Heart rate limiting

[Autoland]

Up until now, I always aim to maintain a constant pace during ALL my rowing workouts except at the very end where I like to turn it up a notch or two, and it seems as if my heart rate never plateaus during the steady state.

I'd like to do some experimentation to see if I can keep the same distance (10k) and max heart rate (140 or 150) but improve my times over the course of a few weeks or even months.

Is there a favored approach to maintaining max heart rate during a steady state workout?

Is it simply a matter of continuous effort adjustment? Does one typically adjust the stroke rate, stroke power or both?

[Dangerscouse]

It's not an exact science as HR is affected by so many variables, but I'd suggest lowering the pace is the best way of doing it, albeit other variables eg heat, dehydration, stress etc will all affect any comparability of it.

Having said that, personally I can find increasing the stroke rate slightly can help lower my HR too, but I'm not sure if this is unusual or not.

[Joebasscat]

It's not an exact science as HR is affected by so many variables, but I'd suggest lowering the pace is the best way of doing it, albeit other variables eg heat, dehydration, stress etc will all affect any comparability of it.

Having said that, personally I can find increasing the stroke rate slightly can help lower my HR too, but I'm not sure if this is unusual or not.

This has been my experience as well.

[btlifter]

thirded!

[Autoland]

Thank you.

I'm wondering what the best course is for maintaining HR during a single workout.

Using a 10k as an example and hoping to keep HR under 140, I'd probably start out at about a 2:15 pace given my history.

My assumption was that, if I see my HR moving above 140, lowering my pace would be absolutely necessary to bring it back down.

What I don't know is the optimal way of doing that. Reduce stroke rate, force per stroke or a little of both.

[MPx]

Interesting because its something we all do all the time, and I don't know the answer.

You can answer for yourself of course just as I can - you talk about doing your 10k at 2:15 - fine. If you wanted to do it at 2:14 or 2:16 what would you do? Lighten/strengthen the stroke or alter the rate or both? I think the conventional wisdom is that you should practice a good strong stroke which you always use and adjust your pace by changing the rate. Sounds like a good thing to do...I don't do that.

Just a slight caution from me. I significantly increased my SS work 3 years ago and for the first year I did what you suggest and started out at a pace and slowed down as required to keep my HR under whatever cap. Over the year I found that trained me to erg slower and to need to slow down even on a TT. So I've generally stopped pandering to HR caps in that way. I've enough experience to know that I should be able to do (eg) my 8k SS session at a neg split from 2:08 >2:01 pace and stay below my UT1 cap. Sometimes I do flat paced pieces and sometimes pos but all are paced with the expectation of keeping HR in the required band and then I forget about HR 'til the after analysis. Mostly it works....but sometimes as Stu says other factors means I sometimes break the cap - giving blood the most dramatic, but heat, tiredness, time of day, etc can have an effect. But I don't slow down. Indeed I do that 8k session at r20 throughout so totally against best practice....oh dear! Anyway, my suggestion is that you find a flat or neg pace that you can get through the session without breaking the cap or needing to slow down. Over time you should be able to increase that pace.

[Tsnor]

Alternative approach. Instead of "...Using a 10k as an example and hoping to keep HR under 140, I'd probably start out at about a 2:15 pace given my history..."

Do a 10K piece at 2:45 split. Given you do an 8 min 2K this should be a doable pace. See if you can do the 10K at 2:45 and never go above 70% of your max HR.

If your HR still climbs throughput the piece, try a 2:50 split next time you do a 10K.

If you HR plateaus nicely after about 15 minutes and stays there for the rest of the piece then try a slight harder split next time you do a 10K. 2:42. 2:40. You are looking to find the point where your HR stops being flat for 10K and starts rising. If it took you a month of walking the split lower and lower to find it that's OK. All of those sessions have value.

Eventually you will find the fastest split that lets you stay at UT2 for your steady state with a flat HR. Now back that off a bit. You want near that fastest, not the absolute fastest. Give yourself some room so you don't need to drop pace 1/2 way through a 40 minute piece.

Over time, if you have the wall clock time, row longer -- keep the same pace and increase distance. If you do not have the wall clock time you can creep up the split as long as you stay at the plateau HR. Longer is better. There are adaptations you get from longer pieces you can't get from shorter ones.

You are building aerobic base, and unfortunately for most people this builds slowly over time. (unlike VO2 max workouts that show solid results in 4-6 weeks). In 6 to 18 months you'll see substantial changes. Younger people react faster.

Good Luck.

Note: As far as I can tell from what I've read there is ZERO value in pushing to the very upper edge of UT2. The long slow steady state value is measured in hours spent rowing, not in 2:13 vs 2:23 splits.

Note2: If you are working out 2-3 hours/week then don't worry about staying slow enough to be in UT2. Any strong workout will help you. If you are working out a lot (5+ hours/week) then capping your UT2 work is known to be important.

[aussie nick]

It's not an exact science as HR is affected by so many variables, but I'd suggest lowering the pace is the best way of doing it, albeit other variables eg heat, dehydration, stress etc will all affect any comparability of it.

Having said that, personally I can find increasing the stroke rate slightly can help lower my HR too, but I'm not sure if this is unusual or not.

hmmm....

increasing the stroke rate but reducing the power to stay at the same speed?

or do you mean increasing the stroke rate....which all other things remaining equal will also increase the speed? and which would make a reduction in heart rate counterintuitive?

[jamesg]

1. Is there a favored approach to maintaining max heart rate during a steady state workout?

2. Is it simply a matter of continuous effort adjustment? Does one typically adjust the stroke rate, stroke power or both?

That (HR Drift) is one of the "problems" that appear when using HR. But there are no rules, so do what you like.

Training de facto is always intervals. Just not as long as a training plan might seem to suggest. What is 40 or 60 minutes UT2? 40 or 60 minutes done at ratings 18-20. That's the type of work done when season starts. Maybe even much longer. We paddled like that from Hammersmith Bridge to Parliament and back catching the tide both ways. Must have stopped to let coach talk at least six times. One of the necessary ways to learn to row.

1. On the erg the only method I ever found was similar: stop; go again; do something else when I'd had enough. My conclusion: HR drift is why intervals had to be invented.

2. Steady State on the erg means steady state, so carry on at same rating and same Wattage. That's what the display is for, Discipline. Once warm, harden up a little to see the effects, adjust technique or whatever. Erging is not like rowing, we can stop wherever we like.

[Dangerscouse]

hmmm....

increasing the stroke rate but reducing the power to stay at the same speed?

or do you mean increasing the stroke rate....which all other things remaining equal will also increase the speed? and which would make a reduction in heart rate counterintuitive?

Personally I'm not strict on always maintaining a strong stroke, as I know that I can do that on a different session and it won't materially affect me in the long term, so I'd initially maintain the pace and increase the stroke rate and then see if I needed to lower the pace too.

My instinct is for pace to increase with increased stroke rate, but I'm a big advocate of deconstructing your accepted norms at certain moments so training doesn't become too compartmentalised, and you can more easily address any changes that are required.

I'm a bit hesitant in suggesting increasing stroke rate as my natural comfort zone is at a higher stroke rates than most, so what works for me, might not for others

[Sandeman]

Erging is not like rowing, we can stop wherever we like.

I can't stop before the counter hits zero

[nick rockliff]

Thank you.

I'm wondering what the best course is for maintaining HR during a single workout.

Using a 10k as an example and hoping to keep HR under 140, I'd probably start out at about a 2:15 pace given my history.

My assumption was that, if I see my HR moving above 140, lowering my pace would be absolutely necessary to bring it back down.

What I don't know is the optimal way of doing that. Reduce stroke rate, force per stroke or a little of both.

Lower your pace not stroke rate.

[Tsnor]

Lower your pace not stroke rate.

This ^^^ or lower both.

Aside: There's a lot of discussion of keeping stroke power constant and adjusting stroke rate only to change pace. This seems very strange to me. Our coaches don't do this.

On the water the coach and coxswain have all sorts of different pressure calls. We use paddle pressure, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, full, and sprint. These pressure calls are independent of stroke rate. A long piece at 24-26 SPM might use 3/4 pressure. A short piece at the same rate might use full pressure.

When we do a "power 7" or "power 10" (7 or 10 strokes at elevated power, for example to pass someone) the stroke rate stays the same, power goes to full sprint, the drive gets faster and either the recovery slower or the stroke rate goes up. Usually better rowers sitting stroke will reduce the recovery time enough to hold the stroke rate, sometimes it creeps up a bit, but no where near in scale with the increased power.

For training on the erg I use all sorts of different pressure independently of stroke rate. Not sure why you wouldn't. Anyone who is pushing on a rate capped workload (e.g. max 20 spm workout) is doing more work per stroke then they would be doing if the workout wasn't SPM capped.

[Autoland]

Prior to starting this discussion, I was thinking that I would use stroke force to adjust pace while keeping stroke rate constant,

I will experiment using both approaches.

It's been interesting to read other's thoughts on this. Thanks to all who shared.

[btlifter]

Lower your pace not stroke rate.

This ^^^ or lower both.

Aside: There's a lot of discussion of keeping stroke power constant and adjusting stroke rate only to change pace. This seems very strange to me. Our coaches don't do this.

On the water the coach and coxswain have all sorts of different pressure calls. We use paddle pressure, 1/4, 1/2, 3/4, full, and sprint. These pressure calls are independent of stroke rate. A long piece at 24-26 SPM might use 3/4 pressure. A short piece at the same rate might use full pressure.

When we do a "power 7" or "power 10" (7 or 10 strokes at elevated power, for example to pass someone) the stroke rate stays the same, power goes to full sprint, the drive gets faster and either the recovery slower or the stroke rate goes up. Usually better rowers sitting stroke will reduce the recovery time enough to hold the stroke rate, sometimes it creeps up a bit, but no where near in scale with the increased power.

For training on the erg I use all sorts of different pressure independently of stroke rate. Not sure why you wouldn't. Anyone who is pushing on a rate capped workload (e.g. max 20 spm workout) is doing more work per stroke then they would be doing if the workout wasn't SPM capped.

I've not ever rowed on the water. But this certainly mirrors my approach on the erg.