Training by heartrate

[gregsmith01748]

Probably the biggest thing that I did to control calorie intake was to change my daytime eating habits. Before, I would jump out of bed hop in the car and eat a bagel or danish or some other crap with a cup of coffee on my way to work, then I would dash to cafeteria and buy a sandwich (with fries of course), then, by the time I got home, I'd be hungry again and my wife and I would eat pizza or something, and add dessert on top of it.

When I went on my diet, I started to get up 15 minutes earlier and I'd eat exactly the same thing every day. 1 cup crispix with raisins, 1 cup non-fat milk, 1 banana. On the way to workout, I'd get a Starbucks Tall non-fat latte. After I worked out I would have a cup of greek yogurt (plain, non-fat), with 1 tsp of honey and 1/4 cup of granola. I also started to pack my lunch so that I would not even have to visit the cafeteria. That was a low carb wrap w/ turkey, greens, mustard (and Jalapenos, my secret weapon, those things make you eat slow!), about a 1 cup serving of crunch carrots/snap peas, a pickle, plus a piece of fruit. Right before I left work I had another piece of fruit, to take the edge off.

At dinner the rules were. one serving of protien, go very light on the starchy carbs, and eat all the salad or veggies I desired. I did not eat a dessert for 9 months.

I think the key thing was to eat a healthy snack within 1 hour of finishing my workout. And to eat smaller amounts over short intervals during the day. Pretty soon, I found that I wasn't painfully hungry at night, when I had more choices.

As you can see, I didn't try to restrict carbs, but I did try to avoid foods with a high glycemic load (bread, rice, sweets). I tried to eat more lean protein.

I have been through it all diet wise. I have lost more than 30 pounds about 4 times in my life. I did it with Atkins, once with south beach, once with volumetrics, and once by eating "normal", but cutting calories and working out. The only one that stuck longer than a 6 month period was the last one. It turned it into more of a behavior change than a finite project. And when I had gotten to where I wanted to be in terms of weight, the fact that there were people who cared deeply about rowing faster allowed me to transition from weight loss to athletic training, and in that world, when you achieved a goal (yeah, a 7 minute 2K), there was always another goal to shoot for (Hmm, I wonder if I could do 6:45).

I apologize for going on like this, but the difference this has made in my life (and mood) is profound. And there is nothing like the zeal of the converted.

BTW: that is an interesting link, but based on what I've seen from my rowing, I think it underestimates the calorie burn of moderate pace rowing by about 25%

[Corkster52]

Thanks Greg. I needed to hear the details. I tried one "moderate level" portion of my workout this evening from info gathered on a website that said to row the same wattage as your weight in pounds. Heck, at 230 I might have been able to sustain it for a minute, but that would have been about it...lol. No doubt about it, I need to do some "behavior mods". Ironically, my wife is a specialist in treating eating disorders, but now, with your comments, I think I will listen more to what she has to say...lol Tomorrow is my day workout day off, but I will lay out a plan for how to continue. Will see it I can do some kettlebells too. Thanks again.

[jamesg]

Corkster, 1W per pound body weight is a little on the high side, 2.2W/kg; I'd suggest 2W/kg as a a minimum work level after warm-up, and this referred to a fit weight, not your actual weight. "Fit" weight could mean BMI 23, i.e. 23 times your height in metres squared. So if you're 180cm (71 inches), BMI=23 suggests 75kg, 165 lb, 150W. This power level refers to long pieces at low rating, say 20.

High work levels more than anything else require technique; which implies that it's technique that gets us fit. To work hard on the erg means to engage the legs, where the real muscle is, and this doesn't happen if your stroke is short and rushed. Long strokes and plenty of them, at very low drag and with slow recovery are what's needed. You can see what it's like immediately, by warming up with arms only, then adding swing forward, only then adding some knees up after the swing, gradually increasing until you reach vertical shins with your hands near the chain guard. You'll see the rate drop from 60 to 20 and the Watts increase from 50 to 200 (all according to height).

[slwiser]

james, thanks for the detail on this. I have read many times about the 2 w/kg but really never understood exactly how to apply it; i.e., lean weight, real weight, fit weight. The is the best explanation seen so far by me. Since you are explaining it so well what is the basis for the 23 bmi, if you know? Thanks again.

[Corkster52]

Corkster, 1W per pound body weight is a little on the high side, 2.2W/kg; I'd suggest 2W/kg as a a minimum work level after warm-up, and this referred to a fit weight, not your actual weight. "Fit" weight could mean BMI 23, i.e. 23 times your height in metres squared. So if you're 180cm (71 inches), BMI=23 suggests 75kg, 165 lb, 150W. This power level refers to long pieces at low rating, say 20.

High work levels more than anything else require technique; which implies that it's technique that gets us fit. To work hard on the erg means to engage the legs, where the real muscle is, and this doesn't happen if your stroke is short and rushed. Long strokes and plenty of them, at very low drag and with slow recovery are what's needed. You can see what it's like immediately, by warming up with arms only, then adding swing forward, only then adding some knees up after the swing, gradually increasing until you reach vertical shins with your hands near the chain guard. You'll see the rate drop from 60 to 20 and the Watts increase from 50 to 200 (all according to height).

James, so to make sure I understand you correctly, I should target a 150W pace at a low spm of 20? And by low drag, do you mean the damper setting? It has been at 5 since I started just a few weeks ago. Greg, since you have done a number of "been there done thats", is this reasonable? I am not a youngster by any means, but I do want to push myself and do much as I can to get this old body beat into shape and enjoy many more of my advancing years. Thanks.

[Bob S.]

And by low drag, do you mean the damper setting?

Related, but not at all the same thing.

Understanding Drag Factor:

http://www.concept2.com/us/training/adv ... factor.asp

Damper Setting & Workout Intensity:

http://www.concept2.com/us/training/bas ... ensity.asp

[Corkster52]

Tanks Bob. Drag factor at damper setting of 5 is 118, while damper setting at 1 is 77.

[Bob S.]

Tanks Bob. Drag factor at damper setting of 5 is 118, while damper setting at 1 is 77.

Those DFs seem a bit low for the settings. As I remember, you are using a new machine, so it can't be due to dirt yet. Actually those DFs are about what I get on my own Model D. It is to be expected, since I live at 4000' of elevation and the lower density air at this altitude produces less drag than would be the case at sea level.

In any case, my main point was that the important number to use is the DF, not the damper setting. Two machines that have the same DF should feel the same, even though they may have quite different damper settings.

Bob S.

Added note: Many people don't notice the fact that there are 11 marked damper positions. They assume that it is 10, but if you look at it carefully, with the right lighting, you can see that it ranges from 0-10. For this reason, I often suspect that a damper setting that I see reported on this forum might not be the same at I would read it. Since the embossing of the little blocks with the numbers is so damned hard to see and read on that pale grey cage, I have marked mine with a black felt pen - using 11 marks. The first one, which I regard as the zero setting is at the bottom of the block that has the number 1. The last one is at the top of the block which has the number 10, and that is what I consider to be the 10 setting.

[Corkster52]

I see what you mean. All the way down is 0 then.

[Bob S.]

I see what you mean. All the way down is 0 then.

That's the way I regard it. Otherwise, it is sort of ambiguous. If some one says that it is set on 5, does that mean that the pointer is right in middle of the number 5, the line between the 4 and 5, or the line between the 5 and 6? I use the last of these, since that is consistent with having the top end be 10, i.e. the line above the 10 would be the 10 setting. This way the line below the 1 would have to be a 0. Not exactly a world-shaking problem, but it does mean that there is always that possible communication gap in the forum messages. That's another good reason to not report damper settings, but to check out the DF and stick to that.

Bob S., who probably gets too pedantic for his own good.

[Citroen]

The ergos used by Spinal Tap go up to 11.

I was at your elevation on Friday, but I had to walk up our highest mountain to get there (Ben Nevis 1344m, 4409 ft)

[gregsmith01748]

Although I see the logic of using watts as a metric for workout intensity, I have only ever done a couple of workouts that way. I have enough to do looking at pace, rate and heart rate. The guidelines in various sources (Benson and Connolly, Caviston, etc) are that it is a good idea to go really hard once or twice a week, kinda hard once or twice a week and keep your heart rate below the top of your aerobic range (75% to 85% of MaxHR).

The way I attempt to do this (and often fail) is to do short sprint intervals (up to 1.5K long), long sprint intervals (2K to 3K long), hard distance (5K to 10K) all once a week, and then 3 other long and slow sessions with a HR cap at 85% of maxHR. In the sprints and hard distance sessions, I record, but do not limit heart rate and go by pace, trying to go faster than the last time I did the workout.

I guess if I was going to go for weight loss, I would probably use the UK plan, and if it felt too easy, I would either pick up the pace or increase the distance on 3 of the sessions per week. The other option would be to go to the UK 2K plan which pushes a bit harder.

The worry I have about watts is that it could be easy to ignore your heart rate and end up either pushing too fast or coasting to slow to get the desired training effect.

Oh and one last thing. I really recommend doing a maximum heart rate test, preferably at a lab, but even on your own using the step tests published on line. Until you have a firm number, it will be difficult to really nail the training bands.

[carlb]

"Heart Rate Training" by Benson and Connolly. ... their strong message is long and slow for weightloss...to erging at high intensities with little weight loss, to long and slow with significant weight loss.

The way I recall it.....
working at an easier HR of like 60% to 70% has the maximum fat burn. But that max is the max percentagae of total calories. working harder (maybe at 70% to 85%) has a higher % of carb burn, lower % of fat burn, but total calorie burn is higher, so the number of fat calories burned is higher. So I recall 75% to 80% as ideal.

Checking Smart Exercise by Covert Bailey (from 1994) he has good reasons for long and slow. What I said is true, but for those at peak fitness. He focuses on how the unfit are mainly sugar burners and it is a bit tricky to adapt the body to become a fat burner.

He promotes exercising at 60% to 70% for those trying to get to peak fitness for several reasons.
1. Unfit cells mainly have enzymes for burning sugar and none for fat. We adapt to the demands of no exercise and just keep sugar burn for survival via "fit or flight".
2. At 60%-70% during your recovery your body spends its energy adapting the body to the demands of exercise and burning fat by building enzymes, mitochondria, capillaries, etc
3. At 70%-85% during your recovery your body spends its engery mainly repairing the body and not adapting
4. If you exercise too hard for your fitness level your fat burning shuts down (Covert says "goes on strike") and goes back to buring only sugar, slowing down (i.e. doing an interval) will resume fat burn
5. It takes 15 - 30 minutes of exercise for fat burn to really kick in to high gear, the more unfit the longer the time

So your training experience of "long and slow" matches Bailey's recommendations. You have to give your body a lot of time to adapt the aerobic system by working at lower 60-70% intensities. That also allows bones, muscles, tendons, etc to adapt. He likes some intervals to put extra demands on the system and build muscle, but then return to 60%-70%.

Re diet I think a good first step is to nail down 2 to 3 breakfasts that are high quality and have a calorie count that works for you. Include some lean protien to keep to feeling full. I like grapefruit; berries + plain greek yogurt; oatmeal (swiss style) + banana + walnuts. Or change oats to 2 eggs and wheat toast. That's 1/3 of your meals.

[Corkster52]

Wow! What a difference when I dropped the drag. Actually considered staying on for 90 minutes! Still had the watt display on but just to see. Dropped the HR to around 125, no idea of the pace but spm was around 24. Feel like I am cheating or something with so much easier of a workout. Worked up a sweat, but not soaked to the waist like I have been.

[Corkster52]

Nudged the drag up just a little and held HR at around 125. Almost feels like I am doing nothing but I hope I am getting some good out of it. Stll doing my 10K per day though! Greg, I am going to find out how to get a stress test soon.