Steady State ... row to heart rate?

[Litewait]

Struggle with targeting pace for longer distances (>= 6k).

Is there any benefit (or harm) in rowing to heart rate vs. pace?

Just tried 9k @ 125bpm (I am 62 so don't want to over cook it), I think this will help my motivation, love doing intervals, not so enamored with steady state and long distances.
Thanks.

[MPx]

Anything that motivates you to keep doing it is very likely to do much more good than harm, so go with it.

Personally I much prefer setting a pace as HR drift will almost inevitably cause you to have to slow over the piece unless you start much slower than you need. Slowing down is poor training for future TTs when the going gets tough - you'll be used to giving in to it. But maybe that doesn't matter to you?

Oh and I also don't agree with the not over cooking it aspect! I try to do two hard sessions most weeks and HR has to go pretty high to keep up! Is that bad in our 60s? I don't think so. But maybe you're just talking about the steady state stuff - where not over cooking it is king! Whatever, keep finding ways of enjoying it...

[jamesg]

love doing intervals, not so enamored with steady state and long distances.

I've been doing C2 WODs this year, via Ergdata, mostly intervals. Very effective at my age without needing to do more than about 20k a week, so long as I get the endorphines to kick in.

Two indices allow control, not subject to HR drift: Watts/kg and Watts/Rating. Without, undercooking is a distinct possibility.

[Dangerscouse]

Anything that motivates you to keep doing it is very likely to do much more good than harm, so go with it.

Personally I much prefer setting a pace as HR drift will almost inevitably cause you to have to slow over the piece unless you start much slower than you need. Slowing down is poor training for future TTs when the going gets tough - you'll be used to giving in to it. But maybe that doesn't matter to you?

Oh and I also don't agree with the not over cooking it aspect! I try to do two hard sessions most weeks and HR has to go pretty high to keep up! Is that bad in our 60s? I don't think so. But maybe you're just talking about the steady state stuff - where not over cooking it is king! Whatever, keep finding ways of enjoying it...

This covers everything I'd have said too

[lindsayh]

struggle with targeting pace for longer distances (>= 6k).
Is there any benefit (or harm) in rowing to heart rate vs. pace?
Just tried 9k @ 125bpm (I am 62 so don't want to over cook it), I think this will help my motivation, love doing intervals, not so enamored with steady state and long distances.

Just my bit on this.
I used HR rather than pace for much of the longer steady pieces when I was training seriously even allowing for the cardiac rate drifting up. I liked to stay between 70-80% MHR. i am assuming that you are using a real observed MHR not one derived from a formula. Search here for heart rate reserve and use % of that as the goals. If using pace for the long pieces, then 2k pace +15" is a good enough proxy. The steady pieces shouldn't be hard and not
more than some heavy breathing and a bit of a sweat. Should be able to have a conversation.
On the hard intervals (which I really like too) definitely pace is better although you want to get your HR to 95%+. 2k -5 is a good goal.
I agree with Mike - there is nothing wrong with 60+ athletes going for it and maybe 20% can be anerobic and really hard. There is a reasonable argument that we should in fact do the hard stuff harder as we age to battle and delay the advancing and inevitable sarcopenia. Reaching your real MHR at the end of a hard interval session is a really satisfying thing I reckon.

[Litewait]

Gentleman, thank you all.

Yes, on intervals I do overcook, on last interval I work to MHR.

Really was talking about SS longer distances only. I think there a really two choices here, stick to a pace and let the HR drift up...or pin to a HR and not worry about the fact that I'll inevitably get slower. I guess I'll experiment, I've always done the former, but (the reason I posted this) going to spend some time with the latter. In the end I'll see which gets/keeps me more motivated.

Again thanks.

[nick rockliff]

Gentleman, thank you all.

Yes, on intervals I do overcook, on last interval I work to MHR.

Really was talking about SS longer distances only. I think there a really two choices here, stick to a pace and let the HR drift up...or pin to a HR and not worry about the fact that I'll inevitably get slower. I guess I'll experiment, I've always done the former, but (the reason I posted this) going to spend some time with the latter. In the end I'll see which gets/keeps me more motivated.

Again thanks.

I always used a HR cap and didn't like reducing pace over the session. So I did the session a few times slowing if needed to keep within the cap and then used the average pace until I could finish on the cap. Make sure rate is consistent throughout too.

As you get fitter you will finish the session below the cap. All you do then is either speed up the pace a little or increase the length of the session.

[Aquaman]

Struggle with targeting pace for longer distances (>= 6k).

Is there any benefit (or harm) in rowing to heart rate vs. pace?

Just tried 9k @ 125bpm (I am 62 so don't want to over cook it), I think this will help my motivation, love doing intervals, not so enamored with steady state and long distances.
Thanks.

I use HR Zone training as a bounding metric for HIIT and endurance workouts. This means I use a primary metric (Watts, Pace) for my sessions but adjust if my HR fluctuates too far out of the expected Zone for each interval. Call it a safety gauge for preventing cardiac arrest. But I also like to monitor my recovery time - how fast does my HR drop from its high to a resting pace between intervals. This is a measure of your fitness (shorter recovery = better). But to answer your question, it's certainly possible to design a workout session based solely on your HR zones and vary the intensity of your Pace or Power to maintain HR versus the other way around. That helps ensure you don't overcook when your ego tries to reach some arbitrary Pace number you did back in your 20s.

CAUTION on HR - Most devices, especially watches, have 10-20 seconds lag displaying your BPM. Chest straps are more like 3-5 sec lag. In addition, your muscles will metabolize and call for oxygen before your heart knows to pumps it, so you might crank an extra hard stroke or 2 before you heart is notified to ratchet up its BPM. This means you could overcook on a short interval thinking you haven't maxed you HR when in fact your heart is already at max.

[Nomath]

CAUTION on HR - Most devices, especially watches, have 10-20 seconds lag displaying your BPM. Chest straps are more like 3-5 sec lag. ...

How do you know ? I am very interested to hear your inside knowledge or scientific sources for this.
I agree that there is some averaging of the last R-R intervals, but why the lag ?

[Aquaman]

CAUTION on HR - Most devices, especially watches, have 10-20 seconds lag displaying your BPM. Chest straps are more like 3-5 sec lag. ...

How do you know ? I am very interested to hear your inside knowledge or scientific sources for this.
I agree that there is some averaging of the last R-R intervals, but why the lag ?

The lag factor approximates come from a combination of...
(a) Research (e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6732081/)
(b) Real-world tests using different devices & connection to the PM5 monitor (every transmission point/device introduces lag)
(c) Developing software that reads the data coming from the devices and monitors they are connected to like the PM5

Those lag ranges vary amongst the many devices out there. I've found Polar chest straps seem to deliver the best data. The one point I did not address but is covered in the above cited (and other studies) is the actual accuracy of the device's reading, which can also vary by up to 30% with some cheaper HR monitoring models. So it's probably best to not consider the upper end readings as absolute - your real HR could be 5-10% higher or lower than what the device is reading.

This help?

[Aquaman]

Another thing - not all devices transmit the HR data in real-time every millisecond. Most watches - in their preference to conserve battery power - will transmit a reading every 4-5 seconds during exercise (we believe, but we have not seen it be this consistent or regular). So part of the lag is due to the transmission rate and frequency of readings taken by the device. DC Rainmaker did a great review back in 2021: https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2021/12/pol ... eview.html

[dabatey]

Another thing - not all devices transmit the HR data in real-time every millisecond. Most watches - in their preference to conserve battery power - will transmit a reading every 4-5 seconds during exercise (we believe, but we have not seen it be this consistent or regular). So part of the lag is due to the transmission rate and frequency of readings taken by the device. DC Rainmaker did a great review back in 2021: https://www.dcrainmaker.com/2021/12/pol ... eview.html

A bit moot since most watches are pretty much useless for HR rowing due to wrist movement.

[Nomath]

The lag factor approximates come from a combination of...
...
This help?

Thanks for the links. I didn't have time to read them well. I scrolled them down to find specifics on 'lag' or 'delay', but couldn't find any. Did I miss one or two?

Here is why I doubt that there is a device-related lag :
1. Many HR devices are able to measure Heart Rate Variability (HRV). This requires the ability to measure beat-to-beat time variations. HRV is mostly measured in rest, but not necessarily. Most resting HR are between 40-60 bpm. So a measuring device (source) must be able to measure and transmit at a rate of roughly 1 reading per second, at least. Note that the source does not compute HRV ; it is the receiver that does that.

2. I use a Polar H10 in combination with Polar M-460 receiver/display and the PM5. I don't know the tranmission protocols, but the M-460 displays HR data that are renewed every second, as does the PM5. I also observed that the Polar M-460 and the PM5 mostly display identical values. Why would they use a delay?

3. For some time I wondered why at the end of a 5K all-out exercise my HR stayed at within 1-2 beats from the final maximum for about 8-10 second and only then started to drop (see graph below). I asked experts in sports physiology, who often use ECG to measure HR. They said that the HR mostly drops within a few seconds after end-of-exercise. So I suspected a device-related delay and questioned the technical experts of Polar. They answered that the H10 monitor measures R-R intervals exactly. From the incoming data, the receiver (M-460) computes and displays a HR value every second. They ensured me that there is no delay. The apparent delay in the graph below is due to my personal physiology.

[iain]

For some time I wondered why at the end of a 5K all-out exercise my HR stayed at within 1-2 beats from the final maximum for about 8-10 second and only then started to drop rapidly (see graph below).

I don't have access to the graph so relying on the above words... But I find that this depends on the intensity of exercise. "moderate" or light exercise tends to lead to rapid falls in a few seconds. But when I push to the limit there is always a delay and HR may actually climb for 5+ seconds before levelling off and then declining. I would expect that as if you have a significant oxygen debt this will not disappear merely because you are no longer adding to it. It will take time for the deoxygenated blood to return to the heart and be pumped to the lungs. Not sure whether the rise is merely the result of the delay in any response and a final push or an artefact of the central limiter which no longer needs to fear a continued effort requirement.

[Nomath]

I don't have access to the graph so relying on the above words...

I have always assumed that the graphs and pictures that I attach to my posts, using imgur.com , are visible to all forum users. Does this depend on the computer or what?