2nd 5K-still newbie

[dutchcantoo]

After recovering from an injury, unrelated to rowing, I'm back on the erg. Like riding a bike, I haven't forgotten how, but I do feel like I'm starting from scratch. For a few weeks I followed a mix of beginner/intermediate rowing videos from Dark Horse Rowing. This morning I felt ready to register a new bench mark to see how I progress from this day onwards. I was pleasantly surprised to see I took two minutes off my first 5K but I struggled near the end...oh how I struggled. Still, pleased with myself that I completed the workout.

On a sidenote, I made a couple changes, and I'm not sure if this could have something to do with my improved timing. I now wear my old water shoes--you know, nylon tops with flat rubber sole--and I adjusted the footstep one higher. I thought I had it in the right position, but today I felt I had more push at this new level.

Splits
Time Meters Pace Watts Cal/Hr S/M
24:10.6 5,000m 2:25.0 115 694 21 157
4:51.3 1,000m 2:25.6 113 689 20 146
4:52.2 2,000m 2:26.1 112 686 20 153
4:49.8 3,000m 2:24.9 115 695 20 159
4:49.9 4,000m 2:24.9 115 695 22 160
4:47.4 5,000m 2:23.7 118 705 22 167

[winniewinser]

After recovering from an injury, unrelated to rowing, I'm back on the erg. Like riding a bike, I haven't forgotten how, but I do feel like I'm starting from scratch. For a few weeks I followed a mix of beginner/intermediate rowing videos from Dark Horse Rowing. This morning I felt ready to register a new bench mark to see how I progress from this day onwards. I was pleasantly surprised to see I took two minutes off my first 5K but I struggled near the end...oh how I struggled. Still, pleased with myself that I completed the workout.

On a sidenote, I made a couple changes, and I'm not sure if this could have something to do with my improved timing. I now wear my old water shoes--you know, nylon tops with flat rubber sole--and I adjusted the footstep one higher. I thought I had it in the right position, but today I felt I had more push at this new level.

Splits
Time Meters Pace Watts Cal/Hr S/M
24:10.6 5,000m 2:25.0 115 694 21 157
4:51.3 1,000m 2:25.6 113 689 20 146
4:52.2 2,000m 2:26.1 112 686 20 153
4:49.8 3,000m 2:24.9 115 695 20 159
4:49.9 4,000m 2:24.9 115 695 22 160
4:47.4 5,000m 2:23.7 118 705 22 167

2mins is a great improvement and the splits don't indicate a struggle so you dug deep and help on well.....congrats

[max_ratcliffe]

After recovering from an injury, unrelated to rowing, I'm back on the erg. Like riding a bike, I haven't forgotten how, but I do feel like I'm starting from scratch. For a few weeks I followed a mix of beginner/intermediate rowing videos from Dark Horse Rowing. This morning I felt ready to register a new bench mark to see how I progress from this day onwards. I was pleasantly surprised to see I took two minutes off my first 5K but I struggled near the end...oh how I struggled. Still, pleased with myself that I completed the workout.

On a sidenote, I made a couple changes, and I'm not sure if this could have something to do with my improved timing. I now wear my old water shoes--you know, nylon tops with flat rubber sole--and I adjusted the footstep one higher. I thought I had it in the right position, but today I felt I had more push at this new level.

Splits
Time Meters Pace Watts Cal/Hr S/M
24:10.6 5,000m 2:25.0 115 694 21 157
4:51.3 1,000m 2:25.6 113 689 20 146
4:52.2 2,000m 2:26.1 112 686 20 153
4:49.8 3,000m 2:24.9 115 695 20 159
4:49.9 4,000m 2:24.9 115 695 22 160
4:47.4 5,000m 2:23.7 118 705 22 167

If you're not struggling towards the end of a TT, you've gone too easy . 2 minutes is a huge chunk to take off, so very well done indeed.

The general guidance on foot position is to keep it low, as a lower position helps with avoiding lumbar flexion. But a higher position allows for the leg push to be more horizontal (so you are wasting less effort in partially lifting your bodyweight from the seat). There's more than one way to skin a cat...

[Nomath]

I guess that last column is heart rate. From the most recent formula for maximum heart rate of women as a function of age, HRmax = 206 - 0.88*age, you must have dug deep in the final 1K and have an exceptionally high HRmax .

[dutchcantoo]

I guess that last column is heart rate. From the most recent formula for maximum heart rate of women as a function of age, HRmax = 206 - 0.88*age, you must have dug deep in the final 1K and have an exceptionally high HRmax .

Yup. So not good I suppose. I tried to regulate my heart rate but failed miserably.

[dutchcantoo]

If you're not struggling towards the end of a TT, you've gone too easy . 2 minutes is a huge chunk to take off, so very well done indeed.

The general guidance on foot position is to keep it low, as a lower position helps with avoiding lumbar flexion. But a higher position allows for the leg push to be more horizontal (so you are wasting less effort in partially lifting your bodyweight from the seat). There's more than one way to skin a cat...

Thanks! I won't be breaking any records soon, but that's not why I'm here. Just completing the 5k when it hurt felt so good (afterwards).

I may try this again in a couple weeks and put the foot position where I had it originally. The difference in how it feels while rowing was surprising though.

[mitchel674]

Well, I'm impressed with your 5k results. Shaving 2 minutes off your previous time is fantastic. Your splits don't show you struggling in the last 1k, so at least you hide your pain well.

[Popcorn]

I am a woman of the same age, not much of an athlete but using the erg quite regularly the past three years, and my heart rate up goes up to about 164 at the end of a hard set. I only started using a heart rate monitor recently and I didn't expect the numbers to be so high, either, just based on those formulas.

[Nomath]

.... Your splits don't show you struggling in the last 1k, so at least you hide your pain well.

The splits do show the struggle if you take the evolution of the heart rate over the 5K into account.



The heart rate increases by more than 20 bpm whereas the pace only decreases by about 2 seconds. Typically the HR increases directly in proportion to the intensity by, roughly, 10 bpm higher HR for a 2-3 sec faster pace.
My guess is that dutchcantoo was not only doing an all-out effort, but also at least 50% of the total time was rowing in the 90-100% of HRmax zone.

The way ahead to shave more time from this PR is to row longer at lower heart rates and experience the normal elasticity that when you reduce the intensity, the HR starts to drop readily (HR always lags intensity by about 10 sec).

HRmax as a function of age has been the subject of many studies. The formula I cited is from the most recent study specific to women (Gulati). The prediction for age 60 is 153 bpm. Other studies showed higher HRmax, see the graph below that I took from the cited Wikipedia page. The lines are averages ; there is considerable variation over persons of the same age.

[mitchel674]

.... Your splits don't show you struggling in the last 1k, so at least you hide your pain well.

The splits do show the struggle if you take the evolution of the heart rate over the 5K into account.

Your splits don't show you struggling in the last 1k, so at least you hide your pain well.

[dutchcantoo]

.... Your splits don't show you struggling in the last 1k, so at least you hide your pain well.

The splits do show the struggle if you take the evolution of the heart rate over the 5K into account.

Your splits don't show you struggling in the last 1k, so at least you hide your pain well.

Well, all I know is I struggled. And last night up until this morning (when I gave in and took meds), I had a migraine. I'm sure this was induced by my efforts from yesterday. I am going to follow the advice to row longer, more controlled distances for the next while. The thing with me is, I go for broke; I don't listen well to my body signals, hence my injury I mentioned.

[dutchcantoo]

I am a woman of the same age, not much of an athlete but using the erg quite regularly the past three years, and my heart rate up goes up to about 164 at the end of a hard set. I only started using a heart rate monitor recently and I didn't expect the numbers to be so high, either, just based on those formulas.

Glad to read this actually. It can be a bit alarming to see heart rate rising. Clearly there's a moment to just slow down, but because I was doing the 5k, I wasn't willing to do that. I wear the heart rate moniter every time I row, but seldom pay attention to it. This was the first time I noticed how high it was, because I could feel that I couldn't sustain my effort much longer.
How often do you row in a week and do you follow video workouts or just row on your own?

[lindsayh]

I guess that last column is heart rate. From the most recent formula for maximum heart rate of women as a function of age, HRmax = 206 - 0.88*age, you must have dug deep in the final 1K and have an exceptionally high HRmax .

it is fair to say though that relying on any formula to estimate MHR and thus training caps is pretty much useless and that has been shown to be so by any simple investigation. There are two 60yo women on this thread - one has demonstrated at least 167 and one 164 when the quoted formula says mhr is 153?? (220-age is actually more accurate in these two examples but that formula is equally unreliable)
I guess I don't really get the search for a meaningful formula when they are all so easily debunked and when there is actually a relatively simple way of getting an accurate one - just do it. A full on 5k to 30' will get pretty close to the mark without any fancy measuring or lactates etc. A 7x 4'/1'R is probably the best benchmark.

https://analytics.rowsandall.com/2016/1 ... eart-rate/

[MartinSH4321]

I guess that last column is heart rate. From the most recent formula for maximum heart rate of women as a function of age, HRmax = 206 - 0.88*age, you must have dug deep in the final 1K and have an exceptionally high HRmax .

it is fair to say though that relying on any formula to estimate MHR and thus training caps is pretty much useless and that has been shown to be so by any simple investigation. There are two 60yo women on this thread - one has demonstrated at least 167 and one 164 when the quoted formula says mhr is 153?? (220-age is actually more accurate in these two examples but that formula is equally unreliable)
I guess I don't really get the search for a meaningful formula when they are all so easily debunked and when there is actually a relatively simple way of getting an accurate one - just do it. A full on 5k to 30' will get pretty close to the mark without any fancy measuring or lactates etc. A 7x 4'/1'R is probably the best benchmark.

https://analytics.rowsandall.com/2016/1 ... eart-rate/

Totally agree!
My best friend is 1 year older than me, his MHR is around 210, mine 174, a difference of about 35. No matter if a formula is on average halfway exact, if we would trust a formula with only age and m/f as variables at least one of us would be very far away from his real MHR. The only way to get a reliable MHR is a test, and if that's not possible (medical issues for example) I would recommend training by feel, or guidelines like "if you can talk in whole sentences or sing a short song during training you train your aerobic base", it's propably not very accurate but prevents from pushing too hard too often.

[Tony Cook]

When I got my HR monitor earlier this year I searched for the best info. I found five different formulae for my MHR - ranged from 162 to 169. My personally measured max is 175 (apart from the mysterious blips to 200).
Equally confusing is where you should train. E.g. Masters Rowing says for me the 133-154 range is ‘black hole’ - to be avoided. So that’s all of my Concept calculated UT1 and most of UT2 out!!
It’s very confusing.
I’ve stuck with one thing - Concept - and I’ve got quicker, so presumably fitter.
As others have said, there’s no way of telling if I’d trained differently I would have got even fitter and faster.