Concept2 Forum

In hopes of keeping the Latic Acid thread on track, but also discussing the HR based training pros & cons, a new thread might be in order. I'll start, knowing full well that my ideas may get blown out of the water.

Brief background, I was a long distance runner from 1964-1997 and didn't have access to heartrate monitors during the first 25 years or so, which encompassed my best performance years. Results were pretty good, but I always wondered if they could have been better with a bit more scientific measurement and intpretation. So when HR monitors became cost effective I got one.

Like Sean Seamus on the other thread I got into the UK Interactive Program because it seemed a good place to start when I decided that I wasn't smart enough to do things entirely on my own. The HR monitor fit nicely into this. There are ambiguities there though. When figuring out HR targets does one pick a pace and stick to it even if the HR goes too high, or pick a HR and slow down to keep it at the correct HR? I've done it both ways and have settled on the former for TR & AN workouts and the latter for UT2 UT1 & AT workouts.


Next, I find it almost impossible to hit the HR targets on the TR and AN workouts. There is such a lag before my heart gets the message that I want it to beat faster that the interval is over, with me heaving with exhaustion, without the HR getting where it is supposed to be. At least until the later of many intervals. Therefore I don't pay much attention to HR during these workouts except to mark them in my logbook for comparison purposes.

So, why do I still do it? Well, I'm usually more likely to have my training program grind to a halt because I beat myself to a pulp daydreaming about being the greatest athlete in the world while I workout, and without some discipline would turn what is supposed to be a recovery day into a pseudo-race day. The HR monitor gives me a reason to keep my recovery days from becoming damaging. At least to some degree. If my goal is to keep my HR at 147 or under for a UT1 workout and I successfully do so, then I can leave the workout somewhat satisfied even if the pace has been woefully slow.

I realize that many factors affect HR, most of all hot humid weather. For me it is all too easy to overdo it on these days by sticking to a pace that would be normal on a cool day and leave myself too wasted for the workouts due to follow. The HR monitor lets me believe (even if wrongly) that if my HR was in the correct zone at a slower pace that my heart has worked as hard as it is supposed to.

My 2 cents. Have at it then!

Rick

Rick,

I think you are right on target and make a great all around opening for this thread. HR is something you find useful and informative, but you don't try to design a precisely detailed plan around it.

HR measurement does take a grain of salt to use, but when in the habit of using one, one gets to know themself better, and know enough so that they recognize an anomoly. But a habit is important. After a long string of slightly up and down days, I get a pretty good picture that for X amount of stress, my heart beats at Y. And after a longer period, if X causes something less than Y, I consider that a pretty good tip that I'm ready to up the pressure. Conversely, if there is no such motion, or it goes the other way, it's good reason to reevaluate the reason (too much, too hard, too often) it is that way, whether from the training program, or a host of other things in my life.

I don't look at it at all for sprint type intervals, except out of curiousity. As you say, it just won't ramp fast enough. As for the long term drift you cite for UT1 and below, I personally look for a range and stay within that. It starts out easiest, and feels hardest at the end (surprise), but I think it more accurately stresses my muscle, than lightening up as I go would, just to keep HR constant. As long as I'm not bouncing off of my max, or 90% or something, I'll let my heart deliver the extra needed for temperature control, but I want my muscles demanding and receiving the same throughout.

So, I'm a big fan, as I would be for anything offering a little window inside, and filling in hows with a few whys.

- Doug

Well, to deal with this topic in a satisfactory (to me) manner – a lengthy discussion citing the appropriate research & authorities – would take more time & energy than I’m prepared to give right now. If I bother to give an opinion, you better believe I’ve done my homework. Maybe later in the summer. (Though there are people who have been waiting three years or more for my thoughts on strength training…) But here are a few stream-of-consciousness thoughts about HR-based training:

My recommendation to avoid using HR as a measure of training intensity applies most specifically to serious/competitive athletes seeking to maximize performance and less to recreational athletes or persons just trying to maintain general fitness. HR is affected by too many variables unrelated to intensity (body position, environmental temperature & humidity, caffeination, emotional state, etc.) to accurately reflect the training load. Furthermore, HR is often used to estimate dubious parameters such as the “anaerobic threshold”. The driving force behind the overall training stimulus is the actual work performed by the skeletal muscles; HR is more a symptom than a cause of the training stimulus. Heart rate alone does not adequately reflect the work done by the heart itself; stroke volume is the key parameter. Most people assume that if HR reaches a certain level, then the body has received a specific training stimulus. If that were true, why not simply drink a triple espresso and watch a scary movie? The heart can beat fast and not work particularly hard or beat slower and work very hard, just like skeletal muscles can lift a small weight with a rapid cadence or a heavier weight with a slower cadence. Athletes such as runners may benefit from a corollary measure of intensity like HR, since pace alone is harder to measure, especially considering variations in terrain and prevailing winds. The same may have been true of cyclists, though (as I’ve read in recent studies), riders now have access to technology in the form of lightweight force transducers in the crank that accurately measure work performed and power output in Watts. Rowers – especially indoor rowers – have the most complete feedback regarding intensity & total work performed available to any athlete. Disregarding this information to regulate training with a fuzzy variable like HR has to be something like trying to drive your car backwards looking in the rearview mirror at a view through a muddy rear window. You might get where you want to go, but you’re going to hit a few bumps along the way, and it would be a lot easier to simply drive forward while looking through a clean windshield. A good training plan can prescribe the appropriate intensity based on workload (i.e., Watts or pace rather than HR) with an appropriate rate of increase as fitness improves, and be sensitive to signs of overtraining or under-recovering. In fact, changes in performance (unexpected decline or inability to hold an expected pace for a given workout) are far more accurate for identifying training status than HR or even markers in the blood such as lactate, various hormones, or immune system parameters. If you really want to measure heart rate in a way that shows promise for monitoring training status, start learning about Heart Rate Variability (HRV), which involves measuring variation in the time between R-R peaks of resting (ideally, sleeping) HR and appears to be sensitive to both the positive and negative responses to training. I don’t imagine it will be long before personal heart rate monitors have the capacity to measure HRV.

OK, there’s my “short” take on HR-based training. Don’t even get me started on lactate-based training…

Mike Caviston

For hard short-duration intervals, I think HR is a horrible proxy for intensity.

By way of illustration, this chart reflects the first 25 intervals of a 60 x 30" r34, 30" passive rest workout I did this morning. It shows HR range in bpm (left axis; pink = initial, blue = peak) and pace (right axis; yellow = seconds/500m) by interval number. Total work distance for these 25 intervals was 3986.5m, at an average pace of 1:34.1.

Theoretically this 4k @ 1:34 pace was -- at most -- low UT1 for me.

Do I believe this? Not for a second. For most of these 25 intervals I believe my leg muscles were working at or just below threshold levels, i.e. were producing virtually all the lactate they could handle locally, even if the rest of my body wasn't anywhere near as stressed. Moreover, by the end of the workout my legs were working at considerably higher than threshold levels -- even though max HR over the entire session never got much above the 161 bpm associated with my anaerobic threshold....

Mike Caviston wrote: Heart rate alone does not adequately reflect the work done by the heart itself; stroke volume is the key parameter. Most people assume that if HR reaches a certain level, then the body has received a specific training stimulus.

I remember last year just before the start of a 10K race that my HR was at 140! I had done a light warm-up that I had completed 10 minutes earlier. Normally my HR would have gone back to 60 pbm. It was just the excitement and anticipation!
I was told that Formula 1 pilots can reach 200 bpm before the start of a race
Another example is that when I am running on my treadmill at a fixed speed, I can change my HR by as much as 15 bpm depending on what I am thinking about. Paradoxically the higher HR often seems easier.

I think it is much more important to associate with the various workouts levels (L1 to L4 for instance) perceived exertion levels. That is, how hard should each of those workouts feel. Of course this doesn't happen overnight but through regular training. Eventually one also develops a good intuition on pacing: what is the maximum output one can sustain to cover a distance X.

Mike Caviston wrote:My recommendation to avoid using HR as a measure of training intensity applies most specifically to serious/competitive athletes seeking to maximize performance and less to recreational athletes or persons just trying to maintain general fitness. HR is affected by too many variables unrelated to intensity (body position, environmental temperature & humidity, caffeination, emotional state, etc.) to accurately reflect the training load. Furthermore, HR is often used to estimate dubious parameters such as the “anaerobic threshold”. The driving force behind the overall training stimulus is the actual work performed by the skeletal muscles; HR is more a symptom than a cause of the training stimulus. Heart rate alone does not adequately reflect the work done by the heart itself; stroke volume is the key parameter. Most people assume that if HR reaches a certain level, then the body has received a specific training stimulus. If that were true, why not simply drink a triple espresso and watch a scary movie? The heart can beat fast and not work particularly hard or beat slower and work very hard, just like skeletal muscles can lift a small weight with a rapid cadence or a heavier weight with a slower cadence. Athletes such as runners may benefit from a corollary measure of intensity like HR, since pace alone is harder to measure, especially considering variations in terrain and prevailing winds. The same may have been true of cyclists, though (as I’ve read in recent studies), riders now have access to technology in the form of lightweight force transducers in the crank that accurately measure work performed and power output in Watts. Rowers – especially indoor rowers – have the most complete feedback regarding intensity & total work performed available to any athlete. Disregarding this information to regulate training with a fuzzy variable like HR has to be something like trying to drive your car backwards looking in the rearview mirror at a view through a muddy rear window. You might get where you want to go, but you’re going to hit a few bumps along the way, and it would be a lot easier to simply drive forward while looking through a clean windshield. A good training plan can prescribe the appropriate intensity based on workload (i.e., Watts or pace rather than HR) with an appropriate rate of increase as fitness improves, and be sensitive to signs of overtraining or under-recovering. In fact, changes in performance (unexpected decline or inability to hold an expected pace for a given workout) are far more accurate for identifying training status than HR or even markers in the blood such as lactate, various hormones, or immune system parameters. If you really want to measure heart rate in a way that shows promise for monitoring training status, start learning about Heart Rate Variability (HRV), which involves measuring variation in the time between R-R peaks of resting (ideally, sleeping) HR and appears to be sensitive to both the positive and negative responses to training. I don’t imagine it will be long before personal heart rate monitors have the capacity to measure HRV.

OK, there’s my “short” take on HR-based training. Don’t even get me started on lactate-based training…

Mike Caviston

Mike (and others),

I realize that the discussion (so far) is focused on those of you who are serious competitive athletes, but I was wondering if you have a different view (of HR-based training) for recreational athletes or persons just trying to maintain general fitness or even (moving further down the scale) those who are not yet trying to maintain general fitness, but rather to acquire general fitness to begin with. (Whether or not a weight loss goal is included...)

Alissa

I’ve been influenced by studies that have compared the fitness gains of participants of different activities (such as running or aerobics classes) who were taught to gauge intensity using HR vs. others taught to use RPE (Ratings of Perceived Exertion). RPE is generally found to be superior because while it is somewhat subjective, with practice it becomes consistent & repeatable for a given athlete – as you say, with experience one gains a certain amount of intuition. An individual’s RPE is affected by many sensations, which include but aren’t limited to HR; there is also breathing, muscle fatigue, environmental conditions, etc. Limiting the data to only HR creates a narrow window through which to judge intensity.

Mike Caviston

Alissa, in my opinion using HR to monitor intensity may be more appropriate for beginners because it provides objective guidelines that anyone with little experience can follow, and beginners are more concerned about going too hard rather than not hard enough. For a beginner, just doing something is enough. But at some point a more accurate measure of intensity would probably become appropriate. My approach with beginners is have them start at a level even they feel is pretty easy and then slowly, gradually increase so that they never feel overwhelmed.

Mike Caviston

I would also add that this RPE likely involves complex subconscious processing of those sensory information. It is an intuitive and holistic thing! My experience has been that when I focus my attention on my HR monitor, I loose touch with my RPE, as if the analytical mind takes control and filters what I should be feeling.

Anyway, my expensive Polar HR monitor is now used exclusively as an alarm clock!

Just my 2 cents since I've trained for rowing with and without HR feedback. I simply like it a lot. So impressed with what it did for me I tried to convince others of its efficacy to tell you when you are ready for faster paces. Those that listened were blown away by their new training paces that developed. FWIW. I can not cite studies nor do I know about the application to the general public. That's just my experience working with two excellent athletes (5:56 34 HW, 6:24 38 LW).

I think HR is for athletes, Intensity for coaches. Coaches don't mind how many dead and injured they leave behind, indeed they need this selection; they want boats across the finishing line asap and that's what they're paid to get. The athlete otoh wants to live to 90+ and still enjoy the water and listen to the hull sing.

I always use HR, but find it especially useful afloat. I scull less than I erg, and the gearing on the erg is so absurdly low, the catch so sloppy with respect to a pair of sculls, that using the same ratings, length etc overloads me immediately in a 1x. I can do 40' on the erg at 20 and D=130-140 or even 150 with no problem, but the same stroke characteristic afloat stops me after 30-40 strokes. So watching the rate of change of HR helps as a an early-warning control of intensity, helps me change the style.

That HR measures lots of things as well as intensity is a good reason FOR using it, not against, for us amateurs. We want to know the total load, whether it's coffee, a headwind or flu. Even afloat with no electronics, I already know how fast the boat's going. What I want to know is the difference - how to make the boat go faster with a lower HR. Aka Technique. High HR + low speed = bad technique or problems. This is very important when you're three miles from the dock and exhausted.

On the other hand, the professional can't say, sorry coach I have to slow down me HR's over the top. So back to square 1; it depends who you are.

Another point: all this derives from the modern crazy idea that fitness shifts the boat. Nonsense, it's bladework. Get that right first. The load these C2 hatchets put on you if your bladework is right will get you fit in no time anyway. So in the end it makes no difference what control we use.

jamesg wrote: I always use HR, but find it especially useful afloat. I scull less than I erg, and the gearing on the erg is so absurdly low, the catch so sloppy with respect to a pair of sculls, that using the same ratings, length etc overloads me immediately in a 1x. I can do 40' on the erg at 20 and D=130-140 or even 150 with no problem, but the same stroke characteristic afloat stops me after 30-40 strokes. So watching the rate of change of HR helps as a an early-warning control of intensity, helps me change the style.

This is akin to someone running on a flat course and suddenly facing a hill. If he keeps the same stride his perceived exertion level immediately increases even though his heart rate will lag in reacting to that increased load. It would be pretty dumb for such a runner to wait until his HR overshoot a certain limit before adjusting his stride; and then the question would be by how much, since HR also lags for decreasing loads.
As a personal anecdote, my treadmill has a "cardio" mode where you input a HR target and it will adjust the incline to maintain your HR on target. Well, it is totally useless: I will start with my HR below target, so the machine increases the incline, at some point I know it is hard enough, but since my HR has not reach target, the incline is further increased. Sure enough I overshoot the target, so the incline is decreased. At some point I know it is just perfect, but since my HR is still over target, the machine further decreases the incline, which becomes too easy and eventually my HR is below target, then a new cycle of this nonsense begins!

jamesg wrote: That HR measures lots of things as well as intensity is a good reason FOR using it, not against, for us amateurs. We want to know the total load, whether it's coffee, a headwind or flu. Even afloat with no electronics, I already know how fast the boat's going. What I want to know is the difference - how to make the boat go faster with a lower HR. Aka Technique. High HR + low speed = bad technique or problems.

IMO, there is more than HR to take into account to measure efficiency. By focusing exclusively on HR, there is the danger of having a distorted picture. For instance, on the bike for a given watt output, a higher cadence in lower gears very often feels easier than a lower cadence in higher gears, even though it elicits a higher HR. Moreover, in a triathlon, your legs are not as tired for the run portion! I could give many other examples in swimming where HR would be useless or misleading as a measure of efficiency.
You can trust the billion years of evolution that for whatever output that is required, the human body will find a way to achieve it at minimal cost! It's ingrained in our genes!

I find HR an interesting datum for each workout. It is not always useful, but I may see patterns or anomalies that in conjunction w/ other information helps guide my training, such as it is.

A significantly elevated HR in the morning has led me to take an unscheduled day off from training. I have actually gone faster on a long piece when my HR remained relatively low. For me, the "perceived exertion" of any long row is substantial, and monitoring HR sometimes keeps me from taking it too easy.

And including HR in the training log distracts me a bit from the slow paces I must, alas, record there.

Tom

Jim Barry wrote:Just my 2 cents since I've trained for rowing with and without HR feedback. I simply like it a lot... I can not cite studies nor do I know about the application to the general public. That's just my experience working with two excellent athletes.

Well, liking something is a pretty good reason to stick with it, especially if you’re not necessarily worried about training to accomplish your best possible effort. Don’t be too quick to assume that because an approach works well in some cases that it must be the best possible approach (see the Pacing Thread for more examples & discussion). I say, trust in science (though some individuals have been known to state that science & training don’t belong together…)

jamesg wrote: That HR measures lots of things as well as intensity is a good reason FOR using it, not against, for us amateurs. We want to know the total load

HR is affected by many things. Some increase HR, some decrease it. Some are beneficial/benign, some harmful. Sometimes HR can be low and workload high, and sometimes the reverse. HR alone can’t discriminate among all these possibilities.

jamesg wrote:Coaches don't mind how many dead and injured they leave behind

I don’t know about anyone else, but I find this load of horseshit particularly offensive.

Mike Caviston

Mike Caviston wrote:I don’t know about anyone else, but I find this load of horseshit particularly offensive.

Mike Caviston

Yes me too. If I coach anyone ( and I have done that a lot) the wellbeing off the athlete has always been nmr 1. I think this goes for most trainers/coaches.