart rate point, and so on.

So now we've talked about the simple "where," "how far," and "how hard" of running.  I'll talk in the next installment on what to do with that information.

Ticker Time - Heart Rate Monitors For Run Training

An old friend of mine (now a tae kwon do instructor in Texas) asked the other day how I felt about heart rate monitors. Naturally, his take is from a strength, speed & power standpoint, so his question was framed from the viewpoint of a guy who looks at running or aerobic activity as "cardio." Like I mentioned about a month ago ("S'weat's New?", October 23, 2010), if you intend to use a cardio machine to help melt adipose your heart rate needs to be anywhere from 50-to-60 percent of maximum heart rate. Cardio fitness requires a level of intensity somewhat closer to 75 percent of maximum heart rate.

If you've ever been on a cardio machine at your local YMCA or fitness studio which has seen its better days, the odds might be against you getting an accurate heart rate reading. Working out at the wrong intensity can be as effective as dieting without portion control; too much (food) can be as bad as too little. I like using heart rate monitors for run training, both for encouraging an athlete to run at an easier pace during training runs when the effort ideally should be lower, as well as for tying a number to a feeling of intensity. Most experienced athletes, I've found, can provide a good ballpark figure of where their heart rate is based on the intensity level of their activity. The heart rate monitor can also help determine whether more recovery time is needed after a hard workout; if the resting heart rate first thing in the morning is as few as five beats higher than normal (depending on the baseline) it might be a signal to forego that early morning jog.

I've played around with, purchased, used, beat the daylights out of, & discarded half a dozen or more different heart rate monitors, including units by some of the major players in the game, namely Nike, Polar, Suunto and Garmin. Depending on the information an athlete needs, their comfort level with technology, brand of computer, willingness or desire to slice-and-dice (export) data, & level of sticker shock they're willing to undergo, there is a model from a maker which may fit nearly every athlete.

One of the first monitors I owned was the Suunto G6, which was pretty much a high-end monitor, with a frightening level of expandability; I purchased an ANT+ compatible footpod which tracked speed & distance by a battery-powered accelerometer. The G6 could do nearly everything imaginable, save for order me a beer at the end of a training run, but it could & would not (at that time) play nicely with my Apple MacBook computer. Since then, Suunto has developed an on-line, fairly user-friendly workout tracking program called MovesCount, but with the MacBook I had to purchase a Windows emulator program to crunch my workout numbers. I had difficulties with the G6 receiver unit's battery life, compounded by minimal U.S.-based technical support (California, if I rightly recall...). Since that time, Suunto has expanded its presence in the U.S., especially in the major metropolitan areas, & may still have a package deal with Carmichael Training Systems, a company owned by Lance Armstrong's former coach Chris Carmichael.

Most good-quality HR monitors will tell you how long you were exercising in a particular target heart rate range. Others will tell you how long you spent in particular heart rate zone. If you want to know whether your workout was effective or if you're on the edge of overtraining, again, look to Suunto monitors. The monitor & accompanying software programs will show you progress over time and the training effect of the workout you completed - measured by Exercise (Post) Oxygen Consumption (EPOC). EPOC measures the "calorie burn" which persists after the workout is completed...kind of like measuring how long the hood of your car will scald your bare legs should you decide to sit on it in shorts after driving all day.

If you decide to keep a HR monitor for a long period of time (read: send it in for repairs when it breaks or the batteries die) I still consider products by Nike & Garmin to be the best bet, since they have regional service centers. When I owned the Suunto there was only one place - San Diego, I think - to send the monitor for TLC.

Nike's C8 monitor had software & components which were easy to use & fairly user-friendly, with on-line "set-and-forget" (or "set-and-regret") functionality. I could also use the strap on spin bikes & Life Fitness equipment at the local YMCA; I never thought there was a downside to having a non-coded transmitter strap, but my wife was always a little less-than-enthused when her elliptical trainer workout would suddenly change intensity...it would pick up my heart rate & adjust accordingly. But...get that thing near any amount of water & you could guarantee a bad day...a guy who sweats a great deal should never use electronics which are not waterproof.

My most recent acquisition is the Garmin Forerunner 310 XT, which is a GPS unit with ANT+ compatible footpod for treadmill running, ANT+ wireless cadence meter for power estimation on the bicycle, & has, in my humble opinion, the most comfortable HR strap I've used. Oh, & I guess I should mention since it's built specifically for triathlon, it's waterproof. It has a battery life of about 20 hours, but how many people wear their HR receiver the entire day?

My wife will use gymnasium cardio machines, & keeps track of how hard she works by the pulse pads, but she absolutely hates the thought of having anything rub her chest or wrist...it irritates her (She rarely wears her ring, but we don't mind...) to no end. Even the Mio, which uses two finger pads on the monitor, was out of the question...definitely no good for cycling. I almost had her talked into trying out a Polar HR system a couple of years ago; it seems as though enough women complained about how difficult it was to wear a sports brassiere AND a heart rate monitor strap. The fine folks at adidas developed a running top which provided a modicum of support & a means for attaching the chest strap. But, as my wife likes to remind me, support wear is a personal thing, & one size does not fit all...it only fits one size.

Back to Polar, I've seen mostly their more inexpensive HR monitors, which tell the HR. Since my spin class had a bunch of these & my most recent HR monitor is not Polar compatible, I ended up using their strap. Functional, simple. Friends of mine have higher-end units: Polar is good at providing products with incremental increases in quality, features (and price). Their highest-end HR set-ups will tell you nearly everything you would need to know, work with programs like TrainingPeaks, & can help the individual athlete set up training plans.

But, if you're not going to figure out what that flashing number means you only have a couple more ounces of plastic, glass & gadgetry strapped to your body. Like I said before, the data is only as good as what you do with it, & what decisions you make because of it.

I've Got You Onto My Skin: Heart Rate Monitors

I've used chest-strap heart rate monitors for probably the better part of six years, & seen the good, the bad & the ugly of them. In spite of it all I consider them one of the tools which should be in every endurance athlete's arsenal, for a number of reasons:

First, heart rate monitors are great for checking the resting heart rate first thing in the morning.

Second, you can use a heart rate monitor to determine whether the recovery period during hard "interval" workout sessions is sufficient...or if it's time to pull the plug on the session before you begin overtraining.

Third, the heart rate monitor can help you ensure your "easy" training days remain just that...easy.Some high-end monitors are capable of calculating the amount of oxygen taken in to restore the body to it's original resting state, the effect of the training on the athlete; some will even recommend the effort level of the next exercise session after a brief analysis of the data. Naturally, many of these calculators are closer to the one size fits many rather than the individual side of the training device continuum.

Even the most simple monitors, which can download data to the athlete's personal computer, need to be calibrated to the individual in order to be most effective.

The most common - and most commonly incorrect - formula to determine maximum heart rate (MHR) is the classic 220-minus age. If a guy like me uses this particular formula, then my maximum heart rate (then used to determine training heart rate levels) should be 220-47, or 173 beats per minute. This would make my "easy" day heart rate (50-60% MHR) somewhere in the range of 86-to-103 beats per minute. High aerobic pace (61-to-80% MHR) would be 104-to-137 beats per minute.

Now, let's place a wrinkle in the equation. This formula was calculated using men. What guidance do I use as a coach when dealing with a female athlete? A recent Northwestern University study gave me a whole new formula to memorize: 206-minus-88%-of-age. So, one of my female athletes recently purchased a heart rate monitor; she can use the Gulati, et. al. calculation to estimate her MHR: 206 - (48 x .88) = 206 - (42.24) = 163.76...OR...164. Her "easy" day training rate would be in the 82-to-98 range; her high aerobic pace would be 99-to-132.

Of course, that also assumes the ability to drop the heart rate down to zero. I'm no Zen Master, so I can guarantee my high-to-low heart rate range is definitely not 173 beats. My daytime resting HR (RHR), sitting in my office without any hassle, is 54...about two beats higher than my (highest) resting rate first thing in the morning (when I'm fit & race ready it's as low as 42). So, for purposes of this post, let's just say my RHR is 50. That gives me a heart rate reserve (HRR) of 123 beats.

Karvonen would say the lowest target heart rate for my "easy" day (50%) should be: (173 -50) x .50 + 50 = (123 x .50) + 50 = 61.5 + 50 = 111.5. So, my highest target heart rate for the "easy" day (60%) is probably around 122. Keeping the heart rate reserve in mind "justifies" that slightly more intense workout on the "easy" day, right? Maybe.
But, in order to really get the most out of a heart rate monitor, the athlete needs to ensure they do a few things:

First, learn their "true" resting heart rate. This might take strapping on the monitor for a couple of mornings in succession. A good way to do this is - if you're like me & have to get up in the middle of the night to "exchange" fluids - put the strap & receiver on. When the alarm goes off, start the monitor. After about four or five mornings you'll have a good idea of the average.

Second, find out their "true" maximum heart rate. There are physicians who will perform a stress test (for a few dollars) if you have nobody available to assist you. Sally Edwards (and a few other coaches) recommends the test be taken on a track, but I'm partial to using a treadmill because the speed can be increased incrementally through the test, & elements which are hard to control on a track can be controlled with a treadmill.

- Start the test with an easy warm-up of at least 5 minutes. The goal during the warm-up is to get the heart beating to 100-120 bpm.
- Without stopping, begin the test by gradually accelerating the speed so the heart rate climbs about 5 bpm every 15 seconds.
- At each 15-second interval, your partner should tell the exercise time, heart rate, and offer encouragement as they gradually increase the speed.
- Within a 2-to-4-minute period, the heart rate should cease to climb even with increased effort and pace.
- When you can no longer accelerate, or you hear your partner repeating the same number you've (probably) reached your maximum HR.
- At that point either you or your partner can call an end to the test.

Third, & most importantly, learn to correlate effort with number. I've learned the hard way that technology fails, & often at the worst possible moment...on race day. Believe it or not, the experienced runner or athlete can figure out, within a few percentage points, just how hard they are working in terms of their maximal heart rate; researchers proved a strong correlation between the Borg (perceived effort) Scale & the percentage of maximum heart rate. So if you're an experienced runner, running at a level of nine on a one-to-ten scale...chances are good you are fairly close, give or take a few points, to ninety percent of maximum heart rate.

Remember - the heart rate monitor, much like the GPS receiver, is a tool. You can place one in the hands of a child & wreck things, or you can place it in the hands of a craftsman & watch beautiful things happen. The right tool, in the right hands, at the right time, for the right purpose.