6.56.3 to 6.45.0

[JerekKruger]

Re max HR: see Concept2: http://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/t ... rate-range. Looks like 205.8 - (0.685 × age) is the modern version of 220-Age. For me the respective results are similar but not identical 183 (modern) 187 (traditional).

The problem with this formula is that it's only effective at predicting the average max heart rate of a large enough group of people. Individuals vary so much that it's likely to be completely wrong. For example, it gives my max heart rate as 183 whereas my actual max (when rowing) is 195 (I can still get it over 200 when running). If I were to use 183 for heart rate training I'd be consistently rowing at too low a heart rate.

[hjs]

Re max HR: see Concept2: http://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/t ... rate-range. Looks like 205.8 - (0.685 × age) is the modern version of 220-Age. For me the respective results are similar but not identical 183 (modern) 187 (traditional).

The problem with this formula is that it's only effective at predicting the average max heart rate of a large enough group of people. Individuals vary so much that it's likely to be completely wrong. For example, it gives my max heart rate as 183 whereas my actual max (when rowing) is 195 (I can still get it over 200 when running). If I were to use 183 for heart rate training I'd be consistently rowing at too low a heart rate.

Deviations of 20 up and down are normal. So 2 guys, same age can have a 40 beats difference in max hf.

The average man may be 1,80 but 2.00 or 1.60 is also possible.

There is no single thing about out body we can calculate. Ofcourse you could fall close to average, but thats just coincidence.

[JerekKruger]

Deviations of 20 up and down are normal. So 2 guys, same age can have a 40 beats difference in max hf.

The average man may be 1,80 but 2.00 or 1.60 is also possible.

There is no single thing about out body we can calculate. Ofcourse you could fall close to average, but thats just coincidence.

Indeed. My point was just that if you go by the formula you might either be training too easily (if you have a higher than average MHR) or too hard (if it's lower). I think if you are going to use heart rate training then you need at least a good approximation of your actual MHR.

[lindsayh]

Re max HR: see Concept2: http://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/t ... rate-range. Looks like 205.8 - (0.685 × age) is the modern version of 220-Age. For me the respective results are similar but not identical 183 (modern) 187 (traditional).

The problem with this formula is that it's only effective at predicting the average max heart rate of a large enough group of people. Individuals vary so much that it's likely to be completely wrong. For example, it gives my max heart rate as 183 whereas my actual max (when rowing) is 195 (I can still get it over 200 when running). If I were to use 183 for heart rate training I'd be consistently rowing at too low a heart rate.

It needs to be said that there are no formulae that are accurate enough to rely on for training and that has been shown by proper science to be the case so just ignore it. The 220 - age was never meant to be used as a general training guide really and was based on a small sample. The "modern" formula offers no more accuracy. MHR needs to be based on practical observation on a max session (unfortunately!) - an educated observation/estimate will be much closer to the mark than any calculation.

[RWAGR]

My assumption has always been that the MHR is there because it is not good to push your heart rate too much. In other words, while we could all go above our recommended MHR in training, it isn't good to do so. I guess that assumption was wrong so thanks for clarifying.

[hjs]

My assumption has always been that the MHR is there because it is not good to push your heart rate too much. In other words, while we could all go above our recommended MHR in training, it isn't good to do so. I guess that assumption was wrong so thanks for clarifying.

Thats a different matter. Doing sports for performance is pushing your body to the limits, although ofcourse most people never get there, but still being fit is not about health, and vice versa.

Think for healthreasons we should never really push ourselves, but that would get us nowhere in sports.

[Marben]

I´m no expert and not a very fast rower but I did go from 7:15 to 6:45 in four months with no earlier experience from erging/rowing and with poor endurance and I did pretty much no sessions at UT2. I might be totally wrong but I think that UT2 is good if you do a lot of sessions per week during a long time. If you only can do 3/4 sessions and wants to peak in a couple of months I think you should go hard on every one.

3 sessions a week you have plenty of time to recover and can go hard on all, 6 times a week you need those UT2 to recover.