Starting BPP?

[Dangerscouse]

For my first endurance workout, should I make sure the stroke rate 19-21 but cut back to a heart rate of 60-75% (which for me is 99-124 bpm)? Again, thanks for your time.

There are two schools of thought for this: 'Grip and Rip It' and 'Go Slow to Get Fast'.

I know of quite a few who thrive off constantly doing 80-85% training efforts along with occasional 95-100% sessions. I personally have made progress using this, but it had a finite impact and I was eventually under recovered and I stagnated.

This year I stopped letting my ego dictate the pace, and I dropped down to what feels like a 60% effort (this translates to 70% of MHR), I have set seven PBs and have made considerable progress. The biggest issue with this type of training is that progression is slow, and you convince yourself that it's too slow so you start to nudge up the pace, but in reality you've not crossed the plateau of latent potential, as coined by James Clear.

For example, to paraphrase James Clear, ice will not melt until it reaches 32f, but the work done to increase it from 25f to 32f isn't wasted, it's still progress but it needs to break through a threshold for the potential to be realised.

Have a play around with paces etc, and always be mindful of how you feel afterwards. Are you exhausted too often, are you able to train on consecutive days etc. The clues are usually there if you look hard enough, and that can really help steer you towards a specific pace on a given day.

[TessBrooklyn]

Wow, so much helpful advice here. Thanks, everyone! I really appreciate the heart rate information and the help with customizing my window. I hadn’t grasped the idea of reserve. Kevin, getting to week 9 after that extent of muscle loss is extraordinary and very motivating. Dangerscouse, I’m always grateful for your clarity. And thanks to you, when I searched to learn more about James Clear, I found his aptly-named Valley of Disappointment — a term I didn’t know I needed! Really appreciate everyone’s encouragement to start the BPP, attend to technique, and adjust according to how I respond.

[Ripples]

Ok, here's the bad news...your max HR is best proven by doing a horrible session eg 2k or more, and doing it at max effort, so you can't physically maintain the pace, and then registering your ending HR. Even this isn't perfect, but it's as good as it gets without a lab test.

It's not nice, but it's necessary as 220-age is a very flawed approach. It might turn out to be the same max result, but it's very unreliable: I know of two mid 30s year old rower with max of 202.

The only thing I would say is that HR can be quite fickle. Dehydration, tiredness, stress, under lying fatigue amongst other things can effect it, so don't read too much into it. A higher than normal resting HR is usually a bad sign, so that can be a useful warning for you to ease off the intensity.

Just want to note that the 220-age approach is for men only. There's a different formula for women described in this link https://www.verywellfit.com/womens-hear ... se-3976885. Not as good as a stress test, but at least it acknowledges the difference between the sexes.

[Citroen]

Ok, here's the bad news...your max HR is best proven by doing a horrible session eg 2k or more, and doing it at max effort, so you can't physically maintain the pace, and then registering your ending HR. Even this isn't perfect, but it's as good as it gets without a lab test.

It's not nice, but it's necessary as 220-age is a very flawed approach. It might turn out to be the same max result, but it's very unreliable: I know of two mid 30s year old rower with max of 202.

The only thing I would say is that HR can be quite fickle. Dehydration, tiredness, stress, under lying fatigue amongst other things can effect it, so don't read too much into it. A higher than normal resting HR is usually a bad sign, so that can be a useful warning for you to ease off the intensity.

Just want to note that the 200-age approach is for men only. There's a different formula for women described in this link https://www.verywellfit.com/womens-hear ... se-3976885. Not as good as a stress test, but at least it acknowledges the difference between the sexes.

It's actually worse than that 220-age doesn't work for anyone regardless of age, sex, height, weight, fitness or any other biometric parameters.
https://eprints.qut.edu.au/96880/1/96880.pdf

[Tsnor]

Strongly agree not to use ANY of the "age gives max HR" formulas. They work fine ON AVERAGE, but fail in real life because most people are not AVERAGE - there is a large scatter on max HR by age. So the value is wrong for most people even though the errors average out.

Ignore age formulas to figure out your heart rate, use the SPEACH test instead. For your long rows (endurance) make sure that you can say a sentence out loud comfortably. If you can't then you are rowing too hard. Another cross check, with your HR monitor, if your heart rate is FLAT CONSTANT for your long rows then you are at an OK pace. If you HR is gradually climbing then you are TOO FAST, which will hurt you compared to going slower. (this seems odd, but it turns out that the behavior that long slow rows builds is different than you get from shorter faster rows. If you go too fast then you will not get the same benefits. This is why the BPP has long endurance rows, long interval rows and short intense intervals - they each train different things.)

[TessBrooklyn]

To your point, Ripples and Citroen, in my case the formula is definitely off. I tried for a maximum yesterday and got 171 bpm (as opposed to 220 minus my age of 55 which gives me 165). My resting heart rate yesterday was 53. Using the description hjs gave for reserve, my 75% cap would be 142 bpm. (If I had used 75% of 165 that would be only 124 bpm -- a huge difference!) Tsnor, thanks for the additional tips for the endurance rows. I'll watch those as I become accustomed to what the hr measures feel like.

[Ripples]

Strongly agree not to use ANY of the "age gives max HR" formulas. They work fine ON AVERAGE, but fail in real life because most people are not AVERAGE - there is a large scatter on max HR by age. So the value is wrong for most people even though the errors average out.

Ignore age formulas to figure out your heart rate, use the SPEACH test instead. For your long rows (endurance) make sure that you can say a sentence out loud comfortably. If you can't then you are rowing too hard. Another cross check, with your HR monitor, if your heart rate is FLAT CONSTANT for your long rows then you are at an OK pace. If you HR is gradually climbing then you are TOO FAST, which will hurt you compared to going slower. (this seems odd, but it turns out that the behavior that long slow rows builds is different than you get from shorter faster rows. If you go too fast then you will not get the same benefits. This is why the BPP has long endurance rows, long interval rows and short intense intervals - they each train different things.)

Interesting approach, which I'll definitely try tomorrow.

I will say that using my resting heart rate (averaged over a 30-day period) and Dr. Martha Gulati's formula works out pretty close to RPE for me. I'm average and like having a number on which to base my zones.

[hjs]

Point about Pete and his plans, he never used heartrate numbers, he went by pace only, and still does.

[Tsnor]

Some foot notes. Turns out Max heart rate is sport specific. For example your max rate running (standing up, likely hot) will likely be significantly higher than your rate swimming (lying down with better cooling). Meaning swimming you cannot force your heart to hit the same high number you can hit when running. Biking max HR will change standing up vs in the saddle. Max heart rate also changes based on how hard you worked the previous day (down 4 bpm on average for the people tested when retested the next day).

Glad you used a comparison to rowing RPE to get/validate your max number for rowing.

I'd be interested in knowing how you will be using max HR for setting up your training. I've just been using HR to see if I am in the exercise zone I want to be in. One more toy to keep me motivated. I'll know in a few months if it made any difference for me.

If you like to look at data, the CSV data from ergdata (via the concept 2 log) displays very nicely in open office. You can graph heart rate over time with a few clicks. This lets you see things like both the work and rest HR data for interval workouts.

[hjs]

Some foot notes. Turns out Max heart rate is sport specific. For example your max rate running (standing up, likely hot) will likely be significantly higher than your rate swimming (lying down with better cooling). Meaning swimming you cannot force your heart to hit the same high number you can hit when running. Biking max HR will change standing up vs in the saddle. Max heart rate also changes based on how hard you worked the previous day (down 4 bpm on average for the people tested when retested the next day).

Glad you used a comparison to rowing RPE to get/validate your max number for rowing.

I'd be interested in knowing how you will be using max HR for setting up your training. I've just been using HR to see if I am in the exercise zone I want to be in. One more toy to keep me motivated. I'll know in a few months if it made any difference for me.

If you like to look at data, the CSV data from ergdata (via the concept 2 log) displays very nicely in open office. You can graph heart rate over time with a few clicks. This lets you see things like both the work and rest HR data for interval workouts.

Its also training specific, the sport you do/did the most is where you body is primed at. A good cyclist will be able to reach high hf numbers cycling, but much less so at rowing. His “weak links” will give in before his heart can work fully. Etc

[Dangerscouse]

Its also training specific, the sport you do/did the most is where you body is primed at. A good cyclist will be able to reach high hf numbers cycling, but much less so at rowing. His “weak links” will give in before his heart can work fully. Etc

Maybe you might know Henry: why does my HR only seem to reach maximum for a 60 min + session? I did a 4 x 2k (r22; r24; r26; r28) and I ended up having to slow down about halfway through the last 2k (from an average 1:41.9 to 1:42.9), but my HR was only circa 90%

If I do a HM or 60 mins TT it will be circa 95-98%

[hjs]

Its also training specific, the sport you do/did the most is where you body is primed at. A good cyclist will be able to reach high hf numbers cycling, but much less so at rowing. His “weak links” will give in before his heart can work fully. Etc

Maybe you might know Henry: why does my HR only seem to reach maximum for a 60 min + session? I did a 4 x 2k (r22; r24; r26; r28) and I ended up having to slow down about halfway through the last 2k (from an average 1:41.9 to 1:42.9), but my HR was only circa 90%

If I do a HM or 60 mins TT it will be circa 95-98%

Hmm difficult to say.
In general, hf does not reach max when we are very fatiqued.
For a 4x2 session I would think, thats plenty long enough to reach close to max numbers.

When have seen your max? At what kind of session? Did you see that number more often, or at least come close?

90% sounds like you should be “easy” to reach during a hard session. So really can’t give you an easy reason.

[Dangerscouse]

Hmm difficult to say.
In general, hf does not reach max when we are very fatiqued.
For a 4x2 session I would think, thats plenty long enough to reach close to max numbers.

When have seen your max? At what kind of session? Did you see that number more often, or at least come close?

90% sounds like you should be “easy” to reach during a hard session. So really can’t give you an easy reason.

I saw it at 176 on the monitor, (and it usually goes 2bpm higher on Polar as it records after I've finished) when I did my FM PB in early May, and 173 in early June on a 60 mins session, but only a couple of weeks later I did a 7 x 1k r1 and I struggled at 165, and another 15 x 500 r1, also in June, and it only got to 165.

It just doesn't seem to respond quickly and it needs at least a 30 mins session to get close to maximum (I saw 170 in a 30 min free rate in July). I'd even say that I'm not struggling as much when my HR is 173. I'm not too bothered, but it does seem strange.

[Tsnor]

Neat. 10 bpm is pretty large.

HOW long did you warm up before trying to get max heart rate with a short piece. Less than 20 mins warmup can give a lower max HR. (saw this in some Norwegian study, do not remember the magnitude of the change, but think it was small, less than 10 bpm).

WHAT are you using to measure your HR? Think you said polar, was it an optical watch or a belt ? Any chance you are not seeing max because the HRM application is smoothing the data it is getting?

I wear a fitbit watch optical HR monitor all the time and use a polar h10 belt rowing and cycling so I see HR data from both the watch and belt. The fitbit does not work well for intense, short intervals. There seems to be some lag/smoothing going on. Fitbit watch reads way under polar for the same time period when I compare the two. Fitbit does this for intervals on both a stationary bike and the C2 rower so its not just rowing causing wrist based HRM problems. If I do a long steady state piece on either the rower or the bike the polar belt and fitbit read about the same. If I pick up the pace hard at the end the polar will show a rising HR, the fitbit often shows a dropping HR. Maybe the failure to reach max is a measurement issue...

[Dangerscouse]

Neat. 10 bpm is pretty large.

HOW long did you warm up before trying to get max heart rate with a short piece. Less than 20 mins warmup can give a lower max HR. (saw this in some Norwegian study, do not remember the magnitude of the change, but think it was small, less than 10 bpm).

WHAT are you using to measure your HR? Think you said polar, was it an optical watch or a belt ? Any chance you are not seeing max because the HRM application is smoothing the data it is getting?

I wear a fitbit watch optical HR monitor all the time and use a polar h10 belt rowing and cycling so I see HR data from both the watch and belt. The fitbit does not work well for intense, short intervals. There seems to be some lag/smoothing going on. Fitbit watch reads way under polar for the same time period when I compare the two. Fitbit does this for intervals on both a stationary bike and the C2 rower so its not just rowing causing wrist based HRM problems. If I do a long steady state piece on either the rower or the bike the polar belt and fitbit read about the same. If I pick up the pace hard at the end the polar will show a rising HR, the fitbit often shows a dropping HR. Maybe the failure to reach max is a measurement issue...

Ah, the lack of warm up is most definitely an issue that I hadn't considered. I have never, not once, warmed up for 20 minutes. I usually don't do any warm up at all, or possibly it will be a maximum of 3k (circa 10 mins) or 2k or under. I think that the shorter sessions I have referred to, probably didn't have warm ups.

I use a CooSpo chest belt with the Polar Beat app to record the data. The monitor and the Polar app do seem to have a similar reading. Not sure if it makes any difference, but the PM5 is on ANT+ and the Polar is on on Bluetooth.