Concept2 Forum

I'm 53, been losing weight (down 25.5lbs in about 11 weeks) and am primarily doing 2 mile walks and 6k of rowing a day as my exercise. Between that and 'calorie counting', everything is coming along just as planned.

So I decided to get a HRM to interface with my Model E. frankly, I have never trained with a HRM before. I bought the SUUNTO model (if it makes a difference) and it appears to work quite well.

Anyway, I see numerous charts out there with various training bands, and as my 'goal' is to lose more weight, I have started (as of tonite) to row at the upper limit of my 'weight loss' band -- except -- it appears there are a bunch of charts that do not all agree with each other. They vary a bit. And frankly, trying to stay around 120BPM is like watching paint dry. Heck, even staying around 130 BPM is an effort -- I really like to row faster. That 130BPM seems to be at or above 'fat loss' on most charts for my age.

SO.. for those who have trained with a HRM, what am I giving up in potential weight loss by training at a 130BPM avge? And how accurate are these charts?

To date I have just rowed my merry little heart out depending on how I felt each day.

I should add that daily I mostly do either 3 x 2000m, or sometimes 1 x 6000m and another 1 x 2000m. If one of my knees did not bother me I would probably be doing double this in not time.

First thing you need to know is your max Hf and rest rate. Without those hf bands are meaningless.

And your main concern is doing the work, a few time a week working harder will not hurt you, but will be better. You will become fitter.

First thing to note, the charts for HR training zones by age are useless. Your heart rate zones are defined by a percentage between your resting heart rate and your max heart rate. The charts just use a generic formula for max HR vs age, but the reality is that even the people who came up with that formula admitted that it's pretty useless and individual results can vary by a large number. The only way to accurately determine your max heart rate is to do an all-out effort and measure it. Also note that max heart rate for different activities is different; running will give the highest HR, cycling and rowing will give lower because they're not as upright, and swimming usually gives the lowest because it is basically horizontal. Use the HR for the specific activity when calculating the zones.

Next, as far as the "fat burning zone." The idea behind this zone is that it is a low exertion level that you can maintain nearly indefinitely because, as long as you're properly hydrated, your caloric output theoretically doesn't exceed the rate at which you can metabolize fat. It is slow, it is boring, and like you I actually find it very difficult to keep myself down to such a low amount of effort (especially on the rowing machine where pulling harder makes good posture easier). It doesn't really do anything to deplete any of your more immediate energy stores, so as soon as your workout ends, your calorie burn does as well. Working out at the next higher level of intensity, low cardio, burns just as much fat during a given amount of time, and also starts to use blood sugar and energy stores in the muscles. After you're done with the workout, the body works to recover these levels, and it takes the energy to do so out of whatever you're digesting and out of body fat. The higher the intensity, the longer your body continues to burn energy recovering from it.

So, you almost certainly burned more fat when you "rowed your merry little heart out" than when trying to stick in the "fat burning zone," and you were very correct to be suspicious that it's not as productive to go slower.

Besides that point, there's also the fact that working out with low intensity doesn't raise your fitness level. Work out with high intensity, and your fitness goes up, which raises the output level that's still in the fat burning zone. Then at the same level of perceived exertion and the same penalty to your recovery, you're burning more calories and more fat.


Next note is that HRM training is basically inferior to power training. Power-based training is much more predictable and it's easier to design a program around it. Your heart rate will vary from day to day for a specific load relative to your max, and trying to regulate by heart rate during the span of a single workout is a goofy proposition. Even with a good warmup, the first and second halves of a workout at a fixed intensity will be very different heart rate averages, as fatigue builds up. If you try to regulate at a fixed heart rate for a set span of time, you'll start out with high intensity and gradually taper off to a much lower level.

HRM training remains more popular primarily because the equipment for it is much cheaper and it's been around a lot longer. In cycling it's generally over a $1K addition to an already expensive bike to get a power monitor on it. Despite this, power training is pretty much considered THE intelligent way to train for cycling these days, for amateur through pro racer level. Cyclists and triathletes that have been doing HRM training for years and make the financial jump to power training typically see rapid improvement and move up in race categories.

Well, the rowing machine is a power meter, so why not use it as such? The concepts are the same as HRM training, but instead of trying to stay within a band somewhere between your resting and max heart rate, you try to stay within a band that's a fixed percentage of your maximum power. This is a number that the PM3/PM4 can put right in your face, unaffected by any factor except for how hard and fast you're pulling the handle.

This page has a good intro to this kind of stuff in a power-centric view: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... oggan.aspx
Tables 1 and 2 are really helpful. In particular, table 2 shows that up until the anaerobic , there isn't a single benefit of a training zone that isn't amplified in the next one.
It's really not all that different from the popular rower's UT2, UT1, LT, AN, etc view on things. The training zones wind up being roughly the same average heart rates as how they're described for HR training. But, picking round numbers, if one approach tells you to shoot for "average 200 watts for x minutes" and the other says "average 150 bpm for x minutes", the rowing machine makes it easy to nail 200 watts for the entire duration. You'll find that your average HR for a wattage-regulated effort is much more stable from one workout to the next than your average power for a HR-regulated effort.

You appear to have lost a lot of weight without paying attention to the weight loss zone. I wouldn’t pay much attention to it. What I would do is start tracking your resting heart rate when you wake up in the morning. Keep a log of it and take it easy on any day that it is elevated. Otherwise, use the heart rate monitor to learn more about yourself. I think the data will become useful to you only over time.

I think muscle pain is a great way to know if you can push yourself hard today or not. However, that’s only half the picture. I’m tired of hearing everyone talk about overtraining. If I’m not too sore and my resting heart rate isn’t elevated, I’m going to have a full workout today. Otherwise, I’ll make an adjustment with the confidence that it isn’t based on an arbitrary feeling.

I think Brian’s post meshes with the Wolverine Plan as well. That is a popular training plan that doesn’t rely on heart rate zones.

brianh wrote:First thing to note, the charts for HR training zones by age are useless. Your heart rate zones are defined by a percentage between your resting heart rate and your max heart rate. The charts just use a generic formula for max HR vs age, but the reality is that even the people who came up with that formula admitted that it's pretty useless and individual results can vary by a large number. The only way to accurately determine your max heart rate is to do an all-out effort and measure it. Also note that max heart rate for different activities is different; running will give the highest HR, cycling and rowing will give lower because they're not as upright, and swimming usually gives the lowest because it is basically horizontal. Use the HR for the specific activity when calculating the zones.

I kind of got that feeling with all those charts...

brianh wrote:Next, as far as the "fat burning zone." The idea behind this zone is that it is a low exertion level that you can maintain nearly indefinitely because, as long as you're properly hydrated, your caloric output theoretically doesn't exceed the rate at which you can metabolize fat. It is slow, it is boring, and like you I actually find it very difficult to keep myself down to such a low amount of effort (especially on the rowing machine where pulling harder makes good posture easier). It doesn't really do anything to deplete any of your more immediate energy stores, so as soon as your workout ends, your calorie burn does as well. Working out at the next higher level of intensity, low cardio, burns just as much fat during a given amount of time, and also starts to use blood sugar and energy stores in the muscles. After you're done with the workout, the body works to recover these levels, and it takes the energy to do so out of whatever you're digesting and out of body fat. The higher the intensity, the longer your body continues to burn energy recovering from it.

I had done a little more reading last night after I posted this (from some websites), and the take-way was similar -- whatever you burn at a low rate you also will do at a higher rate and more. You confirm what I read, and it clearly makes sense vs. staying in the "fat burning zone". Okay, we'll chuck that whole FB-zone idea...

brianh wrote:So, you almost certainly burned more fat when you "rowed your merry little heart out" than when trying to stick in the "fat burning zone," and you were very correct to be suspicious that it's not as productive to go slower.

Sure seemed that way to me... And I was happier with that as well.

brianh wrote:Besides that point, there's also the fact that working out with low intensity doesn't raise your fitness level. Work out with high intensity, and your fitness goes up, which raises the output level that's still in the fat burning zone. Then at the same level of perceived exertion and the same penalty to your recovery, you're burning more calories and more fat.

And exactly what I want!

brianh wrote:Next note is that HRM training is basically inferior to power training. Power-based training is much more predictable and it's easier to design a program around it. Your heart rate will vary from day to day for a specific load relative to your max, and trying to regulate by heart rate during the span of a single workout is a goofy proposition. Even with a good warmup, the first and second halves of a workout at a fixed intensity will be very different heart rate averages, as fatigue builds up. If you try to regulate at a fixed heart rate for a set span of time, you'll start out with high intensity and gradually taper off to a much lower level.

So I noticed...

brianh wrote:HRM training remains more popular primarily because the equipment for it is much cheaper and it's been around a lot longer. In cycling it's generally over a $1K addition to an already expensive bike to get a power monitor on it. Despite this, power training is pretty much considered THE intelligent way to train for cycling these days, for amateur through pro racer level. Cyclists and triathletes that have been doing HRM training for years and make the financial jump to power training typically see rapid improvement and move up in race categories.

I believe my neighbor has a power meter for his bike, and I will have to pay him a visit to discuss this further and get a first hand look at how he uses it.

brianh wrote:Well, the rowing machine is a power meter, so why not use it as such? The concepts are the same as HRM training, but instead of trying to stay within a band somewhere between your resting and max heart rate, you try to stay within a band that's a fixed percentage of your maximum power. This is a number that the PM3/PM4 can put right in your face, unaffected by any factor except for how hard and fast you're pulling the handle.

When looking at the power band, it obviously starts off low, ramps, and peters off. Is the idea to stay in as level a plane for the entire stroke? If so, is it better to work for a lower consistent level and try to build that consistent level higher with time, or a higher level that may vary a bit more?

And how best to determine my maximum power? All out hard row for a few strokes, or longer, or what? Should I be watching the 'force curve', 'bar chart' or just watts?

brianh wrote:This page has a good intro to this kind of stuff in a power-centric view: http://home.trainingpeaks.com/articles/ ... oggan.aspx
Tables 1 and 2 are really helpful. In particular, table 2 shows that up until the anaerobic , there isn't a single benefit of a training zone that isn't amplified in the next one.
It's really not all that different from the popular rower's UT2, UT1, LT, AN, etc view on things. The training zones wind up being roughly the same average heart rates as how they're described for HR training. But, picking round numbers, if one approach tells you to shoot for "average 200 watts for x minutes" and the other says "average 150 bpm for x minutes", the rowing machine makes it easy to nail 200 watts for the entire duration. You'll find that your average HR for a wattage-regulated effort is much more stable from one workout to the next than your average power for a HR-regulated effort.

So (and I have not checked as i is late & I am tired) is there a cumulative watts (like calories)? If so, referring back to my last question, better to add more cumulative watts, or more consistency with the watts I put out?

I guess I really want to get multi-fold results out of all this:

1) lose more lbs
2) build more fitness, muscle, strength and endurance
3) train for rowing in areal shell (I row the handle on the rower like an oar stroke already)


Let me add that your response has been VERY helpful. I feel like I have "learned" a great deal in a very short period of time. I almost wish I hadn't bought the HRM, though I can see it coming in handy anyway.

EDIT: some interesting links I found (damn i should be sleeping...)

(dub)ww.phys.washington.edu/users/jeff/courses/ken_young_webs/208A/ELITEERG.HTM

(dub)ww.concept2cts.com/commercial/crossfit/CFIT_April07.pdf

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q ... 4380,d.cGE

HR training has been superceded by the erg, which measures our power output directly. We can still use HR as an early warning system: if at any time it's going up too fast, we need to back off.

The Interactive on C2UK http://www.therowingcompany.com/training/ gives the Watt training band %s, to apply to our last 2k test. Alternatively, we can replace the 2k power with what we think we could do in a 2k. Then if there's not enough sweat, increase that base power.

In all cases, remember we row to make boats move fast for long distances: so we pull good solid strokes and lots of them, albeit at low ratings. Could even get us fit.

There's no value in a six/seven stroke max power test. It doesn't tell you anything useful.

You'd be better off doing a 2K trial or a full-on 30' @ 20SPM. They give you some usable numbers.

Citroen wrote:There's no value in a six/seven stroke max power test. It doesn't tell you anything useful.

You'd be better off doing a 2K trial or a full-on 30' @ 20SPM. They give you some usable numbers.

Not for weightloss, but ofcourse it had value, its tell you how powerfull you are. For sprinting a very important number.

When looking at the power band, it obviously starts off low, ramps, and peters off. Is the idea to stay in as level a plane for the entire stroke? If so, is it better to work for a lower consistent level and try to build that consistent level higher with time, or a higher level that may vary a bit more?

What you're looking at is the force curve, which is telling you how much force you're applying at each relative distance into the curve. There are different philosophies for how exactly this should look that correspond to different rowing techniques. The one constant between all of the good shapes is that they are shaped as you described--low, up, back down. Tweaking the timing of engaging legs, body swing, lat engagement, and arms is what changes the shape. With respect to indoor rowing for fitness's sake, I don't see that one shape is inherently better than the other, and it's pretty much a matter of what feels best to you. The important things are that the curve is smooth (ie it doesn't dip down briefly and then continue going up), and to get consistent so that 99% of your stokes are pretty much the same shape.

Now, while that's related to the power that you're putting out, that's actually a separate concern. If you're shooting for a power average, you want each individual stroke to be pretty close to your target, but there'll be some variance. I find the easiest thing to do is stay on the details screen that shows the stats for both your overall session and the current split, and put it on the watts view. The second line from the bottom will be your average power for the current split. This is the number I stare at most of the time during my workout. I'll set up the session so the splits are 500m for a distance piece or 2 minutes for a timed piece (or 1000m/3 mins for anything longer than 10k, so I can sneak in water breaks more easily). During each split I do try to hit my target wattage number on each stroke, but I miss by a few watts in either direction most of the time. So I just try to make the split average number match. If I'm pulling too hard the split average will drift upward, and I'll ease up slightly until it's back to my target, and then try to hit the number again. If the number drifts low I give a few hard pulls before going back to trying to hit the number. It's easy to go off by 1 watt right at the end of the split, and the numbers go whacky at the start of each new one, but it generally evens out in the end. Unless you pick a hard target, it's easy to regulate it like this. The very first time I tried, every single split was exactly on target.

And how best to determine my maximum power? All out hard row for a few strokes, or longer, or what? Should I be watching the 'force curve', 'bar chart' or just watts?

That depends on what you mean by your maximum power. Either way, I think keep the display on watts. If you mean your maximum instantaneous power, which would be basically a neuromuscular strength test, don't do it cold (injury risk). Row at a recovery rate and put in groups of harder pulls, ascending very deliberately. Ex (picking bogus numbers for illustrative purposes) row for a few minutes at 150 watts, do 10 pulls at 200, 20 pulls at 150, 10 pulls at 250, 20 pulls at 150, etc. When you feel the 10s are getting close to your power limit, do an all-out set of 10, mentally note the biggest number you manage, and then cool down.

As noted above, this number isn't especially useful as an indicator of fitness, it's more of a strength thing. It is useful to do hard sprints like this in your training, though, as it helps you teach your body how to actually extract 100%.

If what you mean is determining the maximum amount of power that you should shoot for on a given workout, that's a bit more complicated. The easiest way to do it would be to make every workout the same length or duration goal, take your best average watts, and just try to bump it up slowly. If you take an unregulated best effort and then try to replicate the pace while strictly regulating to the average wattage, it's usually substantially easier.

Doing a single workout type is pretty boring though. There are lots of theories about how to try to say "If you do x watts for distance A, you should be able to do y watts for distance B." I've got my own formula that I use for myself, because the popular ones didn't do it for me. I don't think that's terribly important though; if you work out at multiple distances, just improve each one. If you get to where you're concerned about whether your paces are balanced with respect to each other, you'll probably have your own opinions by that point anyway.

So (and I have not checked as i is late & I am tired) is there a cumulative watts (like calories)? If so, referring back to my last question, better to add more cumulative watts, or more consistency with the watts I put out?

In terms of physics, Joules (watts times seconds), but the C2 doesn't give this to you directly. You can get a rough number by taking your average wattage as shown in the log view after you're done and multiplying it out. But this isn't terribly useful, because the time aspect is so big--a longer workout will usually use more energy even if it's lower wattage. That goes down the path of the fat burning zone, where time on the rower trumps all and you get bored out of your skull. Focus on the consistency instead.

3) train for rowing in areal shell (I row the handle on the rower like an oar stroke already)

Take this one with a grain of salt since I have never so much as touched a rowing boat...but I don't think that's a good idea. I think you should mentally compartmentalize indoor rowing and OTW rowing as far as technique goes. If you try to use the same technique for both, you will either not put out as much power on the erg (and short yourself on the workout), or probably really suck in the boat (or both). If what you mean by this is an intentionally asymmetrical stroke on the erg, that could lead to muscle imbalances, back problems, injuries, etc.

Let me add that your response has been VERY helpful. I feel like I have "learned" a great deal in a very short period of time.

Very glad that you feel that way.

I almost wish I hadn't bought the HRM, though I can see it coming in handy anyway.

I still wear mine for every row. For two reasons. One, if I feel like I'm pretty blitzed and suffering during a workout, looking at my HR will tell me whether I'm just being a wuss and need to suck it up, or if I'm actually seriously screwed and doing more harm than good. Two, it amuses and gratifies me to no end that thanks to gradual progression, I can compare a workout to one from a month or two ago in the log card, and see that not only did I put out much better performance, my heart rate was lower while doing it too. I'd say keep using it, just don't let it be the defining factor of the workout.

Dano wrote:
So (and I have not checked as i is late & I am tired) is there a cumulative watts (like calories)? If so, referring back to my last question, better to add more cumulative watts, or more consistency with the watts I put out?

Wattage is a rate, i.e. work per unit time, specifically joules/second. Calories, like joules, are a measure of work. If you want to use the watts data for the accumulated work done just multiply the average watts by the total time in seconds and you will have the accumulated work in joules. For convenience, most folks would divide by a thousand which converts it to kilojoules.

Note that the Calorie data provided by the monitor will not match the total work calculated from the average watts. The reason for this is that the monitor throws in a couple bugger factors. One is an extra 300 Calories an hour for just sitting on the machine moving your body back and forth. It takes work to do that, but that work is not measured by the monitor directly. The other is the assumption is that the body is 25% efficient in converting fuel to work, so burning a hundred Calories of body fuel of any kind just shows up as 25 Calories of work done spinning the wheel and moving the body up and down the slide.

Bob S

Sorry for the late response, but this has been a very helpful thread for me, and I wish to thank those who responded.

-D