FF, I noticed in your last reply where you posted your splits that your fastest mile was was your first and you got progressively slower but still ran a great time. This seems counter to the philosophy of "never start a marathon too fast". I've never run with a heart rate monitor but if there is a better way, I'm game. How do you determine your anaerobic threshold? I notice that when I sprint for a few hundred yards and start to suck wind, and measure my heart rate it always seems to be about 180-185. Is that my threshold?

I'm a believer in using the heart rate monitor for training/racing. I started training in September for the Houston marathon in January. September was mostly about building aerobic base - running very slow - I could not run any distance without my heart rate going faster and faster as I ran - after about a month of 9-10 minute miles - finallly I was able to maintain a pace without my heart rate increasing - pace was about 9 minute miles without heart rate going over 150. (Since I had completed the prior houston marathon in 10 minute mile pace - I thought I was flying)

Started mixing in intervals, threshold training and long runs - all with paces set by heart rate - not by minutes/mile - went faster and faster each week - by end of October - ran a half marathon at 7:40 miles, kept training - by mid December ran a 30k at 7:02 minute miles than Houston marathon at 7:15 minute miles. Without heart rate monitor - I would not have speed up my training runs and probably would have missed out on some progress..

Funny, I just had a back and forth with Kayry in the other forum related to this. "Never start a marathon too fast" is certainly a true statement, but it's not the pace that really matters - it's the level of effort, which can be gauged by heart rate. For the first 4-8 miles or so of a marathon, my heart rate is generally quite low, which enables me to actually bank some time up front until it starts to climb. Without a heart rate monitor (and hence, knowledge that I'm still within a moderate level of effort), this approach is certain to lead to a late race crash and burn. The extreme case of this is in a race that starts out with a long downhill stretch. If you fight the downhill to slowdown, not only will your quads pay the price, but you will be wasting a chance to get some good pace in while the going is good, as there's no doubt, you'll make up for it on some uphills ahead. It's not the pace that matters - it's the effort. Just keep in mind that you're not going to learn the best way to run a marathon with a HR monitor on your 1st, 2nd, or probably 3rd or more try. It will take a number of iterations. I've really learned this lesson after running a number of ultras where you always need to take advantage of the downhills and get while the getting is good, because you're likely to be walking a lot of the steep ups. I ran 8 marathons and 6 ultras last year and really gathered a lot of data.

My anaerobic threshold was measured in a vo2max test, but I probably could have gotten it by rummaging through all of my data. It certainly was a helpful quantity to know how to keep things under control in races.

Thanks for the replies kayry and formationflier. What are your opinions on the type of monitor i.e. chest strap vs watch? I want to try this, I'll be running my 5th marathon in April.

I got the garmin forerunner 301 a few months ago, and have found it to be the most valuable tool Ive used since I started running (which was only a year ago). Ive had some problems with the heart rate monitor portion of it, and am sending it back for a replacement (hopefully it was just my defective unit, and not a flaw with the whole system), but when it was working, it was great. it not only gave me my heartrate, along with heart zones, but it's a GPS unit too.

If you dont run with a GPS, you should... it gives you distance, pace, all sorts of other features, and a training assistant that can help you pace yourself.

This unit (like many of them) has a chest strap that sends a signal back to the watch with the heart rate. the GPS is built into the watch, so there are no other straps on your arms.

I use a garmin forerunner 305 which is very similar to a forerunner 301, just the newer model. Most HR monitors have a chest strap that transmits to a watch. The forerunner 301 and 305 do as well, also with GPS to give pace and distance (as rabbit mentioned). There are some HR monitors that are on the wrist but they're really not that great for accurate data while running.

I've tried several - Nike Triax for a long time - found I could make it very accurate but I really wanted the computer link. Then a couple Polar watches - even the newest one (700 I think). I took back before 30 days so only used briefly. The newest Polar had the shoelace attachment that fell off on me once while doing some sprints which I did not like - replacement 100+ bucks (luckily I found it).

I ended up picking up a forerunner 305 off ebay. I prefer that one best - the Polar I never built confidence in there accuracy around speeds and distances - no matter how well I calibrated they were always still off it seemed - and being a numbers junky I wanted accuracy so I like the Forerunner 305. It has issues with "fading" in that when I run under trees it indicates I am slowing down with a faded link to the satelites or something - still the average pace and distance is always accurate so I set it up for 1/2 mile automatic laps and watch the average lap time instead of the current pace time and it is very accurate. Only disadvantage with this is you cannot program in different workouts. If you have no trees or buildings around you can use its full functionality.

kayry