Interactive Training Bands: Heart Rate Vs Pace

[old] leonard · Post by **[old] leonard** » May 13th, 2005, 6:17 am

Hi all, I'm a 45yo hwt male, 185cm and 92kgs. My resting heart rate is 55 and my MHR (based on a step test) is 179. I've traditionally trained using a 26 week 4 sessions a week programme based on the Interactive generator. I recently did a pb for the 2K of 6:32.8 after training for 3 months using the Interactive pacings for a 6:36 time. I've never really paid attention to heart rate - rather I use the pacings of the Interactive plan for each training band: i.e. UT2 = 1:54 @ 20spm, UT1 = 1:48 @ 24 etc. Traditionally I've always found the UT2 and UT1 paces harder than the Interactive plans describes them - UT2 feels more like UT1 is described and UT1 feels more like AT is described, but I still can generally stick to the pacings. That said, sometimes it's very hard. However, yesterday I bought a Polar heart rate monitor (to use when cycling) and thought I'd give it a whirl on the erg, and to see how HR correlated with the Interactive pacings. So I did a 7000m UT2 piece (bit short for UT2 but I'm a freak for nice round log kms ) making sure I kept as close as possible to my 70% HR band (calculated by 70% of working heart rate plus 55 RHR) of 146. Rather surprisingly (actually it was a bit of a shock), in order to keep to that HR I could go at a pace no lower than 1:59 - a long way short of the 'recommended' 1:54 from the plan. As I've said, I've always found the plans UT2 and UT1 pace hard, but keeping to a 1:59 seemed way to easy? On the other hand, some other recent postings have highlighted the benefits of UT2 type workouts within the 60-70% heart range (and no more) in building cardiovascular endurance. Whilst I haven't yet got figures for my HR when doing UT2 workouts at the Interactive rate of 1:54, obviously it's going to be higher than that 60-70% HR based on this 7000m test. So, based on these HR results, am I actually going too hard at UT2 and UT1 levels by going with the Interactive pacings, and thus losing the benefits of long slow workouts coz my HR is above the 60-70% range? Love to get other's feedback on this - I don't really know enough to make a judgement and I'd hate to think I'm currently not training correctly. Cheers.

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » May 13th, 2005, 6:26 am

Leonard, For what it's worth, I use the heartrate to determine my training zone. It took a few cycles through the Interactive for me to settle on that. Keep in mind that the figures you state are the upper limits of the zones. That is, UT2 is 1:54 at best. 1:59 is still UT2. Likewise, 1:48 is the fastest you would go at UT1. 1:53, 1:52, 1:51, 1:50 & 1:49 are all also UT1. Don't feel it necessary to always be at the upper limit of any particular zone. Rick

[old] michaelb · Post by **[old] michaelb** » May 13th, 2005, 9:32 am

I also can't row at the suggested pace and HR combination listed by C2; although Bayko's suggestion is interesting, and I will have to check if I am in the "low range" of the band. Here is an interesting thread on the subject: <a href='http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s ... c=1326&hl=' target='_blank'>http://concept2.ipbhost.com/index.php?s ... 326&hl=</a>

[old] leonard · Post by **[old] leonard** » May 13th, 2005, 12:15 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Bayko @ May 13 2005, 06:26 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Leonard, For what it's worth, I use the heartrate to determine my training zone. It took a few cycles through the Interactive for me to settle on that. Keep in mind that the figures you state are the upper limits of the zones. That is, UT2 is 1:54 at best. 1:59 is still UT2. Likewise, 1:48 is the fastest you would go at UT1. 1:53, 1:52, 1:51, 1:50 & 1:49 are all also UT1. Don't feel it necessary to always be at the upper limit of any particular zone. Rick </td></tr></table> Bayko and Michaelb, Thanks very much for that feedback - that info has been an eye-opener. Stupidly on my part, for the last two years I have carried around the entirely wrong reading of the Interactive pace guide info: I read 'top end of each band' to mean the minimum acceptable pace! And just reading thru it now, it seems to read wrong in places - in one sentence it says the training band for TR is between the figure in it's col and the one to the left (AT - i.e. 1:43.5 and 1:48) and in the very next breath it says TR training should be be equal to or less than TR pace but not less than the figure in the AN col (1:43.5-1:39)!!! I've always wondered why I seemed to be pretty well stuck at these bands for UT2 and UT1, and sometimes UT2 was just too tough. Think I'll be sticking to heart rate from now on as the pace goal! Cheers

[old] JaapR · Post by **[old] JaapR** » May 13th, 2005, 1:20 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(leonard @ May 13 2005, 11:15 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> I've always wondered why I seemed to be pretty well stuck at these bands for UT2 and UT1, and sometimes UT2 was just too tough. Think I'll be sticking to heart rate from now on as the pace goal! Cheers </td></tr></table> Hi Leonard, I followed the same program last year. Same experience. The UT2 and UT1 felt like a race every time although I just used the suggested pace from the tables. HF was often >170 after an UT2, where it should be 144 max in my case 52+ (0.7*(184-52). But training according to the suggested HF percentages was the other extreme. Didn't feel tired at all after the UT2 at HF144 and UT1 at HF 158 max. Therefore I just increased the training bands on what felt right. With the HF training bands I am using now, the pace is still lower than advised UT2, UT1 for a 6:18 PB, but the HF is higher: max UT2 is now 150, max UT1 has become 165. Jaap

[old] cdykstra · Post by **[old] cdykstra** » May 13th, 2005, 3:17 pm

Leonard: Based on my experience with marathon training (mostly running-recently rowing), I say go with the HR monitor to determine your training pace. Particularly with my running, I discovered that I had been routinely training too hard, making me more prone to injuries and illness. In my opinion and experience, we tend to think that training hard all the time is the best way to make rapid gains, but when you can't train because you're hurt, sick or simply tired, it's almost impossible to resume your training with enthusiasm. Instead of looking forward to the workout, it becomes something to dread and avoid. The HR monitor gives you immediate, accurate and personal feedback on your training and effort. Trust it. FMI: see Sally Edwards "The Heart Rate Monitor Book" Out Here!

[old] TomR/the elder · Post by **[old] TomR/the elder** » May 13th, 2005, 6:14 pm

There was an interesting (to my mind, at least) thread about training bands earlier this year. In it Mel Harbour talked about the training bands based on a projected "Gold Medal" performance. The training paces were based on both HR and % of 2k pace, similar to the Interactive's approach, but the paces were all slower than those in the Interactive. In my simple-minded interpretation of what Mel presented, each recommended pace shifted one column "slower." In effect, long, low- to moderate-intensity work (UT2) was done at what would be UT3 in Interactive parlance. In the scheme Mel reported on, UT1 for a given race pace was like UT2/Interactive, AT=UT1/Interactive, and TR=AT/Interactive. I've been using these paces for guidance, and I find that for me pace and projected HR line up far better than w/ the Interactive paces. I'm not in great shape at this point, so I can imagine that those of you whose conditioning hasn't deterioriated might find these paces easy, but the training bands are wide, so you could work at the faster end of each category. Still, the thread (which I couldn't find in the archives) is instructive, and to me it yet again reinforces the principle that pushing too hard early in your training is unwise, as many have noted. Tom

[old] H_2O · Post by **[old] H_2O** » May 13th, 2005, 7:29 pm

The reason for the hardship at UT1,2 is the stroke rate restriction. We can breathe at most twice per stroke and so slower spm means fewer breaths and so less airflow through the lungs. The theory behind the spm restriction seems to be as follows: we know that sustainable 2K stroke rate has a maximum for everyone, for me it's about 34. Say I want to get to 6:20 for the 2K (408 watts) I can compute the ratio 408 watts/ 34 spm == 12 watts per stroke and this implies a certain force of the pull. I should now condition myself to pulling with this force by duplicating it (ie. the SPI ratio) at each pace: 20 spm --> 240 watts, 24 spm --> 288 watts and so on. I don't buy into this theory for the following reason: we don't duplicate any other characteristic of a 2K race rigidly in training (for example the pace itself which obvioulsy is the most important characteristic). Just as I trust that I will be able to go a higher pace in a 2K race than in training I can trust that I'll be able to pull a little harder if need be in a race. Interestingly if you read the concept2 training guide the very first FAQ addresses this question. We are told not to put too much emphasis on adherence to the stroke rate. On the theory that UT1 and UT2 should be easier rows ánd pace is more important than strength I would rather row a higher spm to take some pressure off and make the TR rows a little more intense in exchange. Restricting your stoke rate means restricting your oxygen uptake and I don't know of any sport where this is a substantial part of practice. A swimmer for example would be advised to slow down turnover very substantially and religously duplicate the pulling force of a race. Nobody does that. I have to admit that I am whining since I have real trouble to deliver the spm targets (so don't adhere to them).

[old] leonard · Post by **[old] leonard** » May 14th, 2005, 2:56 am

Much thanks for all the feedback guys. I'll pay more attention to my HR now and stop killing myself on UT2 and UT1, and approach the bands as a bit more flexible Cheers