Heart Rate Training

[old] joedoh · Post by **[old] joedoh** » February 9th, 2005, 5:59 am

I am 41 years old, weight 93kgs and have been ergoing for about 2 years and been using rowing with other training activities - weights, running and mountaining biking. However, I've got the bug and just started a 16 weeks C2 training regime and get on the ergo 3/4 times per week along with biking at weekends. I did my initial 2000m Test to kick of the programme in 7:10.4 and want to get under 7 minutes for 2000m by the end. The construct for my UT1 and UT2 training sessions etc requires me to row at 1:59 and 24 spm at 80% MHR and 2:04 and 20 spm and 70% of my MHR respectively. However, when I do the sessions my HR always goes above the range; for example, yesterday I was doing 3x14'UT1 (80% MHR @ 1:59 and 24 SPM) I did 3580m @ 1:57.3/24spm for the first cut but my MHR was 90%; 3552m @1:58.8/24 for the second, but my MHR was 95%; and for the third cut I did 3534 @ 1:58.8/25, but my MRH went to 97%. Finished well and enjoyed the session, but am looking for advice on whether I should row to my HR or keep the rate/spm gong as per the programme - and thoughts advice or suggestions?

[old] blue87 · Post by **[old] blue87** » February 9th, 2005, 7:09 am

It depends on how you feel. If the training is really hard then maybe u should st urself lower goals. If your heart rate is higher, yet you are finding the training comfortable, then stick with what you are doing. You can find your MHR by doing 220 - age. and find the percentage from that. Martin

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » February 9th, 2005, 8:08 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(joedoh @ Feb 9 2005, 09:59 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The construct for my UT1 and UT2 training sessions etc requires me to row at 1:59 and 24 spm at 80% MHR and 2:04 and 20 spm and 70% of my MHR respectively. However, when I do the sessions my HR always goes above the range; for example, yesterday I was doing 3x14'UT1 (80% MHR @ 1:59 and 24 SPM) I did 3580m @ 1:57.3/24spm for the first cut but my MHR was 90%; 3552m @1:58.8/24 for the second, but my MHR was 95%; and for the third cut I did 3534 @ 1:58.8/25, but my MRH went to 97%. Finished well and enjoyed the session, but am looking for advice on whether I should row to my HR or keep the rate/spm gong as per the programme - and thoughts advice or suggestions? </td></tr></table> Joe, as has been mentioned on another thread here about the Interactive, things like UT1 are not necessarily a single time/spm/hr. Your UT1 pace is a range that starts when you exceed (go faster than) your UT2 pace of 2:04 and ends at 1:59. Likewise, once you exceed 1:59 the workout would become an AT woirkout. And your UT2 pace would be anything 2:04 and slower, and it is perfectly acceptable to go slower than 2:04 while doing your UT2. Once you went faster than 1:59 you were doing AT work, and when your heartrate got above 85% you went beyond into TR. Slow down there man. Rick

[old] billy.bags · Post by **[old] billy.bags** » February 10th, 2005, 3:37 pm

Pushing 58. I choose a range of (low) 110 (high) 185 bpm. I did a pb of 20:03 for 5k (df130) averaging a bpm of around 145. (I maxed at 180bpm.) What I find encouraging is that my recovery time is reducing but I haven't been able, yet, to measure the time between when I finish and when I reach my low rate of 110bpm. I know it's shorter but all this button pushing on my Polar ........ What i find really discouraging is that each time I get to a decent level of fitness, I'm dragged away on holiday for a few days and have to start again!! Life's a dog really

[old] cjacobs · Post by **[old] cjacobs** » February 20th, 2005, 12:21 am

I'm new to the whole heart rate monitoring thing myself. I've rowed recreationally for a number of years, and finally bought my own erg (with the Heart rate monitor). I used the 220 minus age to come up wth my theoretical maximum heart rate of 181... but when I do aerobic trainig like a 10k piece, without feeling very stressed my heart rate sits pretty evenly at 90% of this... I can easily push it above this MHR doing a 2k piece, or interval trainig (take the easily with a grain of salt... I should have said regularly... nothing easy abut interval training!). You guys seem to know what you're talking about here, so does anyone know how I can figure out my real personal MHR?

[old] starboardrigged1seat · Post by **[old] starboardrigged1seat** » February 20th, 2005, 1:43 am

Someone else posted a link to this website on another thread, and it's an excellent source. <a href='http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~socs285/pd ... aining.pdf' target='_blank'>http://www-users.york.ac.uk/~socs285/pd ... pdf</a> Cassieopia, maybe? Another way of find your max heart rate, albiet more painful, is to pull 4 500m pieces all-out, with decreasing rest...2 minutes between the first 2, then 1 minute, then 30 seconds. Do this with a heart rate monitor on, and the highest heart rate that you hit is your max.

[old] Ralph Earle · Post by **[old] Ralph Earle** » February 20th, 2005, 2:38 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(joedoh @ Feb 9 2005, 09:59 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><snip> The construct for my UT1 and UT2 training sessions etc requires me to row at 1:59 and 24 spm at 80% MHR and 2:04 and 20 spm and 70% of my MHR respectively. However, when I do the sessions my HR always goes above the range; for example, yesterday I was doing 3x14'UT1 (80% MHR @ 1:59 and 24 SPM) I did 3580m @ 1:57.3/24spm for the first cut but my MHR was 90%; 3552m @1:58.8/24 for the second, but my MHR was 95%; and for the third cut I did 3534 @ 1:58.8/25, but my MRH went to 97%. <snip> </td></tr></table> There is an error in the C2 manual: the percentages should be % of Heart Rate Reserve (HRR), not of Maximum Heart Rate (MHR). HRR = MHR minus RHR. (RHR = Resting Heart Rate = average HR when you wake up each morning.) [See <a href='http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s ... hl=o'neill' target='_blank'>http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s ... o'neill</a>] If, say, your MHR = 180bpm and your rest HR = 60 bpm, then HRR = 120 and 80% HRR = 60 + .80*120 = 156. @1:59 will be a lot easier at 156bpm than at 80% of 180 = 144bpm. If you recalculate the C2 manual's percentages in terms of your HRR, you'll probably find that you are just about where you should be.

[old] RacerX · Post by **[old] RacerX** » February 20th, 2005, 8:24 am

Just a quick comment on "220 - Age". Unless you do actual heart rate testing, I believe this number could be wrong for you. It is a rough estimate based on one persons (forget who this early in the morning) experience. His experience was considerable, so the formula does a pretty good job of estimating the middle of the population bell curve. But you could easily fall outside of the fat middle of that curve. Which of course would render all of the HR targets somewhat incorrect. I am going to start HR training and do a Metabolic test in the next couple of weeks, so I'll post a comparison of my tested numbers against the formule numbers. At least this is my understanding of the issue. Am I on track here? Aaron

[old] gisborne · Post by **[old] gisborne** » February 20th, 2005, 6:16 pm

When I came back to erging I started by using a heartrate monitor, doing 65-70% HRR steady state sessions. Before my HR training I had been rowing at a sub-2:00 pace but to stay within the appropriate HR range I was rowing 2:20+. I stuck with it and a couple months later...I was still rowing 2:20+. Despite losing 10 lbs I felt I hadn't improved at all, so I gave up on HR training. My model D feels much harder to row at the same drag rating as the model C's in the gym too. Frustrating.

[old] BigBuck · Post by **[old] BigBuck** » February 20th, 2005, 6:47 pm

I've been using the Concept for just over 2 years and following some of the programs in the training guide. At the moment I'm following the 110k a week prgram and intend to do a marathon in April. It's really "fun". In my opinion all the stuff about heart rates should not be taken too literally. Everyone is different. I'm 39 (40 next month) which makes my theoretical max 220- 39 = 181, but my HR regularly goes above that when training hard on short interval sessions. I seem to remember reading another thread on this forum a while back which mentioned that the guy who "invented" the 220- x formula admitted it was only a guideline he never intended to be taken so exactly. THerefore, all the values which are derived from the max HR seem to me to need to be taken with a pinch of salt. I still think that knowing what your HR is is really valuable and I always wear a monitor when on the Concept, but I find the value is in the relative comparison to my other training sessions, rather than absolute comparison to the standards.

[old] Byron Drachman · Post by **[old] Byron Drachman** » February 20th, 2005, 9:37 pm

Yes, the 220 - age is grossly inaccurate for some people. For example, according to that formula my maximum heart rate should be 154. However, on the C2 it is 182. On a Stairmaster it's higher than that. From page 3.11 of the training manual at the UK C2 website: <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Determining your MHR and Anaerobic Threshold You will need someone to record your work rate and heart rate through this test. Start the test by rowing at the split you recorded from the warm up. After every 90 seconds note the heart rate and increase the effort by 25 watts (see 500m Split Time to Watts Conversion in Appendix). Repeat this procedure until you reach exhaustion and record the maximum heart rate achieved. </td></tr></table> This has been discussed before, but in their tables and charts they use the symbol MHR but they explain, although not very clearly, that once you have determined your max heart rate and your resting heart rate (upon waking), you should use the HRR instead of MHR in the tables. For example, you are supposed to reinterpret 85% MHR as RHR+ .85*(MHR-RHR). Byron

[old] RacerX · Post by **[old] RacerX** » February 24th, 2005, 1:36 pm

I'm confused, and probably missing something. Let's compare two 45 year-old men. We both have a theoretical max heart rate of 220 - 45 = 175. My resting pulse is 48, and let's say the other guy's is 65. So my HRR is 127 and his is 110. That means that according to the C2 formula, his anaerobic threshold top training rate is actually higher than mine? 127 X .85 + 48 = 155.9 versus his 158.5. I can't quite understand this, since one of my goals is to raise my AT. The only thing I can think of is that a lower resting HR implies a higher max HR. Aaron

[old] SimonB · Post by **[old] SimonB** » February 24th, 2005, 2:34 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(RacerX @ Feb 24 2005, 12:36 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'm confused, and probably missing something. Let's compare two 45 year-old men. We both have a theoretical max heart rate of 220 - 45 = 175. My resting pulse is 48, and let's say the other guy's is 65. So my HRR is 127 and his is 110. That means that according to the C2 formula, his anaerobic threshold top training rate is actually higher than mine? 127 X .85 + 48 = 155.9 versus his 158.5. I can't quite understand this, since one of my goals is to raise my AT. The only thing I can think of is that a lower resting HR implies a higher max HR. Aaron </td></tr></table> I beleive it means that his HR is allowed to go to 158 where as yours is not. You should be able to pull the prescribed stroke rate / pace whilst staying within the HR range. In this sense your range is more restrivtive (and "harder" to achive) than his given the same stroke rage / pace.

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » February 24th, 2005, 2:52 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(RacerX @ Feb 24 2005, 05:36 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'm confused, and probably missing something. Let's compare two 45 year-old men. We both have a theoretical max heart rate of 220 - 45 = 175. My resting pulse is 48, and let's say the other guy's is 65. So my HRR is 127 and his is 110. That means that according to the C2 formula, his anaerobic threshold top training rate is actually higher than mine? 127 X .85 + 48 = 155.9 versus his 158.5. I can't quite understand this, since one of my goals is to raise my AT. The only thing I can think of is that a lower resting HR implies a higher max HR. Aaron </td></tr></table> Perhaps it would be better to think of it this way: You are able to go more than 107 beats per minute above your resting rate before surpassing your anaerobic threshold (155.9 - 48 = 107.9) while that other guy is topping out after going less than 94 beats above his (158.5 - 65 = 93.5). Having a higher raw number for an AT is not always going to be a better thing. Rick

[old] rjbhutton · Post by **[old] rjbhutton** » February 28th, 2005, 9:42 am

I am a former triathlete, just taken up erging due to a foot injury. Triathletes swear by heart rate training. I am responding to a couple of posts here. 1) HR baed training must be followed in order to have benefit... "cheating" on your HR is only cheating on yourself... don't go too hard or too easy.. the progression of training with your HR is intended to have long term effects. Even if it feels "too easy" stick with it and follow the program, 2) having said that, people seem to be having a lot of trouble with the Max HR according to the 220-age... the HR training only works well if you have a good handle on your max HR. I have not found 220-age to be helpful, as many others here have also found... my theoretical max was 190, but on a MHR stress test, I pushed 206... so I adjuested my HR zones accordingly, the ansmwer is to do a MHR stress test BUT, 3) don't do it on your own! You are suppsed to work out to exhaustion... it can be dangerous. At least have someone there to help you (and encourage you to push yourself), I guess if I was a doctor (which I am not) I would advise that you not do it unless you are with a professional (don't do this at home, kids!!). My advice would be to find a local sports/exercise physiology program at a local uni and ask them if they need people for studies etc. Students always need test subjects to learn how to do the stress test... they may let you have a free stress test, done by people who know what they are doing. Or, you may be able to do one for a small fee. Knowing your MHR is critical for judging your HR training. 4) everyone is different... your HR ranges may need to be adjusted a little by perceived effort... don't be afraid to experiment, 5) I have never used the Residual Heart Rate method, (ie MHR minus resting HR), so I'm not sure about how that impacts your ranges etc. Hope that helps!