Concept2 Forum

In cycling it is fashionable to dispense with monitoring heart rate and do all training with power and RPE.

Am I correct in assuming that rowing coaches still use heart rate, particularly for sub maximal testing?

I want to track progress but don't want to be doing maximal tests very often and always found in the past looking at heart rate at set power outputs worked reliably and can't understand why cycling coaches have such an objection to using heart rate.

Thanks.

I'd guess because riding in the bunch and climbing a hill alone are so different in terms of power demand. Excess power in a climb (or at the head of the bunch) will stop the rider in a few seconds, and the Watt meters used nowadays let the rider see what he's doing immediately, while HR would respond maybe too late. And if in the anaerobic range, maybe there is no HR response at all.

In racing afloat the power is roughly constant, save any last minute sprint, and it's important to hold down the HR to aerobic level in the first three splits of a 2k race. In any case, is there is an accurate way of measuring power afloat? For the erg, the Interactive offers both W and HR bands.

Short term, HR and W are related, so we can use either; but long term the idea is to produce more aerobic W for the same HR, so in training we use both.

Viktor Chebrikov wrote:In cycling it is fashionable to dispense with monitoring heart rate and do all training with power and RPE.

Am I correct in assuming that rowing coaches still use heart rate, particularly for sub maximal testing?

I want to track progress but don't want to be doing maximal tests very often and always found in the past looking at heart rate at set power outputs worked reliably and can't understand why cycling coaches have such an objection to using heart rate.

Thanks.

Tracking hf is very usefull for measuring aerobic improvements. On the erg temperature matters a lot, in warmer conditions that will influence hf.

Jamesg nailed it. As a cyclist who has spent a lot of time with powermeters, the difference is the instantaneous response when measuring power. You could do an extremely hard 30s effort; let's say over 400w, and be completely anaerobic and in oxygen debt before the HR responds. Rowing is more steady state except for the final sprint and the start. Everyone who posts here has been on the wrong end of a "fly and die" when they went too deep off the line and never recovered. And of course, OTW power cannot be measured, so HR and stroke rate and speed become the parameters. Cycling powermeters use strain gages that actually measure force applied and the watt readings vary wildly compared to a PM3. As stated they are instantaneous. A PM3 is measuring watts as a calculation between SR and how far the wheel spins.

I'll go against everyone out there (and I know I'm a minority of one) in that I don't use HR. That's a carry over from cycling where it was all power based. We trained to find out how many watts we could hold for a specific amount of time (for example, critical power at 30s, 60s, 5m, etc.).The pro riders calculate watts/kg for specific periods of time. Now that I'm doing longer, steady state rows (5k, 7.5k, 10k) I plan on using HR again and also as a means to measure recovery and how I'm responding to ever-increasing training loads.

Viktor Chebrikov wrote:In cycling it is fashionable to dispense with monitoring heart rate and do all training with power and RPE.

Am I correct in assuming that rowing coaches still use heart rate, particularly for sub maximal testing?

I want to track progress but don't want to be doing maximal tests very often and always found in the past looking at heart rate at set power outputs worked reliably and can't understand why cycling coaches have such an objection to using heart rate.

Thanks.

Yes, in cycling HR is a "lagging indicator".

I personally use a monitor. For myself, I want to make sure my heart rate stays below 125 the first 5 (warm-up) minutes, that it's over 135 by the 10-minute mark, that is stays above 142 for most of my row, that it doesn't rise more than 10 beats while I'm maintaining speed (which would indicate dehydration or exhaustion of glycogen), that I hit 160 on my final sprint, and that it goes below 100 within 10 minutes of the end of my row.
Each morning, I check my pulse after waking up & urinating. If it's over 48 (5 beats over my normal 43), I know my body is a little tired & I don't go all out that evening. If it's over 53 (normal HR + 10), I take the day off. The only thing better for this are the iThletes & BioForce HRVs, but I haven't really needed those, as I've never overtrained.
For me, the PRE tends to be a bit off. With [full-body exercise] rowing, my PRE is lower than my HR, with [legs-centric] cycling it's higher.

Definitely don't recommend using HR for short, maximal-effort intervals. It will take too long for HR to catch up.

For longer pieces though it can be useful. I run/erg/row with my HR monitor on me at all times. Of course I am aware of the limitations of training by HR, but I've been exercising long enough to know what the variations are most likely due to and whether or not i'm in the right "training zone"

As others have said personally I find the HR monitor a very useful tool, especially when you use the realtime graph in RowPro as what your looking at is the slope of the gradient for the whole row start to finish as you progress and staying in the right training bands or zones. Perceived effort is not always a good indicator, this can change and you can feel your working hard and the HR is still lower than normal. Also its a very good indicator of fitness in the number of beats it drops in the first minute of the recovery time and over the long term as you see your resting HR fall and lower maximums for a given pace. For me its like the rev counter in the car and it makes your training more predictable and stops you blowing the engine.Ambient temperature also has a huge impact on your HR, expect a big jump in summer compared to winter as the body has a much harder time getting rid of the heat.

Over time with experience you will find the HR, SPM, Distance or time and pace all tie in together and this allows you to stay in the right bands. With say 18-19spm, 30minutes and 2:04 pace as a training row I can tell you exactly what my average HR for the row will be and the maximum at the finish before even doing it.

have any experienced rowers used the phil maffetone method? dr maffetone is a world renown endurance coach whose approach is based on heart rate monitoring training. He advocates year round aerobic base training keeping heart rate at 180 minus age. He formulated this based on respiratory quotient and VO2 max data performed on patients and subjects. A lot of triathalon and distance runners use this technique. I burned out on year round intervals for rowing, tried this and found it useful. i am 56, more a of middle distance to short distance athlete. My experience with this approach is that you still need to do speedwork prior to any race. Also, the constant lower rate, lower intensity rowing builds a great aerobic base, but gets a bit boring. However, many world class athletes, mostly triathletes, ditance runners and cyclists, have used this approach with good effect. I am wondering, given the discussion regarding heart rate monitoring, whether any rowers are experienced in this approach and if they could share their insights. tx

Interesting but 180 minus my age is going to get VERY boring for me. After 30minutes of training my HR is 180 ! and the average is in the low 160's. I do however suffer from having a HR well above the guys I row with so it makes comparing results very difficult. Still think that every individual should use the resting HR and the maximum HR approach and stay in the bands. I can see benefits from the approach but I would really have to significantly increase my distance and drop the pace big time to stay at at 133 HR. Time is the biggest problem for the non professional rower ! I cannot sit on the erg all day long.

wsmith wrote:have any experienced rowers used the phil maffetone method? dr maffetone is a world renown endurance coach whose approach is based on heart rate monitoring training. He advocates year round aerobic base training keeping heart rate at 180 minus age. He formulated this based on respiratory quotient and VO2 max data performed on patients and subjects. A lot of triathalon and distance runners use this technique. I burned out on year round intervals for rowing, tried this and found it useful. i am 56, more a of middle distance to short distance athlete. My experience with this approach is that you still need to do speedwork prior to any race. Also, the constant lower rate, lower intensity rowing builds a great aerobic base, but gets a bit boring. However, many world class athletes, mostly triathletes, ditance runners and cyclists, have used this approach with good effect. I am wondering, given the discussion regarding heart rate monitoring, whether any rowers are experienced in this approach and if they could share their insights. tx

Never heard someone using, its always based on real numbers. Using this method the intensity would be very low, proberly very good for your health and if you enough meters also building endurance, but strenghtwise it can,t work or you should use very low spm s, way below 20.

All of these (pick a number) minus age formulae are nonsense. The only ways to find your heart rate range are 1) with a lab conducted lactate test or 2) with a step test to failure. The lactate test isn't usually a practical option for most folks.

http://www.cyclingfusion.com/pdf/220-Ag ... oblems.pdf