Heart rate question

[reuben]

67 years old. Wake/resting pulse around 58-59. Using some online calculators I found in the past, such as the Mayo Clinic, my max HR should be about 150-155bpm, with a reserve in the 85-90bpm range. Granted, I'm using online calculators, not an actual VO2max test or similar, but the calculators were from reputable sources. I can't find the Clinic's calculator at the moment, but long ago I programmed it into a spreadsheet. They actually had two methods, one based on waking pulse and one based on resting pulse. My numbers are virtually identical for both.

I've long noticed that on many of my day hikes my heart rate would climb into the 150bpm range going up a short steep hill. Let's say that I was 62 at the time. I was using an optical HRM on my watch, which wasn't super accurate, but it was consistent over many years.

I notice the same phenomenon when rowing on a C2 or on a bike trainer - 140-150+ bpm isn't abnormal, especially toward the end of a session, and it can easily get up to that level halfway through a session - let's say 30 minutes. In rowing terms, this puts me in the AN band. In other terminology it would put me in the Z4 zone. I couldn't easily carry on a conversation, but neither do I feel terribly stressed. I know that I'm working, but I'm neither gasping for air, nor do I feel like there's a ton of lactic acid in my muscles.

For indoor cycling and rowing I'm using a Polar H10, which should be quite a bit more accurate than an old optical watch sensor, so I trust the 140-150+ bpm numbers I get these days. It's also consistent over both time (multiple workouts) and discipline (erging and cycling).

Am I an odd duck?

[Dangerscouse]

Hhhmmm, I don't say this with any scientific basis but of you feel like you're recovering and you're not straining, then I'd accept it for what it is.

Do you know how quickly your HR recovers after you've stopped? How long does it take to recover to 60%?

[MPx]

Am I an odd duck?

Yes! But then most of us are odd ducks. ANY calculated MHR is nonsense. It will be some kind of mathematical fit to a disparate set of base data numbers to give a "reasonable" estimate. The trouble is its a resonable sort of average but very few of us individuals are "average", though clearly a few people probably will be. My RHR is around 40 (measured over a 3week avg soon after waking). My MHR is around 170 - not what any formula would suggest for a 67 year old. This value has been seen at the end of a hard TT (say 5 or 6 k) when managing to sprint over the last minute. I get nowhere near this value on normal training, even really hard sessions typically peak in the mid 160s - so if you want to know what your real MHR is then you need to do some kind of stress test to find out.

All that said, most of the HR "zone" training guides are guesses and estimates based on guesses and estimates so any attempt at arithmetic exactitude is all a bit of a nonsense too! Nevertheless - some zones certainly have scientific thinking behind them and there's plenty of proven track records of training based on them helping many to reach a version of their potential.

[gvcormac]

Heart rate is but one indicator of the work you are doing. As noted above, all forumalae are nonsense, and even if you knew your max HR, the guidelines based on max HR are also nonsense. The guidelines based on HRR (heart rate reserve) have a tiny bit more sense behind them.

But all the true research has been done on athletes, which is not me or (I presume) you.

My max HR (or at least the max I've seen) is 171. I'm 68 years old. When I run I often average 150 (starting out 125 and ending 160+) with only moderate effort.

I've seen no evidence that you should slow down due to heart-rate drift which inevitably occurs. I maintain constant pace, not constant HR.

[Tsnor]

67 years old. Wake/resting pulse around 58-59. Using some online calculators I found in the past, such as the Mayo Clinic, my max HR should be about 150-155bpm,

Population studies can give you expected max heart rate. But the variance in max HR for people of a given age is way too large to use for an individual's training zones.

25% of the population has a max HR more than 10 beats per second higher or lower than predicted by population studies. 5% have a max heart rate more than 20 beats/sec higher or lower than formula predicts.

Here is a video with lots more info. You can't use an aged based max HR formula to zone train by HR. If you could just use age then the zone HR algorithms would be based on AGE not max HR. All of HR zone training is based on you find your personal max HR https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WkyzCRFnhGo

If you want to find your max heart rate warm up then try doing 4 minute intervals flat out with 2 minutes rest. You'll hit pretty close to max HR on the 3rd (or 2nd or 4th) interval. Then you can adjust your max HR up any time you see a higher max HR. Or follow this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmB5cTOWCbs which will tell you that different people hit max HR on different types of workouts.

Note: A person's personal Max heartrate does *not* change with conditioning level. So as a person go from coach potato to Olympic athlete (or back) their max HR stays the same. The only real changes to max HR are (1) a slight decrease in Max HR each year as you get older, (2) overreach/overtraining and other illness can suppress your max HR, and (3) certain prescription drugs really mess with max HR. (Resting HR does change with conditioning level).

[jamesg]

Am I an odd duck?

No, keep at it, you're doing well. If you use a rowing style that engages the right muscles at the right time, at aerobic rates below 24, you can get and stay very fit for as long as you wish.

If your style is already developed, with an effective stroke, you'll see Power up to 2W/kg at those rates. The C2 ergometers measure Power directly, so do not need a HR Proxy as control.

Stroke quality can also be seen via Watts/Rating, but will depend on size.

[JaapvanE]

All that said, most of the HR "zone" training guides are guesses and estimates based on guesses and estimates so any attempt at arithmetic exactitude is all a bit of a nonsense too! Nevertheless - some zones certainly have scientific thinking behind them and there's plenty of proven track records of training based on them helping many to reach a version of their potential.

I see these math tricks as a quick way to find a starting point for experimenting. Most HR Zones are defined by some physiological phenomena. Zone 2 to Zone 3 boundary is actually pretty easy to identify if you look at things like breathing rate and how your HR reacts throughout the session. To put it simply: in Zone 2 my breathing stays 1 breath per stroke and heart rate drift is minimal (but not absent). Start of Zone 3 is switch to 1.5 or 2 breaths per stroke and HR drift is quite present.

For me, the boundary is around 135 bpm. HR drift is slow, so I aim at 124 BPM at the begin of a Steady state 10K, and at the end of the session it will be around 135 bpm. If I go beyond the 135 for a minute or two, my HR goes to 140 to 144, but it won't come down unless I really drastically slow down.

See https://youtu.be/KcPeiyQihlQ how to recognise the HR zones based on body responses.

So start experimenting and see how your body reacts.

[iain]

There has been some discussion on the forum that Max HR actually decreases slightly when going from untrained to trained, but the change is only a few points and I haven't seen rigorous research supporting this. However it is clear that when untrained higher HR can be maintained (presumably due to decreased stroke volumes as the work Heart is doing is stroke volume x rate ie the blood pumped in a given time). The anaerbic threshold (where there is a significant increase in oxygen debt) increases as a proportion of HRR. So untrained it might be 75% while highly trained it can be 92%. This means that when untrained you rapidly move above threshold and HR goes high. That said, as others have said, no formulae can predict HRMax from single point estimates. It takes me at least a year of regular training after a significant (6 months+) layoff to get to a position where I can row with a decent stroke with only a slow HR drift, so you are far from abnormal.

[reuben]

Thanks for all of the replies.

My original post may not have been very well explained or phrased, either the background or the question.

I'm familiar with statistics - sampling, distribution, confidence intervals, variance, scatter plots, curve fitting, etc. Also error propagation, etc. But I don't know anything about the distribution or variance of the data behind the calculators. So I didn't expect any calculator to yield a number or numbers that would fit me to a T. I did, however, think that they'd probably be reasonably close, as long as I wasn't too odd of a duck, or the variances weren't too great. It's now obvious that at least one of those is true.

Anywho, it seems as though, at least for now, I should go more by perceived effort rather than heart rate until I can get an idea of what heart rates correspond to various levels of effort, be they erg or other zone models. Then zero in on appropriate paces for, say, 30min SS, 1k intervals, etc.

Or I could just scrap heart rate altogether and go by perceived exertion.

Having made a very brief attempt at rowing a few years ago before life went off the rails, I'm back to being a rank beginner (I never really left that stage, ha ha). I've been rowing steady state sessions, just trying to develop (and maintain!) technique over the session. Yesterday I got the bright idea of trying some intervals just for the heck of it. Since I had done a 6k SS row a few days before, I decided to just look up the 6k week in the BPP and do whatever it said, which turned out to be 2x2k. The BPP said to shoot for a pace 2 seconds faster than my 6k pace. I messed up the PM5, and only one session was saved, but I was surprised to find that my first interval was at 7s faster pace, and I felt that I could go faster. The second interval ended up being at 9s faster pace. Going by perceived effort, I'd say that they were AT or TR in erg terminology.

Obviously, I don't have much of an idea what my pace should be for anything - I'm just kind of stumbling around and slowly zeroing in on appropriate paces based on various workouts, mostly steady state. The good news is that I can clearly go faster and still maintain at least mediocre form.

At this point I wouldn't even say that I'm getting any of the easy beginner gains, as I have no reliable baseline. It's more like I'm trying to find the right pace (at 18-22spm) for various sessions. THEN I can reap the beginner gains. And as stated elsewhere, I don't ever intend to race - for me, rowing is just one piece of my physical and mental health plan.

I might try the 4 minute intervals someday to get a better idea of my max HR.

GCN - can't get any of their broadcasts in the US anymore.

Thanks again.

[iain]

Wk 3 of BPP is a gentle introduction to long intervals for people who are unused to rowing significant distances. Most people do 4 x 2k in the main (lunchtime) Plan at about SS - 10S/500M or so so you are in the right ballpark for the first time.

Beginners gains come from correcting leakage of power, getting used to the amount of force that you can generate and the confidence that you can sustain it and the rapid increases in fitness available to the unfit. I would hope that these will apply to you, but it does depend on whether you have rowed effectively before and base fitness. Without knowing your stats and paces / rates, I cannot comment on what you have achieved to date.

Once you establish a base pace, this can be extrapolated. Generally between 1k & 10k people reduce their pace by 3-7S per 500m each time they double the distance on all out time trials.

In addition to distance rowed and pace for a given distance, you can track how HR varies when rowing similar sessions. HR is a useful check as will indicate lack of recovery, low grade illnesses, stress, tiredness etc. so will allow you to vary your exercise to your state. Also RPE is for many not very reliable as it depends on our state. When full of endorphins during a hard row RPE understates the work. Similarly if demotivated it can often seem harder than it is. HR gives a more objective effort, although the limiter does reduce the attainable HRMax when tired etc. So sometimes high HR is just not going to happen!

[gvcormac]

Breathing rate may be a better indicator than heart rate. The rule of thumb is that if you can speak sentences but not sing, you're in the endurance training zone (whatever you call it).

I think some of the newer heart straps allow you to measure breathing rate, which is slightly more precise than your perceived effort, which is more subjective, and includes other factors.

But in the end, it may be that breathing rate is just another shiny new object to chase (and let's not forget lactate measurement) with limited value to anybody other than elite athletes.

[iain]

Breathing rate may be a better indicator than heart rate. The rule of thumb is that if you can speak sentences but not sing, you're in the endurance training zone (whatever you call it).

I think some of the newer heart straps allow you to measure breathing rate, which is slightly more precise than your perceived effort, which is more subjective, and includes other factors.

But in the end, it may be that breathing rate is just another shiny new object to chase (and let's not forget lactate measurement) with limited value to anybody other than elite athletes.

While I would agree for cycling or running, the necessity of coordinating breathing with the stroke means that I for one don't allow my breathing to naturally set its rate. If doing anything I expect to be above aerobic threshold I deliberately take 2 breaths per stroke. i find that if I start at 1 breath per minute, instead of naturally increasing as required, it stays at the lower rate too long. Then CO2 builds up and I have a need to breath faster that can uncoordinate the breathing to the stroke. As a consequence it is too concious a process and so not a useful assessment of the intensity of teh exercise.

[reuben]

Let me try to parse out a few recent replies.

@Dangerscouse - I agree with accepting it for what it is. We is who we is! Or, as Popeye famously said, "I yam what I yam!" I don't know about my recovery rate.

@Tsnor - yes, I understand the math, and should have said so earlier. Thanks.

@jamesg - I have no idea what my W/kg is, but given my kg, it's surely quite low. What is "Watts/Rating"?

Wk 3 of BPP is a gentle introduction to long intervals for people who are unused to rowing significant distances. Most people do 4 x 2k in the main (lunchtime) Plan at about SS - 10S/500M or so so you are in the right ballpark for the first time.

I get lost in the nomenclature sometimes. I'm 99% sure that SS = steady state (relatively constant spm or time/500m?), 4x2k = 4 intervals of 2km with undefined rest periods, but 10S/500M? 10 strokes or seconds per 500 meters? I dunno. I could do 60 minutes or 10k, but that would just add more variables. I'm trying to (mostly) stick with 30 minutes steady state, see what that pace ends up being, and using it as my baseline. Maybe that's a bad idea. I'm open to suggestions.

Beginners gains come from correcting leakage of power, getting used to the amount of force that you can generate and the confidence that you can sustain it and the rapid increases in fitness available to the unfit. I would hope that these will apply to you, but it does depend on whether you have rowed effectively before and base fitness. Without knowing your stats and paces / rates, I cannot comment on what you have achieved to date.

I try to keep half of one eye on the power curve to identify breakdown in technique/leakage of power. Drive length, while apparently far from a perfect indicator, was one of my major problems during my aborted start a few years ago (0.85?!?), so I track it as well, and I'm currently in the 1.0-1.1 range. Not good, but not horrendous. It would be higher if my damn belly wasn't in the way - I'm not the skinny young triathlete I was 30+ years ago. To respond to a couple of your specific questions, I haven't rowed effectively before, and after the last few years my base fitness is in the toilet. Again, now that life seems to have settled down, I'm getting back on the fitness bandwagon. Rowing is one piece of the puzzle.

I have hereditary back issues from both parents, namely undesirable spine curvatures and latent arthritis, but while they have some negative effect, they're not huge - I discount them heavily. Due to this, and possibly other issues, my left shoulder is a fair bit higher than my right (can affect backpacking, pain, endurance). One leg is a bit longer than the other (seems to be true for most of us but we don't usually know). One foot is longer/bigger than the other (same as leg length). Eh. Life goes on. On the other hand, I've seen xrays of my 94 year old mother's spine before she died, and I have no idea how she wasn't in excruciating pain. My dad didn't have it quite as bad. My sisters and I inherited from both. I may be wrong, but I don't see this as an issue for me - at least, not now.

My "achievement", such as it may be to date (2-3 weeks in this restart), is simply starting to hone in on a suitable pace for 30 minutes - see next comment. That's it. At this point I think that more meters in a fixed time period is just me finding my level, not really improving. I can't say that I've gained any fitness because I don't know what my base level at any time or distance might be. I try to maintain technique over 30 minutes or thereabouts. When I break, I guess that will be the baseline from which I can measure future achievements. Again, I'm open to suggestions, keeping in mind that rowing is not a be-all/end-all for me.

Without knowing your stats and paces / rates, I cannot comment on what you have achieved to date.

In four successive 30 minute steady state rows I've gone from 5400 to 5600 to 5800 to 6000 meters. Abysmally low (not even in the 25th percentile per C2), but again, my concentration has been on time and technique, not pace. So as stated earlier, I don't have a reliable baseline, I don't know what I can do. I'm trying to find it, at any standard time or distance, then I can judge progress from there. My 2k row was 2:25/500m, and I could have gone faster. How much faster (without sacrificing technique)? I don't know. Searching, searching... Need more data, more rows.

Once you establish a base pace, this can be extrapolated. Generally between 1k & 10k people reduce their pace by 3-7S per 500m each time they double the distance on all out time trials.

This is super helpful. Many thanks.

@gvcormac - I'm alone in my basement with a radio that I turn on but then never remember what songs were played (ha ha!), so I don't know about speaking or singing during workouts. Over the years I've learned that after initial frustration in the first 5-10 endurance workouts of any sort, my brain learns to just zone out, and time passes with myself barely being aware. That's not good for concentration on any metrics, but it does get in the exercise! My suspicion is that I could hold a halted, but not fluid, conversation. This is a simple mantra which has been around for decades, is apparently still well accepted, and has held true in my personal experience. I don't know if my H10 measures breathing rate, but as you say, it may be just another shiny bauble. Thanks.

Again, thanks for all of the helpful comments.

As far as being an odd duck goes, well, I have a short story.

Decades ago when I worked for a small company (there were about 5 or 6 of us at the time), the vice president walked over to my desk one morning, put this on my keyboard, chuckled, and walked out. He very much liked my work, but often wondered how the heck I did it. He was, and still is, a good man. And yes, Johnson is my real last name. (Sidewinder, Gary Larson, Far Side, December 14, 1994).

[JaapvanE]

But in the end, it may be that breathing rate is just another shiny new object to chase (and let's not forget lactate measurement) with limited value to anybody other than elite athletes.

I like to think it is a more telling metric. I have a Garmin Epix and with current Garmin HR straps it automatically measures breathing rate. My personal observation is that breathing gets tougher first, and HR typically follows. For me, when I absolutely want to stay in Zone 2, seeing breathing go above 1x strokerate is a good and timely indicator to let pace slip a bit and stay in zone. If I don't, I always end up in Zone 3.

One can debate the pro's and con's of Zone 2 training, but breathing rate is a pretty good indicator in my book. Combine it with HR behaviour around certain HR values and it is almost foolproof for identifying the Zone 2/3 transition for me.

[gvcormac]

Breathing rate may be a better indicator than heart rate. ...

While I would agree for cycling or running, the necessity of coordinating breathing with the stroke means that I for one don't allow my breathing to naturally set its rate. If doing anything I expect to be above aerobic threshold I deliberately take 2 breaths per stroke. i find that if I start at 1 breath per minute, instead of naturally increasing as required, it stays at the lower rate too long. Then CO2 builds up and I have a need to breath faster that can uncoordinate the breathing to the stroke. As a consequence it is too concious a process and so not a useful assessment of the intensity of teh exercise.

I've read this a lot. But in 40 years of rowing I've never noticed that I coordinate breathing with stroke any more than, for example, with running stride. I do know that I am unable to swim (crawl) at any reasonable pace because the breathing synchronization doesn't suit me.

When I ponder a bit harder, it occurs to me that when I run I take one breath for every one or two or thee or four strides, and I mix it up as necessary to get enough oxygen. I probably do the same when rowing, but I don't really notice.