Comparison of Heart Rate- and Race Pace-Based Training Prescriptions on Training Execution Accuracy in Recreational Distance Runners.

PURPOSE: While distance running training zones used to prescribe training through the heart rate (HR)-based approach are delimited by HRs associated ventilatory turn points, those in the race pace (RP)-based method are demarcated by percentages of competition average pace at a specific distance. However, no study has directly compared which method better ensures Training Execution Accuracy (TEA) to prescribed intensity zones. This study aimed to compare TEA, quantified as time spent in prescribed intensity zones, between HR- and RP-based training prescriptions during low-intensity continuous (LICT) and high-intensity interval training (HIIT) in distance runners.

METHODS

Using a randomized crossover design, 37 runners (38.9 [9.3] y) completed an incremental treadmill test to determine maximum oxygen uptake (V˙O2max: 53.7 [6.5] mL·kg-1·min-1), ventilatory turn points, maximal HR, and a 5-km track race to determine RP. Participants performed 2 individualized sessions with either HR- or RP-based prescriptions: a 45-minute LICT and a 5 × 800-m HIIT with 90-second rest.

RESULTS

The HR-based training prescription yielded greater TEA (85% [23%] of session time, P = .002) than RP-based method (69% [21%]) during LICT. Similarly, for the HIIT, TEA was higher through HR- (41% [19%], P < .001) than RP-based prescription (27% [14%]).

CONCLUSION

The HR-based approach led to significantly greater time spent within the prescribed intensity zones than the RP-based approach during both LICT and HIIT sessions in endurance runners. TEA during HIIT was low for both prescription methods, highlighting the difficulty of maintaining target intensity at high intensities.