How do you compare HR recovery rates ?

[Carl Watts]

Just interested as I row online and one of the things we do after the row is see how long it takes for your Heart Rate to fall below 100 bpm.

The problem is trying to get a "Direct comparison" because not only my resting HR is higher to start with but I suspect that my MAX HR is also higher than most.

So the problem is that if I row at the same pace as the others online, my HR at the finish is always higher and so is this a fair comparison when you take the time to drop to 100 ?

Can I really only comapre it if I row at a pace that produces the same final HR as the others at the finish ?

How do you get a system that enables a direct comparison ?

Obviously the higher your finish HR the longer it takes to fall below 100 anyway. For example rowing at 2:07 pace on a 5Km at 16 spm yeilds an average HR of 136 and the recovery to 100 is only 50 seconds but getting to the MAX HR at PB pace can take over 8 minutes to recover to 100 for me.

Any thoughts ? or am I just splitting hairs and your HR is pretty irrelavent, just look at the PB performances for a direct comparison ?

[RBFC]

Perhaps you should compare the time it takes your HR to drop to your resting rate + a given % (say 50%). So, if your resting HR is 50, then how long does it take to drop to 75. For someone with a resting HR of 70, how long does it take to drop to 105, etc. This would take into account differences in resting and operating HR ranges. There are most likely a few more variables involved, but it would make an interesting comparison, especially if you know the fitness level (row times, etc.) of the other folks so that you could compare to comparable rowers.

Lee

[Bob S.]

I have seen double the RHR used as a basis for timing interval rests. So if your resting HR is 50, you wait until it gets down to 100 before starting the next interval. I can't remember which program used that, but I saw it either on this or the UK forum or on one of the 2 C2 websites. One problem that I see with that is that for very short intervals, the heart rate doesn't have enough time to get very high. Initially that is. On later intervals there is not such a lag.

My point is that it might be useful for establishing a recovery time for long rows as well as between intervals.

Bob S.

[gregsmith01748]

Bob, 50% of HRR, that's the guideline for the uk interactive 2k program. I also think that it's a much better benchmark than the race to 100 after the end of a row.

[RBFC]

I've seen that method used in running interval routines. It's definitely a "ladder" of HR, and is oriented more toward the AT-type workout, where one doesn't want so much recovery. Good call.

Lee

[Bob S.]

Bob, 50% of HRR, that's the guideline for the uk interactive 2k program. I also think that it's a much better benchmark than the race to 100 after the end of a row.

I wish I could remember where I saw the double the RHR quote. It is a convenient one, whereas using HRR means having to know your max. Properly determining the max is as bad as about any workout can get and is most accurately done in a clinical setting. I have never had a strong enough motivation to go through that on my own and I don't know where I could have the measurement done. I have always just guessed that it is probably 5-10 BPM higher that what I get in a 2k time trial. The 220-age rule is garbage. The 205-1/2age is not too bad. For me, it has been at least fairly close to what my rough guess is.

Bob S.

[KevJGK]

I read somewhere that a massive indicator of cardiac fitness is the rate at which your HR reduces after you stop exercising.

I'm pretty sure they said anything over 20 bpm per minute was good - although I've been on Google and I cant find the article.

If your HR reduces slowly back to resting its a really bad sign - and the slower it reduces the worse it is. Apparently one poor guys HR took a couple of minutes to drop 10 bpm.

I suspect many of us see 180+ back under 120 within a minute or so which is great.

[Carl Watts]

Thanks for the info guys, especially the double the resting HR so my recovery would be more like looking at 114-120 rather than 100 which is way faster than the time it takes to get back down to 100 unless the max I see in a row is about 140 then it takes under 1min to get to 100.

It is not a set in stone recovery period anyway as it depends on how long you sustain the HR, this really shows up when you keep your HR at AT or even AR for a long period of time as this can then take me several minutes to fall to 100.

120 is a different story as the HR drops rapidly and then begins to plateau at about this figure even after a hard row so it is probably a good choice at my current level of fitness.

[Ralph Earle]

From http://www.gbboyscadetepee.co.uk/HeartRateRecovery.doc

To determine your rate of recovery, use the following formula:

Recovery heart rate = (exercise heart rate - recovery heart rate after 1 minute) / 10

Monitor your exercise pulse immediately at the end of your exercise. Exactly one minute after the exercise, take your pulse again. Subtract the one-minute recovery rate from the exercise heart rate and divide this figure by 10. The higher the number for the recovery rate, the more quickly your heart has recovered from the exercise. Use the following table to evaluate your recovery rate:

Recovery Rate Number
< 2 = Poor
2 to 2.9 = Fair
3 to 3.9 = Good
4 to 5.9 = Excellent
Above 6 = Outstanding

The recovery heart rate also measures the intensity of your exercise. Very little drop in the one minute pulse could indicate that you were probably working too hard and your body was having a difficult time recuperating.

This measure might be relatively independent of how close to maxHR you were at the end of exercise. For example, after a 1K warmup for a 1K TT, my HR dropped from 123 to 96 = Recovery rate of 2.7. After the TT it dropped from 154 to 125 = 2.9. I have no idea, however, from what group of people the norms quoted above were obtained.

For example the "classic" paper on this from the New England Journal of Medicine,
http://02b6616.netsolhost.com/literatur ... COVERY.pdf,
used 2,428 people, whose average age was 57(±12), 63% of whom were men. All were without a history of heart failure or coronary revascularization and without pacemakers. They exercised on a treadmill until they had reached at least 80% of the maximum heart rate reserve, using the 220-age formula. [I estimated their max HR as 220-57 = 163, average rest HR = 81, 80% of MHRR = 147.]

The distribution of the drop in heart rate one-minute after exercise (during which they walked at 2.4K/hour, i.e., 12:30/500m) was approximately:

Lowest quintile = 0.7
Q2 = 1.3
Q3 = 1.75
Q4 = 2.2
Highest quintile = 3.0
[Eye-balled from their Figure 1]

So what is "good" for young epee-wielders is probably "excellent" for old ergers.