Good Method for Measuring Max HR?

[RowRinseRepeat]

Zones based on lactate threshold.

I may be too influenced by Joe Friel, but I consider zones based on max HR a crude instrument from old days.

When you train in the upper zones, the target is often to train some aspect of your lactate handling. To get the correct effect of this training, you have to hit some rather narrow HR ranges relative to your lactate threshold.

So it seems logical to go the direct way and place the zones relatively to your lactate threshold instead of going the indirect way and place them relatively to your max. heart rate.

How does one measure lactate threshold?

[Allan Olesen]

In running, you can do a good approximation of your LTHR by running for 30 minutes at the fastest pace you can maintain constantly for those 30 minutes. Your LTHR will be your average HR for the last 20 minutes. Also, a lot of sport watches are able to measure your LTHR by analysing your heart rate variability during the run.

In rowing? Well, that is what amazes me. Nobody seem to be asking the question you just did. And nobody seem to advocate a method of measuring LTHR in rowing. So I don't know if anyone have developed such a method. But in lack of anything better, I would just do the same as in running: Row the fastest 30 minutes you can, and use your average heart rate from the last 20 minutes.

[gregsmith01748]

Zones based on lactate threshold.

I may be too influenced by Joe Friel, but I consider zones based on max HR a crude instrument from old days.

When you train in the upper zones, the target is often to train some aspect of your lactate handling. To get the correct effect of this training, you have to hit some rather narrow HR ranges relative to your lactate threshold.

So it seems logical to go the direct way and place the zones relatively to your lactate threshold instead of going the indirect way and place them relatively to your max. heart rate.

I agree with this.... I used the step test to find my lactate threshold. Another approach to that is a 20 minute test to find your FTP and then set training intensities off of that.

[mdpfirrman]

Zones based on lactate threshold.

I may be too influenced by Joe Friel, but I consider zones based on max HR a crude instrument from old days.

When you train in the upper zones, the target is often to train some aspect of your lactate handling. To get the correct effect of this training, you have to hit some rather narrow HR ranges relative to your lactate threshold.

So it seems logical to go the direct way and place the zones relatively to your lactate threshold instead of going the indirect way and place them relatively to your max. heart rate.

I agree with this.... I used the step test to find my lactate threshold. Another approach to that is a 20 minute test to find your FTP and then set training intensities off of that.

I've started just reading about this approach. If FTP the Watts you should be able to hypothetically hold for an hour? Or is it 45 minutes to an hour?

If so, for instance, in place of a step test, to use my numbers for example sake. My 5K time is a 19:27 (early this year), a PB. So that's a 220.2 Watts average. I found on Wattbike's website an article about FTP that said you could approximate your FTP using a 20 minute test, which is essentially what a 5K TT is for me (roughly). So according to the Wattbike's article on FTP, you would take your Watt Avg at 20 minutes and then multiply times .95, so giving me an FTP of 209.19. Seems way high to me. I would have guessed lower 190s for me for an hour. Perhaps 209 for 45 minutes though I've also not done a sub 40 10K yet, so I even would doubt that. I've not even done 15000m on an hour row (a 200 Watt average).

And what you're both saying is base your training off of FTP instead of HR, which I assume could be Watts training. I linked the article I found on it.

Just interesting to me. I've not been using HR for a while, I've been doing more Watts training until some of the Bluetooth devices prove more reliable.

https://support.wattbike.com/hc/en-gb/a ... ning-Zones

[Mark E]

Cyclists have overwhelmingly switched from heart rate-based training zones to watt-based schemes. But there are some reasons why I think watts are particularly useful for cycling. The biggest reason is that heart rate monitoring can get considerably complicated by cardiac drift, meaning the way that your beats per minute increases over longer efforts due to factors like accumulating body heat, loss of fluids, etc. Because cycling efforts are often very lengthy -- several hours is not unusual -- the cardiac drift effect gets amplified and makes heart rate-based training zones less accurate than watt-based zones. Also, bikes have gears, which means that you can usually constantly alter the loads and keep your watts in a narrow range. Mountain bikers are not as focused on watts as roadies because the extremely variable terrain makes it much less likely that you will be able to maintain something like "225 watts for 30 minutes" as a training zone -- it goes out the window when the hills get steep or the roots get slippery.

For rowing, cardiac drift and other external factors are still a weakness of heart rate training, but my feeling is that heart rate is still quite useful. For one thing, you can't measure watt output in a boat very easily, though it does work well on an erg. The other reason why I prefer heart rate for rowing is that it's mainly useful for making sure that you keep your effort level low enough on easy days and avoid pushing too hard. It's plenty accurate enough for that purpose. When it's time to go into the high output zones I don't think it's worth worrying too much about whether you're at, say, 275 watts or 285 watts. Or 175 BPM versus 180 BPM. It's time to pull hard and get your splits down without trying to make the whole thing into a mathematics equation.

[mdpfirrman]

Cyclists have overwhelmingly switched from heart rate-based training zones to watt-based schemes. But there are some reasons why I think watts are particularly useful for cycling. The biggest reason is that heart rate monitoring can get considerably complicated by cardiac drift, meaning the way that your beats per minute increases over longer efforts due to factors like accumulating body heat, loss of fluids, etc. Because cycling efforts are often very lengthy -- several hours is not unusual -- the cardiac drift effect gets amplified and makes heart rate-based training zones less accurate than watt-based zones. Also, bikes have gears, which means that you can usually constantly alter the loads and keep your watts in a narrow range. Mountain bikers are not as focused on watts as roadies because the extremely variable terrain makes it much less likely that you will be able to maintain something like "225 watts for 30 minutes" as a training zone -- it goes out the window when the hills get steep or the roots get slippery.

For rowing, cardiac drift and other external factors are still a weakness of heart rate training, but my feeling is that heart rate is still quite useful. For one thing, you can't measure watt output in a boat very easily, though it does work well on an erg. The other reason why I prefer heart rate for rowing is that it's mainly useful for making sure that you keep your effort level low enough on easy days and avoid pushing too hard. It's plenty accurate enough for that purpose. When it's time to go into the high output zones I don't think it's worth worrying too much about whether you're at, say, 275 watts or 285 watts. Or 175 BPM versus 180 BPM. It's time to pull hard and get your splits down without trying to make the whole thing into a mathematics equation.

Thanks Mark. I actually found Greg's article on his blog about FTP training and it was really helpful! I understand what you're saying about outdoor versus indoor but I'm almost exclusively on the erg.

https://quantifiedrowing.wordpress.com/ ... ing-zones/

Here's Greg's article. Was helpful.

[Mark E]

Thanks -- I'll check out the article!