There have been a numerous published articles and podcasts where authors, interviewers, and guests have expounded upon their opinions as it relates to the use of “technology” for training guidance (a couple of the many examples can be found here and here). Specifically, it is argued, that such use can often be a negative influence on an athlete’s training progression and that the use of devices and calculations “get in the way” of “real” training. Often, these opinion-holders recommend the exclusive use of “perceived exertion” to gauge effort in training sessions. Often, these opinion-holders have degrees in Sports Physiology and either are doing or have done research in the field. Often, these opinion-holders have never successfully coached, trained, or even have (or had) relationships with Olympic and International level athletes. Often, I just shake my head in disbelief and disappointment at how “pseudo” the pseudo-science of Sports Physiology and endurance training seems to be progressing.
This sort of thing is the equivalent in the hard sciences of not just ignoring a an entire channel of relevant data but not even bothering to measure it- the sort of thing that will also make your work irrelevant if not embarrassing if you tried to present it to colleagues in the field (not so, apparently, for the pseudo-science of Sports Physiology where many in the field are derisive toward the use of heart rate monitors and gps watches and depend on the highly flawed concept of (and use of) rating of perceived exertion (RPE)). As an example, if I were to be measuring the influence of temperature on some phenomenon where temperature is known to hold relevance (like the reaction rate of most chemical reactions) and presented data on the “perceived” temperature when I could easily measure the temperature in the experiment, my hard science colleagues would find it laughable. Same goes here in understanding and directing endurance training for the measurement of things like heart rate, pace (or graded pace), and blood lactate. Yet there is increasing derision of the use of such measures among certain segments of the “profession”. Of course the measured temperature for a chemical reaction rate in the above example is much more accurately defined than the relationship of instantaneous heart rate of an exercising individual to training work load but ignoring the heart rate data channel altogether (as many profess one should do) is just throwing away important data- data that many of the most successful elite endurance athletes (and their coaches) depend on for training plan structure, monitoring, and adjustment.
I call Sports Physiology a pseudo science because, just like medical science and nutrition science, the researchers in the field are left almost entirely disabled by the fact that they are unable to conduct the experiments that would allow for any sort of reliable insight into a concept let alone develop a firm base for causality (something that requires a detailed understanding of the associated mechanism(s) that are in play). Given the high variability of the response of the human body to training stimuli, the difficulty in measuring anything linked to a mechanistic process that would describe training progression, and that there exist significant ethical issues associated with experiments that likely would provide the beginning bits of causality (i.e. taking subjects (aka “specimens” in the hard science world) to failure), all of these conspire to make any attempts to discern even major, large effect, differences in efficacy of training programs or processes essentially impossible.
Perhaps there will be experimental breakthroughs in Sports Physiology by utilizing the increasing understanding of genes and gene expression that may lead to better guidance on endurance sport training for individuals, but that sort of thing is a ways off in my opinion.
Where does this leave us? Well, there is one approach that at least has a basis in sound correlation between program/process and results- the group analysis of the years of documented training of elite performers such as described in numerous studies published by Stephen Seilier and his colleagues (among others). By analyzing the data in training logs and the training progressions employed by these high-performing endurance athletes one can develop a sense of what works and what does not work as it is related to success in a given endurance sport. These studies lead to some general principles and guiding precepts that can be adopted by individuals for development of their training programs.
Unfortunately, some in the field derisively call these general principles and guiding precepts “dogma” and project an attitude of just brushing away the only defensible source for training program guidance. In it’s place they provide “true” dogma- dogma in the religious sense, i.e. entirely unsupportable assertions apparently fabricated out of some sort of other-worldly “vision” they seem to have experienced. As a trained scientist I find this to be, on the surface, laughable, but also, in a deeper way, very much insulting and, more importantly, troubling for the field. It has been damaging enough that the Journals in the Sports Physiology (and Medical “Science” and Nutrition “Science” fields) produce reams and reams of unsupportable “conclusive” findings to now see “religious” arguments being made. It is a sad state of affairs. It is a state of “Shallow Thinking, Weak Thinking”, and we should expect much more from those actively engaged in the research in this field.
As an example of some of these training principles derived from actual experience with elite athletes, here is an article that analyzes an elite athlete’s entire competitive career. This athlete just happens to be the most successful winter endurance athlete of all time- and she has steadfastly and rigorously used heart rate training throughout her career.
Ok, so back to the use of “technology” in training. For runners, cross country skiers, and other endurance athletes, the heart rate monitor has been a central piece of “technology” that has been used to monitor and enable structured training. From the first clunky devices (Team Bumble Bee had a Polar Tunturi Pulser model- you had to lift your shirt to see the display on your chest) to the first wireless model (the Polar Sport Tester 3000 (Team Bumble Bee upgraded to this model in about 1984)), to the current models of heart rate monitors from many manufacturers, the heart rate monitor has become a common tool used by professional and amateur athletes alike. The use of a heart rate monitor in conjunction with measured physiologic “thresholds” has allowed athletes and coaches to accurately measure and structure training to allow for reliable training progression toward important goals. The key word here is “tool”- a device or implement used to carry out a particular function. The function of the heart rate monitor and the associated watch is to allow for real-time monitoring of heart rate, pace, and time as it relates to the training session structure and goals. It is not a task master or an evaluator of training or performance. The athlete (or athlete and coach for those fortunate enough to have a coach) is the task master and the one who evaluates the efficacy of any training regimen.
Given the large (and to some extent undefined) number physiologic variables that can play a role in how a training session goes, data channels other than heart rate are essential to understanding the results of the work undertaken. These include breathing rate, muscle comfort, restedness, among others. Taking account of all of the available data is critical to ensuring that one’s training is progressing as planned. The relationship between these many other variables and heart rate can be established by the individual athlete with good accuracy and this combined with use of one’s lactate threshold heart rate value gives an athlete a powerful toolbox to monitor, structure, and adjust training. How can this be “bad”?
Well, from some accounts you might think that the modern heart rate monitor/timing device is an evil actor that is preventing you from getting the most out of your training. Many of the issues that are brought up as it concerns heart rate-based training are the direct result of weak thinking on the part of the user. The concept that the use of a watch or heart rate monitor could be the origin of a bad workout is laughable. Rather it is clear that the issue with those who allow a specific pace or a specific heart rate to drive their workouts is a mental one not a “technology” one. With such weak thinking not only will the training be difficult (and likely not successful) but the mental fortitude required for effective racing will be highly compromised. No wonder there are so many reports of failed races by competitors who choose to use heart rate as a single controlling parameter rather than as a data channel to be taken together with a number of other factors (both measured and perceived) to regulate pace and determine in-race strategies.
So take those recommendations from so-called experts to “ditch the watch” with a fair share of doubt and determine for yourself exactly what it is that might be limiting your progress. I think that if you think hard about this you will find that the heart rate monitor or GPS watch or whatever other technology you are using to help with your training is not the culprit. The culprit is you and your ability to absorb and factor all the data channels available to you into an effective training and racing program. Don’t blame the technology it is simply a tool and not a “bad actor.” If you can’t out-think your watch you certainly are not going to have the mental fortitude to chip away at that wall between you and your goals.
A good review article (specific to ultra marathon training and racing) of the elements involved with heart rate training and some suggestions on how to integrate heart rate monitoring into a training program can be found here.