second Follow-up: heart rate monitor musings

Something that really bugged me before and since the marathon was whether I should wear or should have worn my heart rate monitor (HRM) during the race. In race pace runs leading up to the race, including the 30-km effort, I was finding that race pace corresponded to a heart rate of about 150-153, or 81-83% of heart rate max. So I knew that given an appropriate settling-in period of one or two km, the heart rate monitor would give me accurate feedback as to what pace I was at. Had I worn it and followed its beacon, there is a fair chance I would have felt a lot better at 37 km and been able to run home at 4:07/km or better and recorded a minute or so better time. Of course, there is always the possibility that I would have felt just as bad and slowed just as much and thus finished a minute or more worse than what I did.

I really don't know the answer to what might have happened had I worn it. What I do know is that I followed the heart rate training from the Hadd article, and Hadd says he doesn't agree with using a HRM in the race. He doesn't say why, but as a devotee, I felt obliged to follow the gospel according to Hadd as far as possible.

So let's speculate as to why Hadd doesn't support wearing it in a race or why it might be a bad idea to wear one. At first I thought, well, it is an ethical thing. It is a form of artifical assistance (and I think this might be Hadd's objection). Well, that is a thought. But it would have to be a purist approach because elite women marathoners use pace runners and many marathons (e.g., Gold Coast) have pace runners for various target times. Nobody seems to diminish the achievements of runners who have benefited from such pacers.

Another reason I thought of is the potential for a negative mental effect from having the HRM on. It would be fine up to 30 km I expect, when there would be just the most modest amount of cardiac drift (rise of heart rate for the same pace). But the real problem might hit after 35 km. There you are, trying to raise yourself above the pain and flagging energy to maintain pace. You can feel the pace slipping, you feel searing pain in your legs, you are breathing as hard as you do in a 5k race, lungs working at full capacity, lactate building and building in your legs, and then you look down at the HRM and what do you see? )...90%? 95%? 100% What are you going to do? Keep gritting your teeth and fighting your body to get to that line in the shortest possible time? Or do you take this as a danger sign that bad things are about to happen, and then give yourself permission to back off and coast home. It's OK, you tell yourself, finishing is the important thing. What is a few minutes in the scheme of things?

So, I'm suggesting that the heart rate data could be counter-productive in those final stages as it could make you unnecessarily submit to the cries of your pathetic muscles and lungs to slow down. But these rebellious organs are not really in danger, they are just being wimpy, trying to protect themselves before any real danger arises. This is the one way that a HRM differs from a GPS or pace runner; the GPS and pace runner do not f**k with your head! Any slow down is for real physiological reasons only.

Well, I'm not going to try and resolve these varying views. I don't have any regrets about not wearing the HRM. Maybe I am a bit of a purist and derive some satisfaction at having run without any pacing assistance (although wearing a watch and writing splits on you arm, as I did, is a kind of pacing assistance!). Maybe I am also sufficiently swayed by the potential for the HRM to be a liability late in the race. But it still gnaws away at me: could I run faster if I use the heart rate monitor to get the pacing right? Something to stew over until the next marathon. But Hadd will be still saying it is a no-no...