Building endurance base / MHR

[Bodi069]

Hello

After some sports absence I went on my indoor rower end of februar 2019, again. Soon I recognized the Eric Murray indoor rowing channel and just went on by doing one session after the next. What was quiet motivating and I enjoyed it a lot. Now I am through that sessions half way, did that 1K, additional 500m, 100m, 1 minute and half marathon. I decided to go for a sub 7 2K time, now. For that I know, I do need a good endurance base. Means hours of low intensity over 8 to 12 week's. Ok. Thatfore I go and take my max heart rate (173), take 70% (121) to 80% (138) and end up with a band of between 121 to 138 beats per minute and an average of 130. Okay ... .

If I do that low intensity work, it feels soooo slow and at a heart rate of 134 bpm I row 45 minutes with a 2:09 split and I still have the feeling that it doesn't get me anywhere .... . Is my calculation correct?! Are there any other rowers in my age (49 years) who made the same experience? Or am I on a complete wrong way (the "wooden way")? I plan to do 6 days a 40+ minutes row with stroke rates between 18 and 24, broken up from short (20 to max 30 seconds) bursts.

Thanks for your feedback.

[hjs]

Hello

After some sports absence I went on my indoor rower end of februar 2019, again. Soon I recognized the Eric Murray indoor rowing channel and just went on by doing one session after the next. What was quiet motivating and I enjoyed it a lot. Now I am through that sessions half way, did that 1K, additional 500m, 100m, 1 minute and half marathon. I decided to go for a sub 7 2K time, now. For that I know, I do need a good endurance base. Means hours of low intensity over 8 to 12 week's. Ok. Thatfore I go and take my max heart rate (173), take 70% (121) to 80% (138) and end up with a band of between 121 to 138 beats per minute and an average of 130. Okay ... .

If I do that low intensity work, it feels soooo slow and at a heart rate of 134 bpm I row 45 minutes with a 2:09 split and I still have the feeling that it doesn't get me anywhere .... . Is my calculation correct?! Are there any other rowers in my age (49 years) who made the same experience? Or am I on a complete wrong way (the "wooden way")? I plan to do 6 days a 40+ minutes row with stroke rates between 18 and 24, broken up from short (20 to max 30 seconds) bursts.

Thanks for your feedback.

Is that 173 your real max? I mean you did not use a calculation, but a real max test

2.09 is not slow for a 1.45 2k rower. So its not very off. It should slowly get faster.

6 weeks is not a long period, you can improve your base a bit, but don,t expect miracles.

[Bloodbuzz Corio]

Bodi,

When I was at my fastest (2k PB of 6:59.6) I was doing my steady state at around 2:11, though I was there essentially doing 3 slow and 3 hard sessions a week.

As Henry says over time your steady state may get quicker, but 2k + 24 (which 2:09 would be if you're at 7:00) is not way out of the range of what folks would normally do.

[jamesg]

The percentages refer to heart rate range. (Karvonen).

So if you had rest rate 73 and Max 173, range (HRR) would be 100, and 80% = 73 + 80 = 153.

You can get all the endurance you want at that HR.

If you do a 2k test, endurance work can be at 60-70% of test power in Watts, and at low ratings (20-23) once you are certain where HR will go.

[Dangerscouse]

You're in the right range for the steady state but make sure that you also do some shorter sharper sessions and the occasional faster long distance session too e.g. 45 mins at 2k + 18 (circa 2:03).

Admittedly it's, too all intents and purposes, junk metres but I also find it really beneficial as you're keeping in touch with a session that won't destroy you, but it will challenge you.

Also discount the benefit of doing a 5k and or 6k TT too. Getting used to a 5k at pace really helps to make you to feel more comfy with a 2k, and is a great fitness session. It won't cure the pain of a 2k but it will make it slightly less uncomfortable.

[bob01]

I would question the concept (excuse pun) of junk metres... With the caveat of good tech!

There are tremendous long term and performance potential gains from, of what is being defind in this thread as junk!

Polarised training Would call for 80% of sessions goals to be at the lower end or even below your range.

Anything with N - age, to my mind is questionable.... I know of someone of a similar age having a 30BMP max HR than mine.... Also, OK comparing running with rowing my max HR has not declined over 30 years!

[hjs]

I would question the concept (excuse pun) of junk metres... With the caveat of good tech!

There are tremendous long term and performance potential gains from, of what is being defind in this thread as junk!

Polarised training Would call for 80% of sessions goals to be at the lower end or even below your range.

Anything with N - age, to my mind is questionable.... I know of someone of a similar age having a 30BMP max HR than mine.... Also, OK comparing running with rowing my max HR has not declined over 30 years!

Junke meters are not slow nor fast, so with no real focus.

[Dangerscouse]

I would question the concept (excuse pun) of junk metres... With the caveat of good tech!

There are tremendous long term and performance potential gains from, of what is being defind in this thread as junk!

Polarised training Would call for 80% of sessions goals to be at the lower end or even below your range.

Yeah, my junk metres are done in that grey area that Henry alludes to. I should be going 1:59-2:02 range for my long steady state sessions to keep within the 80/20 rule. 2k+16 is too fast to be slow, but too slow to also be fast as it's circa 1:55.

I enjoy this pace, and I do believe I have made progress with these sessions, but it does probably fall in the junk metres zone.

I agree that slower can sometimes be ideal, and doesn't fall into junk metres.

[mdpfirrman]

Interesting and timely thread for me. I seemed to have turned the corner on my Thoracic pain. If I constantly do PT/Yoga, I've figured out that I can tolerate rowing again without significant pain or any pain. I just hate yoga. Small price to pay.

Anyway, I've just got a HRM and I'm back doing training, albeit Ungodly slow, even for me!

I hope to do a 4 X 2K tomorrow and should have a better idea of what my HRM is then. My HR resting is around 50 right now. I do have a fairly high HRM, genetics I suppose. Even though it's been four years since I've owned a HRM (I usually row on feel), from the 12 X 500m session I did on Monday (which was around 7/8 seconds off my old pace), it looks like my Max is still over 190 as far as I can tell for now.

I'm planning on keeping my SS work at between 65% and 70% of HRR. I've read some Fitzgerald stuff recently that was very general (like keep it under 77%, which seems really high, to me, to be doing SS work). Does that sound about right for Polarized training? James made the point of using Watts % instead, which is a great idea if I knew my current 2K, which I have no idea of (I'm WAY off pace with nearly 5 months off the rower).

Starting a longer term training plan trying to get back in "race shape" for this Winter. We'll see if the back holds up.

[Allan Olesen]

I'm planning on keeping my SS work at between 65% and 70% of HRR. I've read some Fitzgerald stuff recently that was very general (like keep it under 77%, which seems really high, to me, to be doing SS work). Does that sound about right for Polarized training? James made the point of using Watts % instead, which is a great idea if I knew my current 2K, which I have no idea of (I'm WAY off pace with nearly 5 months off the rower).

There is another way, which is used in other sports by some coaches:
When doing long, low intensity training sessions at steady intensity, make sure that your heart rate doesn't drift by more than 5% during the session.

If it drifts by more than 5%, you were probably training above your aerobic threshold¹, and you are not getting all the benefits from low intensity training.

The more boring details about finding those 5%:
Throw away the first part of your session where your heart rate builds up to a steady heart rate. That usually takes around 10 minutes, maybe more if you include a warm-up in the session.
Take the remaining part of the session and split it in two equally large parts. Compare the average heart rates for the first part and for the second part.

Example: You have done a 60 minutes session with 5 splits of 12 minutes (that is one of the standard sessions in the PM, I think), and you got these results:
Split 1: 110 BPM
Split 2: 120 BPM
Split 3: 122 BPM
Split 4: 125 BPM
Split 5: 127 BPM

You throw away the first split and have 4 splits left. The average of split 2 and 3 is 121 BPM. The average of split 4 and 5 is 126 BPM. That is an increase of 5 BPM.

5 BPM is equal to 5/121 * 100% = 4% of your heart rate from split 2 and 3. 4% is less than 5%. So this was a good, aerobic base building session.

...or, if you have recorded the session with ErgData or similar and can see a HR curve in your logbook: Just take a look at the curve and check that it is almost horisontal, except for the initial part. If it is, everything is okay.



¹: Not to be confused with your anaerobic threshold, which is higher

[mdpfirrman]

Thanks Allan, that helps. I started out yesterday around 135 BPM after W/U, then slowly drifted up to around 150 and got off the rower at 45 minutes and went to the Assault Bike, which I have an easier time with keeping my HR lower. That's around what I was thinking. Once I'm drifting off above 145 or more, it's slowly moving into that black hole area. Best guess, my Max HR is around 192/193 right now and 50 to 52 resting, so I'm feeling like low 140s is my sweet spot. So if I get to around 148 or so, 150 definitely, slow it down. That's kind of what I'm thinking right now. Just helps to confirm.

I do think I had more cardio drift yesterday as I was coming off quite a long, slow workout on Sunday (nearly two hours) and a harder 12 X 500 session on Monday (with only one minute rest).

[Allan Olesen]

So if I get to around 148 or so, 150 definitely, slow it down.

Well, that is not exactly how the HR drift approach works.

If you get more than 5% drift, you should start lower the next time. The aim is to be able to hold a constant intensity (meaning constant pace or power) through the full session without having to reduce the intensity to keep HR steady.

So if you started at 135 BPM and had too much drift, try starting at a slightly slower pace the next time.

I write "slightly slower", because the drift will reduce rather suddenly when you find the right intensity. From my own personal experience, up to 113 watt will give no HR drift whatsoever (actually slightly negative drift) in a one hour session. But 128 watt will give 8% HR drift.

[mdpfirrman]

So if I get to around 148 or so, 150 definitely, slow it down.

Well, that is not exactly how the HR drift approach works.

If you get more than 5% drift, you should start lower the next time. The aim is to be able to hold a constant intensity (meaning constant pace or power) through the full session without having to reduce the intensity to keep HR steady.

So if you started at 135 BPM and had too much drift, try starting at a slightly slower pace the next time.

I write "slightly slower", because the drift will reduce rather suddenly when you find the right intensity. From my own personal experience, up to 113 watt will give no HR drift whatsoever (actually slightly negative drift) in a one hour session. But 128 watt will give 8% HR drift.

Thanks Allan, that's clearer now. I appreciate it. I'll have to play around with it but I'll start at around 130 today and see if that goes better. I have found that, at least when on the AirBike, not the rower, that does hold true -- I can seem to go an hour at around 128 to 130 no issues with drift. On the rower, my HR starts higher and climbs. Just have to get more comfortable with 18 rate stuff then. That's painful for me.

[Neorticros]

Mmm I don't know if my heart is a mess but when I read you can row at 2:09 at only 134 bpm I just freak out.
I just don't know if I should take it easier on the erg or if it's just a question of HR max.

Let's say a steady hour on the erg is at 2:10 for whoever. When you finish it, do you feel depleted? Would you be able to row for another hour at that pace if you pushed hard? I have the feeling that if I had a HR and capped it at 135, I'd be rowing close to 2:30 and I'd be able to keep it up for ages.

My fastest hour was at 2:03, 20 SPM and without straps. But I felt as if I was giving it all (maybe my pain limits are not very high ).
But the time I used an HR monitor it was a FM at 2:11. Avg HR was 176. And Max HR during those 3 hours was 193. 20 SPM.

Basically I'm trying to figure out "how tired" you end up in long rows, since the HR numbers don't correlate.

[Dangerscouse]

Tbh Oscar, HR is a really poor comparable. Danny Graham is very fit and his HR maxes out at circa 165, but Ivan Saric (also equally as fit) exceeds 200.

I think your HR range is only useful for your own information to build your sessions around so you can establish your AT / UT1 / UT2 zones and check for cardiac drift.

In my long rows, sometimes I feel like rowing by 'feel' is more useful as effort can be affected by a lot of different factors.