Heart rate confusion!

[michael986]

I've just been given a heart rate monitor (Polar - no idea of the model) but have downloaded the app and it seems to work OK. However, not ever having used one before, I'm now a bit confused about what HR I should be training at.

I'm doing the BPP and picked a pace of 2:20 for my 'slow and steady' pieces, as it seemed about right for the 'able to hold a conversation' test (this was before I got the HR monitor). However, when connected to the HR monitor, it showed me creeping above the 70% HR (115, based on an estimated max of 164) about 1/2 way through the distance, so I slowed down a little to keep it under 115.

Once I was done, I looked for a bit more info on UT2 and found this page, which several people have linked to - https://www.freespiritsrowing.com/forum ... calculator

But I'm now very confused - the calculator is telling me that my UT2 range (which it states is 55 to 70% of MHR) is 115 to 131. But basic maths tells me this should be 90 to 115, which is the range that the Polar app is suggesting.

So what HR range should I be training at for UT2 - the one suggested by the calculator (how is it getting it's figures?), or the one suggested by Polar (and simple maths)?

[Sakly]

As usual - it depends.
How many sessions of any sports activities are you doing per week? If you are well below several hours training load per week (some say around 5-6h and I would mostly agree, if we are not only taking about rowing), you can go nuts as you like and will benefit from it.
If you have bigger training loads and need more recovery, the idea for the long slow is to not burn you out besides your hard sessions, so they need less intensity.

Another thing: calculated max HR cannot be a good reference. You could be far off at 185 or elsewhere, so the calculated bands are probably not correct anyway.
If you really want to work with HR bands, you need to examine your HR max on the rower e. g. by doing some intervals or a 5k all out.

[Pendolino]

I know nothing about the bands, or if they're correct, but I can see why it's giving you those numbers after having a quick play around...

It's giving you the percentage of the difference between resting heart rate and max heart rate, not the percentage of your max HR.

For example, for 55%, if you tell it you have a resting HR of 60 bpm, and a max HR of 160 bpm, it will subtract 60 from 160, giving 100. It will then take 55% of that difference, and add it back to your resting HR of 60, giving 115 bpm. This is obviously quite different to 55% of your max HR, which in this example would be 88.

As I say, I've no idea which is correct, but that's why it's spitting out those numbers!

[Dangerscouse]

Imo, there's too much relevance applied to specific HR zones. The body is very robust and doesn't work on such fine margins.

If I was you, the first thing I'd do is find your actual max HR, as it sounds like you're guessing or using 220 - age, but I might be wrong.

I regularly vary my UT2 paces, based on how I feel on that day or training requirements. Personally, I'd never use anything less than 65% as a target, and it's usually 70% as a minimum, but I know some very strong rowers (sub 6) who use 80% as their target.

It's worth remembering that the main benefit of doing your UT2 at a notably low HR zone is to allow you to do your higher intensity sessions at a proper intensity, so if you're a beginner you won't be really maximising your higher intensities, so you can afford to drift to a higher HR zone in the UT2. Keep using the conversation test and use a pace that you enjoy rather than complicating matters. I'd fully expect that to be more beneficial.

[michael986]

As I say, I've no idea which is correct, but that's why it's spitting out those numbers!

Yes, that looks like what is happening.

So I suppose the question is :-
Is UT2 55 to 70 % of your maximum HR (as the Polar app would suggest)
Is UT2 55 to 70% of the difference between resting and max HR, plus resting HR (as the calculator would suggest)

[Sakly]

As I say, I've no idea which is correct, but that's why it's spitting out those numbers!

Yes, that looks like what is happening.

So I suppose the question is :-
Is UT2 55 to 70 % of your maximum HR (as the Polar app would suggest)
Is UT2 55 to 70% of the difference between resting and max HR, plus resting HR (as the calculator would suggest)

Potentially not the first nor the other. "exact" thresholds you will only get by lactate measurements.
Because of this: don't overthink it and go for any intensity you can recover from.

[MPx]

First I agree with above that if you're going to use HR bands for anything then you need to know what they are and that requires a test to see your MaxHR. All of the formulae are from averages of some not necessarily random population that the specific study selected (I believe the 220-age thing was famously a group of sick people in Scotland). Even within these sets, individuals would have been different. We all know individuals who don't fit whatever formulae. My max would calc at 154....but I can get to 170 under test conditions - that gives very different ranges.

While many (probably most) use simple % of max to define ranges, I use the second method RHR+(x%MHR-RHR). Reason being the numbers are higher and so I can go quicker. As I only do ~50k/week I'm not in danger of burning out, but I can still only manage 2 hard sessions a week (no HR restriction but typically 4k or less at intensity on a hard day) so the HR numbers give me some context for doing the other longer sessions.

As I'm guessing you're relatively new to the sport I'd suggest simply do your sessions on pace (or watts, or whatever you find motivating) and just record the HR numbers to see what happens. Once you've been doing that for a few months, you'll not only get used to what your body does under the various stresses that you impose, but also you should gradually see a lower HR for a given pace/watts....and over the long term a lower RHR if you choose to measure it.

[iain]

IMHO, here is no "exact" unless you define the zones by another subjective measure! There is a maximum threshold above which oxygen debt continues to increase (ie you are at VO2 max), but various studies have failed to agree that there is any other fundamental threshold as breathing, lactate and HR plateau at different levels and different athletes have different lactate concentrations at the inflection points usually used and the test protocol effects these for the same athlete.

I have seen the top of UT2 defined as the HR which can be maintained without drifting for an hour. At indoor temperatures I suspect that this requires fluid intake and so is impractical for rowing. Lactate values are normally used, but this ignores the differences between the base line and maximal levels between individuals. Lactate is also just a proxy as it is a useful food source itself. Generally I think this is a proxy for acidity as this varies around the body (as the driver of aerobic energy it too is beneficial, but only across the mitochondrial membrane) and does not vary that much due to buffering in both blood and tissues. However acidity is not primarily from lactic acid, but from carbon dioxide the product of clearing oxygen debt not a cause of it! So I agree with DangerScouse on this one, the benefits of lab measures are that they quantify changes for an individual rather than setting a definitive training zone.

As rto whether to use the HRR or HRmax versions, the latter has the benefit of simplicity, but the former makes more sense to me as it ignores the more variable element that cannot be used. In unfit individuals 70% HRmax is much closer to their resting heart rate and so allows little cardiac work to achieve, I can't see that this is optimum for training, although it may be suggested to reduce the risks from exercise for the sedentary. if a conservative value is wanted, then you can stick to 70% HRR rather than 75-80% suggested by some other sources, so it need not always yield the higher number (eg comparing with 80% of HRmax for someone with HRmax of 200 and RHR of 40, the RHR formula at 70% is 152, while 80% HRMax is 160).

[nick rockliff]

If you are using the BPP, don't bother using HR. Just go with what Pete advises, he never used HR.

[gvcormac]

The main benefit if HR is to determine if your fitness is increasing, or if you're overtraining.

Max HR, % Max HR, % HRR reserve are completely arbitrary.

But if you know your HR (and HR drift over time) for a given pace, you can expect it to go down if you are improving, and up if you are fatigued, dehydrated, overtrained. There will be some fluctuation.

I suggest you record your HR for a while without focusing on it as a target. Indeed never focus on it as a target, just a measure of how you're doing.

You want two kinds of training: long at a sustainable pace; intervals at above sustainable pace. Everthing else is just tinkering, with little quantitative evidence of what's most efficient.

[michael986]

Just go with what Pete advises, he never used HR.

That's one of the issues - Pete doesn't really give much help in the way of pacing. The general consensus seems to be that for longer rows you should either 'be able to hold a conversation', or train in UT2. Not having a HR monitor, I went with the first and 2:20 pace seemed to fit the bill, but now having used an HR monitor I don't know whether that maybe a little fast. Hence me trying to find out the actual definition of UT2.

And just as a bit of background, I'm not a beginner on the C2 (I've rowed on and off for 20 years or so) but I am a beginner to taking it a bit more seriously and trying to row to a structured plan, rather than just jumping on and trying to set a SB every now and again!

[Dangerscouse]

And just as a bit of background, I'm not a beginner on the C2 (I've rowed on and off for 20 years or so) but I am a beginner to taking it a bit more seriously and trying to row to a structured plan, rather than just jumping on and trying to set a SB every now and again!

If you're not a newbie, I'd say stick to your 'conversation' pace, as any structure will be better than none at all. If this feels too easy over a few weeks, nudge it down a bit, but always use recovery as your barometer.

[jamesg]

However, not ever having used one before, I'm now a bit confused about what HR I should be training at.

No worry, any heart rate will do. However if a beginner, to get it up you need to learn how rowing is done. It can be very hard work, so is best done in short pieces at low rates to start with:

https://insideindoor.com/how-to/how-to-indoor-row/
https://insideindoor.com/training/training-plans/

[michael986]

No worry, any heart rate will do. However if a beginner, to get it up you need to learn how rowing is done.

You possibly missed my post just a couple up - I'm new to the HR monitor, not to rowing

And whilst I'm appreciative of all the advice, I'm still none the wiser on what the definition of UT2 is.

There seems to be 2 definitions (detailed above) - but both can't be right.

So putting aside any advice on how I should be doing my training, can anyone advise what the official definition / calculation of 'UT2' is?

[Carl Watts]

People are mad not to use heartrate monitor these days.

Cannot believe the number of people that still do not use a HR monitor. Zwift is great you just go into "Watch" and you can click on any current rider you want to, probably half have no HR being recorded.

If you are serious about your training you get a decent HR strap, the only disadvantage is its another cost and something else to maintain.

With the tech improving all the time and now Bluetooth and ANT+ its a must have.

I only look at two things on the bike these days and that's average power and average HR for the ride.

With a decent bit of training now on the bike I can pretty much confirm you need to boost the power by 30% using the RowedBiker App going from the rower to the bike.

200W on the Erg is 260W on the Bike for me for the same heartrate.