Training without data

[gvcormac]

I have used one on and off for 35 years. I use it to gauge my fitness, not to control my workouts.

If my easy ride in the morning shows an elevated heart rate it tells me something is wrong -- maybe overtraining.

If my 10km row ends at 170 bpm I know that's close to the best I can do. As you can see from the example below, my HR is "dose dependent" throughout the row. Male 66 (67 in 11 days).

Time Meters Pace Watts Cal S/M HR
41:09.2 10,000m 2:03.4 186 940 32 159
--
Splits
4:07.7 1,000m 2:03.8 184 934 31 143
4:06.5 2,000m 2:03.2 187 943 32 152
4:05.9 3,000m 2:02.9 188 948 32 155
4:07.2 4,000m 2:03.6 185 937 33 157
4:07.3 5,000m 2:03.6 185 937 32 159
4:06.7 6,000m 2:03.3 186 941 32 163
4:06.9 7,000m 2:03.4 186 940 32 165
4:06.8 8,000m 2:03.4 186 941 32 166
4:07.6 9,000m 2:03.8 184 934 32 167
4:06.4 10,000m 2:03.2 187 944 33 170

[KeithT]

Been interesting to see the responses on this. I have had a a love/hate relationship with the HR monitor for a few years. I trained without one for my first couple years of rowing and did well. I bought a HR Monitor (strap) and it helped me realize my slower rows were not slow enough. I changed my SS sessions as a result and capped HR. Since then I have gotten really frustrated at times with the HR data and how I felt and how the perceived effort was. In past year or two I only use on SS (slow days) and sometimes not even that. I sort of know how I am training and how hard I am working and it really is a bit of a distraction at times.

[Cyclist2]

As you can see from the example below, my HR is "dose dependent" throughout the row.

I use a HR monitor, but as gvcormac's example shows it continuously creeps up during a row. It's frustrating to try to keep it in a zone - I have to keep slowing down! On the specific long, slow days, that is OK but for most sessions I don't pay attention to it, I go with power goals, not HR.

What I use it for is at the low end of intervals. For speed/strength intervals I let the HR go down to my warm up number (95 for me, full recovery) before the next interval. For endurance intervals, when it drops to roughly the high end of Zone 2 (110, not quite full recovery) I start the next interval. The upper end of the HR gets higher on each interval, which means a little longer rest between each, but this works better than set, timed rest periods for me and, I think, more benefit from the session.

[hikeplusrow]

I train using watts as my primary metric. I'll occasionally use a HR belt on the rower for interest, but the only time I use heart rate in earnest is during elliptical workouts at the gym. I work to power on the stairmill - I'll have a belt on, but, again, only for interest.

[gvcormac]

I'm not sure you should decrease your effort to maintain constant heart rate. To me, that sounds like the tail wagging the dog. Watts or pace make more sense to me -- maybe use average HR over the session or final HR to help determine the optimal watts/pace

I have a treadmill and an elliptical that have built-in "heart rate control." Hate it.

[JaapvanE]

I'm not sure you should decrease your effort to maintain constant heart rate. To me, that sounds like the tail wagging the dog. Watts or pace make more sense to me

It isn't, see https://youtu.be/Vr0P9SdD8YU

[gvcormac]

I'm not sure you should decrease your effort to maintain constant heart rate. To me, that sounds like the tail wagging the dog. Watts or pace make more sense to me

It isn't, see https://youtu.be/Vr0P9SdD8YU

I'm not sure I can parse what you mean by "it" or how this video illustrates your point.

There's lots of evidence that polarized training is the way to go, at least for elite athletes where optimal performance is the objective, and training time far exceeds what most people have available. But I wasn't knocking polarized training (at least not in this thread). I was saying that HR is a lousy way to determine the optimal intensity, and reducing intensity throughout your workout in order to keep heart rate constant doesn't make sense to me. If your HR (average, peak, whatever) exceeds what you think it should on a workout, reduce the intensity of the next workout. Don't start fast and slow down in every session, which inevitably will happen if you set your pace to a certain heart rate.

[Dangerscouse]

FWIW, I don't ever cap my HR. I just see it as an interesting piece of data, but I'd rather adjust due to RPE.

[JaapvanE]

I'm not sure I can parse what you mean by "it" or how this video illustrates your point.

The point is that HR can be a great indicator you are working too hard, despite using a pace that should be easy.

I was saying that HR is a lousy way to determine the optimal intensity, and reducing intensity throughout your workout in order to keep heart rate constant doesn't make sense to me. If your HR (average, peak, whatever) exceeds what you think it should on a workout, reduce the intensity of the next workout. Don't start fast and slow down in every session, which inevitably will happen if you set your pace to a certain heart rate.

What I notice is that HR can vary quite a lot due to all kind of factors. But it can also imply that an easy pace might still be too intense or not intense enough. I had sessions at my steady state HR Zone 2 pace where I ended up in Zone 4, and others where I stayed in Zone 1. Ignoring that typically leads to too intense training (and thus reducing my recovery effects leading to issues further down the road) or a too weak training.

I don't consider the HR bands as fixed, so aiming for Zone 2 and ending up in a low Zone 3 is no issue (unless it happens more often), but when it hits the mid or higher Zone 3 regions too soon, i'll let the pace go. And I've seen enough sessions to estimate whether my HR development is in line what I'm aiming for. So in the beginning of a session, my HR development shows me if I can push a bit harder, even in a Zone 2 training. And that is valuable info for me.