Confused about the relationship between UT2, splits, and HR

[gvcormac]

SPM has almost nothing to do with effort. For almost any distance, I can row at 18spm or 36spm with the same power, and hence the same effort.

While BP is a coarse measure of effort, SPM is no measure at all.

Maybe if you're strength rather than cardio limited, you can improve that by training at a lower stroke rate. I'm cardio limited so it makes no difference.

[iain]

SPM has almost nothing to do with effort. For almost any distance, I can row at 18spm or 36spm with the same power, and hence the same effort.

While BP is a coarse measure of effort, SPM is no measure at all.

Maybe if you're strength rather than cardio limited, you can improve that by training at a lower stroke rate. I'm cardio limited so it makes no difference.

Is BP Pace? I must admit to being surprised at this response. If I double the rating, the only way to maintain the pace would be to pull very weak strokes. Unless these were short strokes, then my HR would be higher due to the increased energy requirement (recorded power stays the same, but the "wasted" power going up and down the slide will increase). At low ratings for the amount of power my effort will also increase I believe due to metabolic inefficiencies (utilising more fast twitch fibres requiring the lactic acid to be shifted to aerobic muscle fibres or liver for processing). Basically while there might be a range where the effort stays similar, at the extremes more energy will be used to generate the same power in the flywheel. Interested to hear that this is not the case for you.

[gvcormac]

SPM has almost nothing to do with effort. For almost any distance, I can row at 18spm or 36spm with the same power, and hence the same effort.

While BP is a coarse measure of effort, SPM is no measure at all.

Maybe if you're strength rather than cardio limited, you can improve that by training at a lower stroke rate. I'm cardio limited so it makes no difference.

Is BP Pace? I must admit to being surprised at this response. If I double the rating, the only way to maintain the pace would be to pull very weak strokes. Unless these were short strokes, then my HR would be higher due to the increased energy requirement (recorded power stays the same, but the "wasted" power going up and down the slide will increase). At low ratings for the amount of power my effort will also increase I believe due to metabolic inefficiencies (utilising more fast twitch fibres requiring the lactic acid to be shifted to aerobic muscle fibres or liver for processing). Basically while there might be a range where the effort stays similar, at the extremes more energy will be used to generate the same power in the flywheel. Interested to hear that this is not the case for you.

Sorry, I meant HR not BP. Mixed up my cardiac measures.

Work is force times distance. Leaving the stroke length and power the same, you need to pull twice as hard at 18 SPM compared to 36 SPM. You will waste a bit more energy on recovery at 36 SPM, but that's only a fraction of the stroke energy. Whether a hard pull or an easy pull is metabolically more efficient, I cannot say. It probably depends on the individual, and how much "burn" (anaerobic lactate production) is involved in generating the requisite amount of force. For me, there's not much difference; overall I feel much more comfortable at 30 than at 20, and generate peak sustained speed at 32-34.

[iain]

IIRC, according to the initial results by C2 when setting the "calorie counting" on the PM, on average a 78.5kg rower uses 300kCal/hr over and above that powering the rower. They also found that there was a 25% efficiency for the incremental work in powering the flywheel. Assuming a basal metabolic rate of 1800 kCal/day, 75 of the 300 is merely staying alive. That leaves 225 on the slide. Therefore someone at 2:00 pace (approx shown as 1000kCal/hr on PM) wastes 22.5% of their additional energy expenditure over existing on the slide. This is not trivial!

Unfortunately they do not give an indication of the average rating of the rowers in he experiment. But For equivalent strokes, the slide energy increases with the cube of the rating. So doing the above at half the rating would be expected to use 225 x (1/2)^3 = 28kCal on the slide per hour, saving nearly 20%! The change would be even higher if the rating was increased (1800kCal of slide energy, now 72% of total used!), but I assume that a relatively high rating was used to get such a loss.

[gvcormac]

Yes, the C2 counts 300 cal/hr just for having a pulse. I simply subtract that amount to get a guess at net Calories burned.

If you want, you can take average watts times time (in seconds) to get the actual work done, in Joules (4.184 kJoule = 1kcal = 1 "Calorie"). Then multiply by whatever metabolic efficiency factor you like to get metabolic Calories.

[jamesg]

I simply subtract that amount to get a guess at net Calories burned.

A spreadsheet oneliner using meters, time and stroke number can offer Watts, Wh, kCal/h, kCal, m/stroke, Work per stroke. Also W/kg and W/(HRR in use) if HR and weight are known.

[bassongirl]

Hi there,

I'm new here, a 35yo FHWT. I'm from Germany, so please excuse if my expressions are not perfect.
I'm rowing for 6 weeks now with my new C2, concentrating on getting to know the machine and working on my technique (I did on water rowing for one year, but this was like 10 ys ago). Now I want to follow a training plan mainly aiming to improve my general fitness, lower the HR, not necessarily loosing wheight. But that would be a nice side effect .
I chose a 5k plan (https://www.concept2.co.uk/files/pdf/us ... erTest.pdf) which I believe is quite similar to the PetePlan. I did the first 5k at a 2:31.8 pace with an avg HR of 157, ending up at 164. My MHR is 184, reaching it yesterday at the CTC challenge as i joined the Forum Flyers as a new member.
Now I'm wondering at which HR I should do the short and the long intervall sessions?
I did the 15x1'/1'r-Session at an avg pace of 2:16.2, going up till HR 168 (about 90%, TR) in each intervall and resting until 140. Can/Should I push myself harder?
Is there a rough rough rule which training band (https://www.freespiritsrowing.com/forum ... calculator) I should use for which kind of session?
At the moment I'm just working with the ErgData app.

[Sakly]

Hi there,

I'm new here, a 35yo FHWT. I'm from Germany, so please excuse if my expressions are not perfect.
I'm rowing for 6 weeks now with my new C2, concentrating on getting to know the machine and working on my technique (I did on water rowing for one year, but this was like 10 ys ago). Now I want to follow a training plan mainly aiming to improve my general fitness, lower the HR, not necessarily loosing wheight. But that would be a nice side effect .
I chose a 5k plan (https://www.concept2.co.uk/files/pdf/us ... erTest.pdf) which I believe is quite similar to the PetePlan. I did the first 5k at a 2:31.8 pace with an avg HR of 157, ending up at 164. My MHR is 184, reaching it yesterday at the CTC challenge as i joined the Forum Flyers as a new member.
Now I'm wondering at which HR I should do the short and the long intervall sessions?
I did the 15x1'/1'r-Session at an avg pace of 2:16.2, going up till HR 168 (about 90%, TR) in each intervall and resting until 140. Can/Should I push myself harder?
Is there a rough rough rule which training band (https://www.freespiritsrowing.com/forum ... calculator) I should use for which kind of session?
At the moment I'm just working with the ErgData app.

Hi, warm welcome from another (relatively newbee) German rower

Interval sessions are meant to be hard, so they are always in the upper band of HR. I never pace the interval sessions based on HR as it does not make sense, so the HR is a result of your fitness and pace goals in the intervals. It can only show if you improve in the specific internal session, but should not define your pace (as you will improve less in this case).
Steady state rows are the other story. For steady state rows it could make sense to have an eye on your HR and target a specific band, if your overall training volume is high (and high means probably around 7 hours and more for all your training activities) and you need to ensure proper recovery to go really hard on your hard sessions.

As a reference: my seen MHR on the rower is practically equal to yours - 185 - and for intervals and TTs rises typically in the mid 170s, if fully recovered and pushing really hard, sometimes in the 180s. My last HM TT was at 170 average throughout the row.

[iain]

Welcome Bassongirl

As the above and other discussions have shown HR is an approximate guide to activity. I find it more useful as a check on the RPE ~(relative perceived Effort) assessments to provide some greater objectivity as we can always get carried away and successful rows always seem to hurt less!

I agree that in short intervals the feedback is too late to be useful, but ultimately you should be hitting 95% plus in the hardest intervals. HR is more useful on longer sub-maximal rows to ensure that they allow sufficient recovery for the harder sessions. Initially it is OK to do them a bit less and concentrate on form and get used to getting these done. For me 1' rest is incomplete recovery so my HR is higher on each subsequent interval, sometimes not falling below 70% of maximum before the next interval.

[bassongirl]

Okay, thanks for your answers and your welcoming. So I will ignore HR a little bit for the intervall sessions. I just did the third workout of the first week (5 times 1000 meters with 2 min rest) and it felt well:

Time Meters Pace Watts Cal/Hr S/M
23:14.7 5,000m 2:19.4 129 744 23 167
4:40.0 1,000m 2:20.0 128 738 23 164
4:37.6 1,000m 2:18.8 131 750 23 163
4:39.4 1,000m 2:19.7 128 741 23 166
4:39.9 1,000m 2:19.9 128 739 24 171
4:37.8 1,000m 2:18.9 131 749 25 175

HR was falling to 130 (70%) except for the rest before the last intervall.
Now I'm eager to see how it continues in the next weeks.

[Sakly]

I just did the third workout of the first week (5 times 1000 meters with 2 min rest) and it felt well

Then it was too easy
Kind of a joke, but also a bit truth in it. Intervals should never feel good, at least at the end. Their intention is to build capacity for high load, so you should try to get high load.
For starting again, it is absolutely fine too not go all out and ramp up gradually, until you get there and feel uncomfortable doing intervals

[iain]

Okay, thanks for your answers and your welcoming. So I will ignore HR a little bit for the intervall sessions. I just did the third workout of the first week (5 times 1000 meters with 2 min rest) and it felt well:

Time Meters Pace Watts Cal/Hr S/M
23:14.7 5,000m 2:19.4 129 744 23 167
4:40.0 1,000m 2:20.0 128 738 23 164
4:37.6 1,000m 2:18.8 131 750 23 163
4:39.4 1,000m 2:19.7 128 741 23 166
4:39.9 1,000m 2:19.9 128 739 24 171
4:37.8 1,000m 2:18.9 131 749 25 175

HR was falling to 130 (70%) except for the rest before the last intervall.
Now I'm eager to see how it continues in the next weeks.

Nicely done. After 2 min rest I wouldn't expect to see the same increase in HR through the recoveries, so what you describe seems reasonable.