Training Myths: Heart Rate Training

If you ask just about any endurance sports athlete or coach about their approach to training or how they quantify a training effort, they will almost certainly tell you that the standard is the use of heart rate and heart rate training zones. They will tell you that you need a heart rate monitor for effective training. They will tell you that it is an accurate means of quantifying training load.

A quick summary of heart rate training is indicated. The athlete sets heart rate training zones (heart rate ranges) that are based on a percentage of maximum heart rate to attain various training effects. The goal of these training zones may be to improve aerobic capacity or lactate threshold - or both – as these are factors that are perceived to be related to optimal training adaptations and enhanced endurance sport performance.

But as they say, it doesn’t matter how well you build a  house – if, in fact, you build the foundation on quicksand. Therein lies the basis for many training myths.

1. The primary limiter of performance is …? Here is the first premise that needs to be discarded: the cardiovascular system is the primary limiter to endurance performance. We constantly hear talk of “aerobic training” and “energy systems” and the like. But is that what limits our ability to go longer?

The cardiovascular system is not the long-term limiter. More and more research indicates that the neuromuscular system, or even more specifically, the central nervous system holds the keys to fatigue, to motor control, and to overall function and human performance. This is heresy to most endurance athletes who ascribe to a “long slow distance” mentality and use heart rate zones to establish an “aerobic zone” in which they are building their “aerobic energy system”.

2. But what about my aerobic capacity? It is intriguing to note that a high aerobic capacity does not guarantee success. With that said, your aerobic capacity can increase around 15% with training – but what happens after that? Does the athlete’s progress stagnate? Of course not. We continue to see improvement in athletic performance – related to other factors (i.e neuromuscular).

3. Factors of error in training zones. Even if we continued to assume that training needs to be quantified via heart rate, we would need to know an athlete’s maximal heart rate. Very few people are going to spend the money to have a cardiac stress test to establish this number. So with the vast majority of athletes, the maximum heart rate is projected. But if you are then calculating training zones based on a percentage of maximum – and that maximum is just a projection to start with – we have introduced a significant factor of error into the equation. A few beats per minute here and there can take an “accurate” equation and add in a 5 - 10% factor of error. That is no longer an accurate representation of training effort – that is simply a shot in the dark.

4. An added twist: dehydration. Still not convinced to throw away that heart rate monitor? What happens if you are dehydrated – much like the vast majority of athletes at some time during their training? Heart rate measures become skewed with dehydration. Your already-sketchy-through-calculation training zone is impaired further by the element of dehydration. If you live or train in a warm climate, your results will be thrown into chaos.

5. What if I am new to exercise? If you are new to exercise and totally unfamiliar with exercise intensity (and yes, this does happen frequently), then a heart rate monitor may actually help you to understand the basic premise of exertion. But after about 3 months of use, it could be discarded for other, more accurate measures of training effort.

6. The lab and research standard. The funny thing about all of this is that all we need to do is look at what is done in the exercise science labs around the world. You know, the places where all of this research is being done in the first place.

What measure is used most frequently in the lab? Rating Of Perceived Exertion (RPE). RPE gives the athlete a far better overall measure of exertion. Even though it is a subjective measure, it has been found to be both accurate and reliable. There must be a reason why it is the standard in the sports sciences labs worldwide.

Even with all of these points made, the worst part is that the vast majority of endurance athletes and coaches alike still employ heart rate and training zones into their training plan – regardless of the research.

Photo credits: pheezy