Heart Rate for UT2

[jamesg]

LSS (UT2) can be done at 60% of 2k rating and Watts, with a HR cap at 70% of range.

[sentinal93]

LSS (UT2) can be done at 60% of 2k rating and Watts, with a HR cap at 70% of range.

For the heart rate maximum, I use the standard age - 220, but I've read that (like everything everywhere) this can vary from person to person. Is there a subjective way to tell/feel that you're surpassing your personal HR for the UT2 training zone? Or, is it better to try to test your maximum heart rate? If so, what would be the best way to do that?

-Eric

[Bob S.]

For the heart rate maximum, I use the standard age - 220, but I've read that (like everything everywhere) this can vary from person to person.

It is not just that. The age-220 rule was never based on a real research project and the person who first published it never intended it to be used as a standard. I had the URL for a site that goes into a great deal of detail about that whole fiasco, but it did not work when I tested it a few minutes ago.

Bob S.

[Bob S.]

Here is what Wikipedia says about it:

Notwithstanding the research of Tanaka, Monahan, & Seals, the most widely cited formula for HRmax (which contains no reference to any standard deviation) is still:

HRmax = 220 − age
Although attributed to various sources, it is widely thought to have been devised in 1970 by Dr. William Haskell and Dr. Samuel Fox.[11] Inquiry into the history of this formula reveals that it was not developed from original research, but resulted from observation based on data from approximately 11 references consisting of published research or unpublished scientific compilations.[12] It gained widespread use through being used by Polar Electro in its heart rate monitors,[11] which Dr. Haskell has "laughed about",[11] as the formula "was never supposed to be an absolute guide to rule people's training."[11]

While it is the most common (and easy to remember and calculate), this particular formula is not considered by reputable health and fitness professionals to be a good predictor of HRmax. Despite the widespread publication of this formula, research spanning two decades reveals its large inherent error, Sxy = 7–11 bpm. Consequently, the estimation calculated by HRmax = 220 − age has neither the accuracy nor the scientific merit for use in exercise physiology and related fields.[12]

Note the original publisher himself was amused by the widespread, unquestioned acceptance of the rule.

Bob S.

[jamesg]

To find your MHR, do any longish piece (>20') at UT1 (=plenty of sweat) and at the end wind it up to max for as long as possible.

"Average" and "prediction" are not synonyms save in probabilistic terms, and as in this case the Standard Deviation (about 10%) is larger than the HR training bands, an average MHR cannot be used for HR training.

Here you can see the spread in real MHR values as found, in the graphs on the left. Not as large as the false zero suggests, but big anyway:
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 9700010548

At age 50, there are values from 155 to 200..

[hjs]

For the heart rate maximum, I use the standard age - 220, but I've read that (like everything everywhere) this can vary from person to person.

It is not just that. The age-220 rule was never based on a real research project and the person who first published it never intended it to be used as a standard. I had the URL for a site that goes into a great deal of detail about that whole fiasco, but it did not work when I tested it a few minutes ago.

Bob S.

I was used as a rough guide to stop a test when people did reach this number. Even for this it is not suited, people with a low max would never reach this number.

max hf also says not much about potential fitness, some people pump more blood per stroke, others have hearts that pump more often. Like james says, there is only one way and is do the test. But using a number close to your real max is usefull enough for most. Be at the safe side at first, in time you will find out your max.

For training rest rate and max rate are important, that range is your trainingrange. Training will often lower the rest rate and sometimes also loweres the max a bit, but the range will become bigger once we are better trained.

[macher]

I've found this discussion very interesting. In the weight loss forum I have been posting my progress along a 23 week 3 session a week Interactive Weight Loss Program. Up until this week I had been doing what for me was well. I was actually bumping the UT1 range (if not exceeding even that) in my attempt to continually improve my pace on what were supposed to be UT2 long duration rows. This week I was scheduled to do a 45' row, 50' row and tomorrow 60' row at UT2. I struggled through the 45' row. Could not finish the 50' row without stopping several times and was trying to figure out what to do tomorrow. My Tuesday and Thursday I was trying to do best effort rows for time or distance. Today I did a 1000m warmup and then failed to better my last 2000m row and struggled through it because my start pace was too fast. I am now thinking I need to significantly back off my pace to build a better fitness base before trying to move into the UT1 workouts which were scheduled to start next week with intervals at a significantly shorter duration.

Please keep in mind I am relatively new at this rowing and have been inactive for decades. I am only relating my experiences so far 5 weeks into a 23 week program. I have been trying to maintain at least a 2:30 pace on all rows regardless the required distance. Faster for shorter rows....at least 2:30 for longer rows. Basically exactly what the trap noted for recreational athletes above.

If you're doing the interactive weight loss program just follow the bands associated with each session. The same thing happened to my brother. He wanted to row UT1 band but when it came to long sessions he couldn't maintain it. But can maintain UT2 band in longer sessions.

He was also focused on times but the interactive weight loss program isn't about maintaining times it's about maintaining a band for the specific session. I talked to the rowing coach where I work for him and the moral of the story for him is just row the band specific to the session and the time specific to the session and the rate associated with the session and don't worry about 500m time. Fitness is life long.

In my case I am doing http://therowingcompany.com/training/gu ... nditioning

It's basic conditioning for people like me who haven't exercised in years. It's not about time. It's training in the UT1 band. James suggested a 500m test; row hard and as fast as I can and see how much watts. Take 50% of watts from the test and use that for my UT1 band. It works for me.

Maybe James can chime and give you what your watts should be at UT2.

[raotor]

Just a follow up post that may be of some use to those like myself that are
getting to grips with all these training bands.

I recently came across one of those interactive training programmes that
generate a training regime based on your individual data such as age,
resting heart rate, max heart rate and predicted or actual current 2k time.
What I found of more interest to me than the training programme itself was
the generated HR training zones for me i.e UT1, UT2, AT etc.

Now, this showed the HR range for each band, BUT, what I found VERY useful
was the pace ranges suggested to achieve these bands. As some have said
here, power is the key to training in the right band and I guess that pace
equates to this. So, using the suggested range of pace figures as a guide
I've now been able to stay within my UT1 or UT2 band. A little bit of trial
and error regarding the precise pace you pick from the suggested range is
needed, but once nailed you'll find you can stay within your HR band for the
entire piece or at least I am able.

Incidentally, the pace I chose was such that the upper HR figure works out
to be the peak HR value on my HR monitor, so I am opting for a pace that
doesn't exceed the upper bound of the zone I train in but isn't too slow.
Oh, and the average HR as reported by the monitor is nicely in the middle of
the HR zone for the band I train in too which I am pleased with.


Regards

Steve

[macher]

Just a follow up post that may be of some use to those like myself that are
getting to grips with all these training bands.

I recently came across one of those interactive training programmes that
generate a training regime based on your individual data such as age,
resting heart rate, max heart rate and predicted or actual current 2k time.
What I found of more interest to me than the training programme itself was
the generated HR training zones for me i.e UT1, UT2, AT etc.

Now, this showed the HR range for each band, BUT, what I found VERY useful
was the pace ranges suggested to achieve these bands. As some have said
here, power is the key to training in the right band and I guess that pace
equates to this. So, using the suggested range of pace figures as a guide
I've now been able to stay within my UT1 or UT2 band. A little bit of trial
and error regarding the precise pace you pick from the suggested range is
needed, but once nailed you'll find you can stay within your HR band for the
entire piece or at least I am able.

Incidentally, the pace I chose was such that the upper HR figure works out
to be the peak HR value on my HR monitor, so I am opting for a pace that
doesn't exceed the upper bound of the zone I train in but isn't too slow.
Oh, and the average HR as reported by the monitor is nicely in the middle of
the HR zone for the band I train in too which I am pleased with.


Regards

Steve

Yes it's definitely power per stroke or watts per minute stroke. I can row at 21SPM/120watts and 21SPM/130 watts and even though the same rate, I row farther when there is more watts minute/stroke. As an amateur I would think that a better SPM would be better but it depends on the 'power' behind the stroke. I noticed one guy at the gym who was on the erg for like 20 minutes. After he left I checked out his stats. His average SPM was 23 and average watts 55. He was about the same height and weight as me and younger.

Care to share the program?

[raotor]

Care to share the program?

Yes, indeed.

http://therowingcompany.com/training/interactive

Just input your details as requested and you'll get a personalised training programme. Check out towards the bottom of the generated page to see your training bands along with HR range and suggested pace ranges amongst other things.

[bisqeet]

R20
Simply because it's easy to implement stroke (every 3 seconds)
It's easy to keep rhythm (lot of music has 120 bmp) and the math is easier for calculating so spi

I do my l4 rows at R18 - R24

[mdpfirrman]

There's a good thread on Polarization training started by Chris a few months ago that covers this topic very thoroughly. It's a good question though Eric. I was struggling with this just around 6 months ago when doing the Pete Lunch Hour Plan. I loved the plan and had good success with it (going from 7:50 or so down to 7:19 on the 2K) but it is limiting after a while. The limiting factor is cardio endurance.

This is an article I found really helpful, Eric, on the benefits of going slow (UT2) versus UT1.

http://robertsontrainingsystems.com/blo ... ty-cardio/

Like most experts, he references Seiler too. But he also references this study:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2300466/

You can "build" your heart to better handle long work or intensive shorter work at the same time. Once you get your heart "wired" that way (and I've read a good test of that being if and how much your resting HR is under 60), you have your heart constructed the most advantageous way not only for longer pieces, but also to maximize your ability to not tire as much during shorter work too (and sustain power).

I've been trying to implement what I've learned by sticking with the Pete Plan but modifying it a bit. I do more slow steady work and when I do intervals, I lessen the number of intervals (but I also increase the pace recommendations too from what Pete Plan recommends). That way, I'm hopefully truly doing more of a Polarized Plan (the basis of Seiler's research and many other articles or books like Matt Fitzgerald's 80/20 Running). The purpose is three fold - build your heart to be truly efficient, avoid injury and ALSO go harder when you go hard. If you go UT1 all week, you don't have in you that ability to really mentally / physically push the limits on that other 20%.

I would say based on what I've learned, UT1 would be about the last place you want to be unless you're doing a AT piece (like a timed 5K).

[mdpfirrman]

One more piece of useful advice I really loved (and I think I read it twice in the same week in a US Rowing Magazine) is that many coaches now frequently monitor Resting HR. If an athlete's RHR is over 60, it's a classic sign of overworking / training overload. The recipe for curing that is a lot of UT2 work for a while and then back mixing in the intensity once the RHR is back under 60 again.

[Carl Watts]

I always refered to this when I started out rowing.

http://www.freespiritsrowing.com/conten ... /hr-bands/

Still great but they need to change it so your personal HR bands get included on a single page to you can print it out and tape it to the wall by your Erg.

Power per stroke would get quite complicated, you cannot simply divide the average power your seeing on the monitor by the rating or spm. Your only putting in the power on the DRIVE so you would need to look at the total drive time in seconds per minute. I suspect something like this was in the calculation of an Excel spreadsheet of ratings vs pace I once had, i.e in terms of the same heartrate 1:55 at 22spm is the same as 1:58 at 20spm and so on. Dropping down to 18spm and below, the power per stroke begins to take off.

[bisqeet]

LSS (UT2) can be done at 60% of 2k rating and Watts, with a HR cap at 70% of range.

Hi James.
Does that change depending on the distance?
I.e. 7min 2k
300 watt / 30 spm (roughly, but nice numbers) would be a R20 2:00/500 Hm?
I usually do a Hm based on ut2 HR (works out at 2:05 R20) I doubt I could keep a R20/2:00 in the same band..

Edit:
I tried and couldn't - the lady 5 k were AN