Heart Rate Monitors and Overtraining

I struggled with overtraining a lot this past season (recovering from
inactivity due to surgery). My body seemed to have a hair-trigger
sensitivity to the slightest bit of intensity that I would add to my
workouts.

I was wondering if a heart rate monitor would have helped, if I had
carefully tracked how much time I was spending at higher intensities
and then ratched it up slowly (versus just feeling good and so
cranking up a hill.) If anyone had any experience with this, would
appreciate hearing about it. (I'm coming from the perspectice of
always have an aversion to the "robo-skier" aspect of wearing a heart
rate monitor.)

Thanks in advance,

Jon

On Apr 9, 4:53*pm, wrote:
I struggled with overtraining a lot this past season
My body seemed to have a hair-trigger
sensitivity to the slightest bit of intensity that I would add to my
workouts.
I was wondering if a heart rate monitor would have helped,

The short answer is yes, it probably would have helped but not in the
way that you think.

After a long period of inactivity, I think the normal response is to
go out and hit it hard. Your body told you it wasn't ready for that
w/ those HR spikes. The HRM would have helped you build up a training
base by forcing you to keep it below xx BPM and then would have helped
you quantify how your cardiac fitness was progressing - how quick (or
slow) your HR built to some level and how fast you recovered from that
effort. After some period of time getting to know where your HR
should be for some given work output, you would have been able to tell
if you were overtraining by seeing a rapid rise and (perhaps) no
significant decrease when you eased off.

Volumes have been written on this and a few paragraphs here won't tell
you everything you need to know.

It is a great question though - I'm starting to use mine again
religiously and have seen big leaps in my fitness and ability.

- Bob

I'd suggest that the first issue is not HRM or not, but what your
training plan was. It sounds like you might have tried to accomplish
too much too quickly, since overtraining is usually the result of
going too hard too often or too long. Coming out of surgery, the plan
presumably should have been to gradually reestablish your endurance
base, adding some short upticks and longer intervals in a deliberate
way. The time range of the plan would also have depended some on the
type of surgery, how long you were out of action, and what kind of
training you had done prior to surgery. An HRM can help you learn the
feel of your training zones and give feedback, but it's the plan and
sticking to it that counts. That means, for example, deciding where,
when and for how long the pickups in intensity are going to be in long,
slow distance workouts, rather than letting your enthusiasm or the
terrain decide it for you. There are different approaches to training
for masters, and I don't know that session necessarily have to be laid
out for weeks or months on end, but it helps to have some overall
strategy or guiding approach, rather than just going about it willy
nilly. Also, if you do have a plan, then afterwards there's a basis
for judging how it worked and what needs adjusting.

RM

wrote:

I struggled with overtraining a lot this past season (recovering from
inactivity due to surgery). My body seemed to have a hair-trigger
sensitivity to the slightest bit of intensity that I would add to my
workouts.

I was wondering if a heart rate monitor would have helped, if I had
carefully tracked how much time I was spending at higher intensities
and then ratched it up slowly (versus just feeling good and so
cranking up a hill.) If anyone had any experience with this, would
appreciate hearing about it. (I'm coming from the perspectice of
always have an aversion to the "robo-skier" aspect of wearing a heart
rate monitor.)

Thanks in advance,

Jon

"The Flutter Over Heart Rate"
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/10/he...on/10BEST.html

On Wed, 9 Apr 2008 13:53:59 -0700 (PDT), wrote:

I struggled with overtraining a lot this past season (recovering from
inactivity due to surgery). My body seemed to have a hair-trigger
sensitivity to the slightest bit of intensity that I would add to my
workouts.

I was wondering if a heart rate monitor would have helped, if I had
carefully tracked how much time I was spending at higher intensities
and then ratched it up slowly (versus just feeling good and so
cranking up a hill.)

Sure, an HRM would help, but are you carefully tracking your training
in another way? And planning rest periods?

If not, simply getting a plan and also keeping a journal of your
training is the key thing. An HRM lets you do that a little more
precisely, but planning and following the plan are key.

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies.

I guess this raises the issue of Skiing as Recreation versus Skiing as
Systematic Training.

In the past, I've taken the "natural interval" approach to my weekend,
destination skis (i.e., driving up to New Hampshire to a major xc
center) and then just went by feel during the week to recover (skiing
on a flat golf course). Now that I'm middle aged, this isn't
working.

The problem I have with systematic training schemes is that they do
take away the spontaneous competition with a friend up a long hill, or
just skiing fast cause the snow's good and it's a sunny day, etc. My
vision was that if I had a HRM, I might be able to indulge myself
during those "recreational" times, but then adjust the rest of my
training based on how much Level 1 versus Level 4 work I did during
the indulgences. I consider myself pretty guide at using Perceived
Effort, but the problem with natural intervals is remembering how much
time each interval took. (I've always a similar issue with coming up
with a way to estimate the aerobic demands of tennis.)

Jon

Sure, it doesn't have to be real formal or stripped of fun. The
general point is that having a plan for getting in the kind of
condition you want does pay off. It might be something simple like in
the spring and summer making sure the basic workouts each week are
L1-focused with pickups of 15sec to 1 min; one (or two) are planned L3
or L4 intervals, determined by terrain, distance or time; and one or
two sessions involve a focus on strength. Then vary the way you do
them.

I find HRMs helpful for three things: planned intervals when I want to
keep track of something; comparing perceived exertion to real HR in
endurance sessions where I'm not sure; and during races. Another use
is for resting HR in the morning. I don't do that much anymore, unless
I'm curious or feel sickness coming on. One morning a couple of years
ago I woke up feeling the recurrence of pneumonia and found my resting
HR up 10 beats, a sign of trouble. So I went to a doc, who proceeded to
ridicule the accuracy and use of the HRM and not find anything wrong.
But he gave me an azithro sample just in case something developed,
which to my mind already had, and I was better within 24 hrs.

rm

wrote:

Thanks for all the thoughtful replies.

I guess this raises the issue of Skiing as Recreation versus Skiing as
Systematic Training.

In the past, I've taken the "natural interval" approach to my weekend,
destination skis (i.e., driving up to New Hampshire to a major xc
center) and then just went by feel during the week to recover (skiing
on a flat golf course). Now that I'm middle aged, this isn't
working.

The problem I have with systematic training schemes is that they do
take away the spontaneous competition with a friend up a long hill, or
just skiing fast cause the snow's good and it's a sunny day, etc. My
vision was that if I had a HRM, I might be able to indulge myself
during those "recreational" times, but then adjust the rest of my
training based on how much Level 1 versus Level 4 work I did during
the indulgences. I consider myself pretty guide at using Perceived
Effort, but the problem with natural intervals is remembering how much
time each interval took. (I've always a similar issue with coming up
with a way to estimate the aerobic demands of tennis.)

Jon

On Apr 10, 2:04*pm, wrote:
I guess this raises the issue of Skiing as Recreation versus Skiing as
Systematic Training.

You are missing the key "3rd" issue here - skiing is just plain FUN!
Unless you have specific racing goals, everything that you do (IMHO)
should revolve around that. I think you get that, though, based on
your comments about adjusting your training on the fly.

- Bob

On Apr 10, 12:27*pm, highpeaksnordic
wrote:
On Apr 10, 2:04*pm, wrote:

I guess this raises the issue of Skiing as Recreation versus Skiing as
Systematic Training.

You are missing the key "3rd" issue here - skiing is just plain FUN!
Unless you have specific racing goals, everything that you do (IMHO)
should revolve around that. *I think you get that, though, based on
your comments about adjusting your training on the fly.

- Bob

You should be able to develop a sense of what intensity you are
training at without a heart rate monitor. The more you train the more
you should train at level 1 (60-70%) of max HR. Take at least one day
off each week to avoid overtraining. Generally it's not the volume of
your training which causes overtraining, but the intensity. Many folks
just train at a medium intensity level 2-3 (80% of max HR). This will
do two things. First lead to overtraining if you do it on daily basis
and add intensity workouts. Secondly it will become your race pace.
For high end ntervals wear the monitor. If your HR doesn't respond and
it's sluggish, your tired or overtrained. Take several days off and go
back to level 1 workouts. Buy Torbjorn Karlsen Norwegian training
approach manual. Hope this helps.

Again, thanks--very helpful comments. A few points this discussion
clarifies is: laying a foundation is key, know what your general
aerobic condition is and accept the limitations that go along with it,
and you can (sort of) have it all (i.e., spontaeneity and getting
yourself in competitive shape) by following a general structure to
your workouts and adjusting according to how you're body is feeling
and opportunities that arise (e.g., big unexpected snowfall).


Incidentally, I have Torbjorn's book from about 15 years ago and found
it very helpful. The latest edition appears to be from 2000--is there
an equivalent resource that's more current? (So that includes things
like "block interval training," which sounds pretty intriguing.)

Jon






On Apr 10, 6:01*pm, ADK Skier wrote:
On Apr 10, 12:27*pm, highpeaksnordic
wrote:

On Apr 10, 2:04*pm, wrote:

I guess this raises the issue of Skiing as Recreation versus Skiing as
Systematic Training.

You are missing the key "3rd" issue here - skiing is just plain FUN!
Unless you have specific racing goals, everything that you do (IMHO)
should revolve around that. *I think you get that, though, based on
your comments about adjusting your training on the fly.

- Bob

You should be able to develop a sense of what intensity you are
training at without a heart rate monitor. The more you train the more
you should train at level 1 (60-70%) of max HR. Take at least one day
off each week to avoid overtraining. Generally it's not the volume of
your training which causes overtraining, but the intensity. Many folks
just train at a medium intensity level 2-3 (80% of max HR). This will
do two things. First lead to overtraining if you do it on daily basis
and add intensity workouts. Secondly it will become your race pace.
For high end ntervals wear the monitor. If your HR doesn't respond and
it's sluggish, your tired or overtrained. Take several days off and go
back to level 1 workouts. Buy Torbjorn Karlsen Norwegian training
approach manual. Hope this helps.