Heart Rate Zones

[iain]

Came across the below and others by the same coach. This is a different approach to HR zones accepting that drift will occur so UT2 will go well into UT1 while UT1 is approaching AT zone. This makes a lot of sense to me but is a big difference to the more traditional approach which necessitates either doing the first half at the bottom of the zone or slowing down, neither of which feels right to me. What do others think?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GgLNIYJlrw8

[Dangerscouse]

The more I read, and the more I experience, the more I realise that there is a massive amount of tolerance in all training plans, and you need to try and analyse what personally works for you.

I don't strictly follow any HR limits, as that works well for me, but like so many things in life you can find supporting, or refuting, evidence for most theories that you want to use.

Personally I'm a big advocate of covering all bases, so I do a big mixture of effort, rate and pace and I keep half an eye on HR, but it's such a fickle measurement I don't give it too much credence. For example, my HR was up at 132 near the end of my 18k this morning, but I'm fairly sure that this was circa 5bpm higher due to the temperature (23c) rather than the effort.

[max_ratcliffe]

Travis's stuff makes for entertaining viewing, and he has lots of very useful insights.

I think he takes the gear metaphor a bit too far and I do wonder what "recreational" athletes he's been training - how many of us have the patience to do only 30' ut1 for every 5 hours of ut2?

Perhaps if be sub-7 if I did though.

[iain]

Many thanks for the replies.

Travis's stuff makes for entertaining viewing, and he has lots of very useful insights.

I think he takes the gear metaphor a bit too far and I do wonder what "recreational" athletes he's been training - how many of us have the patience to do only 30' ut1 for every 5 hours of ut2?

Perhaps if be sub-7 if I did though.

his definitions of UT1 & 2 are much more intensive than others 'though. Most would see his UT2 ending most of the way to the top of UT1 band as a UT1 row! In his base building be recommended 8hrs UT2 to 2hrs UT1 and 50' faster. I don't think that is more than others.

Personally I have not seen significant gains of keeping HR to 75% of max (2:28-30 pace for me which is a weaker than normal stroke at R15-6). Only been at this for 9 months, but how long can it take? 2 hours of that doesn't feel like much of a row! looking for validation to return to doing slower rows a bit harder!

[mict450]

The more I use my HRM, the more I agree with Stu that it is a very fickle metric. I still use it but am depending more & more on low tech RPE.

[jamesg]

HR is a subjective measurement, so serves to show if we've warmed up, or are approaching a limit (via the rate of increase).

All an oarsman has to do is shift the boat. How far she goes per stroke is his index; coupled with rating. Ten meters suits me now at max 23, though no doubt will soon drop to 22.

[hjs]

HR is a subjective measurement, so serves to show if we've warmed up, or are approaching a limit (via the rate of increase).

All an oarsman has to do is shift the boat. How far she goes per stroke is his index; coupled with rating. Ten meters suits me now at max 23, though no doubt will soon drop to 22.

Would say its the opposite, its very objective, its takes everything into account. Ofcourse when you are very mature in training, you know by feel what you are doing and what energy systems you are using. An absolute beginner has no clue though. For them using hf is a very usefull tool.
Roughly speaking, beginners have a “everything in the middle” mentality. The go to fast when going “easy” and not hard enough when going “fast”. To be able to go fast you first need to be fit and strong. Thats why building a good base is so important.
For healthreasons alone, going very fast is not needed. For racing ofcourse it very much is. Races are won by being able to go all in.

[iain]

HR is a subjective measurement, so serves to show if we've warmed up, or are approaching a limit (via the rate of increase).

All an oarsman has to do is shift the boat. How far she goes per stroke is his index; coupled with rating. Ten meters suits me now at max 23, though no doubt will soon drop to 22.

Thanks for your thoughts. However I am more interested to know whether the correct RPE for UT2 to provide effective base building is consistent with staying in the traditional UT2 HR zone throughout the workout or allowing drift significantly into UT1. I ask this as someone who has not historically done much base building and rushed their training.

Would say its the opposite, its very objective, its takes everything into account. Of course when you are very mature in training, you know by feel what you are doing and what energy systems you are using. An absolute beginner has no clue though. For them using hf is a very useful tool.

Roughly speaking, beginners have a “everything in the middle” mentality. The go to fast when going “easy” and not hard enough when going “fast”. To be able to go fast you first need to be fit and strong. That's why building a good base is so important.
For health reasons alone, going very fast is not needed. For racing of course it very much is. Races are won by being able to go all in.

By that definition after 18MM I am definitely a beginner! I spent much of that time training with Pete or using his methods that call for SS rows to be UT1 and this definition is stretched at times (I think Pete's comment was SS should be no faster than you are confident you could complete double the distance at that pace if you had to). By that definition, a 10k SS should be at a pace you are confident you could complete an HM, possibly 2k +15 for me against something over 2k +20S by HR band.

I am trying to rectify this and am seeing conflicting thoughts with Mafetone at one end (personally with a high HR for my age the fixed limits are impractical and would confine my SS to walking), to ideas like Travis's. I was hoping that the collective wisdom of the Forum might help me to decide whether Travis's view is generally thought to be less productive.

I could debate the subjective / objective nature of HR, I personally think that it is somewhere between. I'm with Stu that the absolute number has to be interpreted as I definitely see 3-5BPM increase when either using HR to modify my pace or concentrating hard to maintain a precise pace and stroke rate. In addition, there are so many outside influences such as what you are thinking about or even whether you are in need of the loo! I am unclear to what extent these should be seen as actual increases in the CV load of the training and therefore to be taken account of in pace setting (even 'though the Hr is overperforming relative to the bodies demands) or alternatively as representing little increase in blood flow as they are compensated by a lower stroke volume and therefore little increase in CV load and best ignored. Against this adjusting for illness, stress and tiredness makes this more objective than pace alone. Also, while others may be adept at consistent RPE assessments, I know that my state of mind makes these assessments very subjective. I think most people struggle to adjust RPE for endorphin releases and most for general "positivity" both of which hugely affect what seems the "right" pace, but which do not affect the load that a particular row places on the body.

very interested in all thoughts on this.

- Iain

[Dangerscouse]

By that definition after 18MM I am definitely a beginner! I spent much of that time training with Pete or using his methods that call for SS rows to be UT1 and this definition is stretched at times (I think Pete's comment was SS should be no faster than you are confident you could complete double the distance at that pace if you had to). By that definition, a 10k SS should be at a pace you are confident you could complete an HM, possibly 2k +15 for me against something over 2k +20S by HR band.

I am trying to rectify this and am seeing conflicting thoughts with Mafetone at one end (personally with a high HR for my age the fixed limits are impractical and would confine my SS to walking), to ideas like Travis's. I was hoping that the collective wisdom of the Forum might help me to decide whether Travis's view is generally thought to be less productive.

I could debate the subjective / objective nature of HR, I personally think that it is somewhere between. I'm with Stu that the absolute number has to be interpreted as I definitely see 3-5BPM increase when either using HR to modify my pace or concentrating hard to maintain a precise pace and stroke rate. In addition, there are so many outside influences such as what you are thinking about or even whether you are in need of the loo! I am unclear to what extent these should be seen as actual increases in the CV load of the training and therefore to be taken account of in pace setting (even 'though the Hr is overperforming relative to the bodies demands) or alternatively as representing little increase in blood flow as they are compensated by a lower stroke volume and therefore little increase in CV load and best ignored. Against this adjusting for illness, stress and tiredness makes this more objective than pace alone. Also, while others may be adept at consistent RPE assessments, I know that my state of mind makes these assessments very subjective. I think most people struggle to adjust RPE for endorphin releases and most for general "positivity" both of which hugely affect what seems the "right" pace, but which do not affect the load that a particular row places on the body.

very interested in all thoughts on this.

- Iain

Imo, I think you're best aiming for a compromise. If the Maffetone HR is so low you are basically at walking pace, and not enjoying it, you need to allow some flex to increase the cap a bit. After all, it is just a best guess, so there are lots of variables, and you may benefit from something different than what is suggested

Having said that, I'm aware that in my case I slowed down to circa 2:04/5 pace for SS, but this has now improved to 1:59/2:00 so you will see an incremental benefit over the course of your training, but you need to persevere for at least a few months as it can be painfully slow progress. This progress was partly due to allowing mainly strict HR caps, and some grey zone sessions where the HR drifted, along with harder sessions, so I like to keep challenging the CV system rather than sticking to one defined plan.

I agree that RPE can be slightly unreliable too, as it is open to internal interpretation, but if you use both HR and RPE, it can be a good base of information. If I'm honest I do find RPE is worst in the mid range sessions. 65-75% & 90-100% are easy to identify, but a 75-90% isn't as easy, and there is potentially a tendency to convince yourself that it was easier than it was when you're feeling good, and harder when you're struggling.

[hjs]

By that definition after 18MM I am definitely a beginner! I spent much of that time training with Pete or using his methods that call for SS rows to be UT1 and this definition is stretched at times (I think Pete's comment was SS should be no faster than you are confident you could complete double the distance at that pace if you had to). By that definition, a 10k SS should be at a pace you are confident you could complete an HM, possibly 2k +15 for me against something over 2k +20S by HR band.

I am trying to rectify this and am seeing conflicting thoughts with Mafetone at one end (personally with a high HR for my age the fixed limits are impractical and would confine my SS to walking), to ideas like Travis's. I was hoping that the collective wisdom of the Forum might help me to decide whether Travis's view is generally thought to be less productive.

I could debate the subjective / objective nature of HR, I personally think that it is somewhere between. I'm with Stu that the absolute number has to be interpreted as I definitely see 3-5BPM increase when either using HR to modify my pace or concentrating hard to maintain a precise pace and stroke rate. In addition, there are so many outside influences such as what you are thinking about or even whether you are in need of the loo! I am unclear to what extent these should be seen as actual increases in the CV load of the training and therefore to be taken account of in pace setting (even 'though the Hr is overperforming relative to the bodies demands) or alternatively as representing little increase in blood flow as they are compensated by a lower stroke volume and therefore little increase in CV load and best ignored. Against this adjusting for illness, stress and tiredness makes this more objective than pace alone. Also, while others may be adept at consistent RPE assessments, I know that my state of mind makes these assessments very subjective. I think most people struggle to adjust RPE for endorphin releases and most for general "positivity" both of which hugely affect what seems the "right" pace, but which do not affect the load that a particular row places on the body.

very interested in all thoughts on this.

- Iain

To begin with. I think we should try to keep it as simple as possible. Which is easy said, and often less easy to do.
The basic principle of training is, give the body a stimulus, let it rest/recover, repeat. If things went well, we should be a little bit better. If we don’t get better something goes wrong. Could be anything in the above chain.

I think nowadays we have an overload of info, both via information and via tech. Look at nature, animals, who can be very fit and strong without it, just following instinct.

Pete plan. Pete used to post his training in the uk forum. He did not have a sports education. And trained how he found things. He is well educated. He was a 6.10/20 erger, and more or less seldom trained above 152 pace, and also did not much low rate work. Bread and butter was rate 24 for him. Ut2 stuff he simply did not do. But remember, he was a young guy in his prime. Something really to consider.

Apart from age, fitness etc. Also to consider is things like talent, type of athlete etc etc. Take stu for instance, he can do lots of longer session and relative fast, ask him to pull a good sprintsession.... which he for that reason simply never does.

Think you should try to keep it as easy as possible. Use basic training info, use your own pro s and cons. And look if it works.

[iain]

Thanks Henry & Stu. For me I am too pressed to often do sessions on consecutive days, so will push a bit harder as I know that it is unlikely to compromise another workout and may create a better stimulus (as well as being more enjoyable). Bu I like to think that I have learned a thing or 2 about training and so was a bit perplexed to have something so crucial to many people's training seem so uncertain. i guess we just need to remember that nothing is certain in this life but death and taxes!

[jamesg]

However I am more interested to know whether the correct RPE for UT2 to provide effective base building is consistent with staying in the traditional UT2 HR zone throughout the workout or allowing drift significantly into UT1.

Training is done by increasing pressure. If you reduce pressure, for whatever reason, training stops. So keep up the pressure, and stop only if forced to. If you reduce pressure during a workout, to avoid HR increase, you might as well stop altogether, there being no possible further training effect.

If you row only UT2 (18-20) unless you improve your stroke there can be no excess pressure to adapt to. As hjs says, HR takes account of everything, not only our power output; so it has to be ignored, if we want to apply pressure. We cannot rely forever on increasing heart size; but must take note that a major effect of training is to increase waste removal rate, which in any case shifts HR bands. Which implies that the beginner defined bands will soon become irrelevant. There is no reason in principle why AT could not equate, sooner or later, to MHR. In which case max UT2 would become 80% of 2k test Watts, if only for the last month before a race.

Training for a performance target or a race is always progressive. This is what you mean presumably, using the word Building. Once we've adapted to a certain level, we face the next. See the Interactives, where progress is by increasing work in three-week cycles, but increasing power and shortening work between cycles. This is what a medium level 26 week IA requires, for the first three weeks. UT2 is 50-60% of your test Watts, UT1 60-70%.

1 TEST 1x20'UT1 2x12'UT1 2x15'UT1 2x10'UT1
2 40'UT2 2x14'UT1 2x16'UT1 2x18'UT1 2x15'UT1
3 45'UT2 2x17'UT1 2x19'UT1 4x10'UT1 2x18'UT1

Every time I climb a hill, I go a little (very little) faster. Not because I want to, but because I'm not forced to slow down so soon or even stop. Rowing is the same, I don't go so slow, nor do I stop so soon, only because I don't need to. Sooner or later, age or disability or some interruption will anyway take me back to square one; no need to stay there consciously.

[iain]

However I am more interested to know whether the correct RPE for UT2 to provide effective base building is consistent with staying in the traditional UT2 HR zone throughout the workout or allowing drift significantly into UT1.

Training is done by increasing pressure. If you reduce pressure, for whatever reason, training stops. So keep up the pressure, and stop only if forced to. If you reduce pressure during a workout, to avoid HR increase, you might as well stop altogether, there being no possible further training effect.

If you row only UT2 (18-20) unless you improve your stroke there can be no excess pressure to adapt to. As hjs says, HR takes account of everything, not only our power output; so it has to be ignored, if we want to apply pressure. We cannot rely forever on increasing heart size; but must take note that a major effect of training is to increase waste removal rate, which in any case shifts HR bands. Which implies that the beginner defined bands will soon become irrelevant. There is no reason in principle why AT could not equate, sooner or later, to MHR. In which case max UT2 would become 80% of 2k test Watts, if only for the last month before a race.

Training for a performance target or a race is always progressive. This is what you mean presumably, using the word Building. Once we've adapted to a certain level, we face the next. See the Interactives, where progress is by increasing work in three-week cycles, but increasing power and shortening work between cycles. This is what a medium level 26 week IA requires, for the first three weeks. UT2 is 50-60% of your test Watts, UT1 60-70%.

1 TEST 1x20'UT1 2x12'UT1 2x15'UT1 2x10'UT1
2 40'UT2 2x14'UT1 2x16'UT1 2x18'UT1 2x15'UT1
3 45'UT2 2x17'UT1 2x19'UT1 4x10'UT1 2x18'UT1

Every time I climb a hill, I go a little (very little) faster. Not because I want to, but because I'm not forced to slow down so soon or even stop. Rowing is the same, I don't go so slow, nor do I stop so soon, only because I don't need to. Sooner or later, age or disability or some interruption will anyway take me back to square one; no need to stay there consciously.

Thanks James for your thoughts. I must admit the concept of AT being max HR confuses me. I have heard of people with a tested threshold of 93% but no higher, or are you saying that you may hit 100% of max during an AT workout? Not quite got there but certainly seen 98%. I know you are a fan of the interactive. I struggle to do an all out 2k (going years between at times), so last time I did it it took me nearly 2 weeks to get through the first retest as I wanted to be fresh and do a maximal effort, but without the adrenaline of a race H/D! I find the adjustments of a few mins in work out duration and rigidity really spoils the fun for me so not going there again. I just need to rebuild my aerobic base after much reduced training. This is essentially a replacement of the first part of the interactive plan involving mainly UT2 and UT1 rows.

R18-20 is UT1 for me as HR really starts to increase if I do my normal stroke above 17SPM. As stated before my stroke deteriorates if I lighten it so I maintain a stronger stroke at lower than normally recommended ratings. At 50% of what I currently believe is my max 2k Watts I will leave the UT2 band after 40-50mins. Hence the intention to allow this to drift into UT1.

I've never heard it said that slowing down stops any benefit from the remaining distance before, but many coaches recommend that you don't slow down, but this is useful and further increases my determination of adopting this new approach to longer rows.

[GlennUk]

FWIW i always try to understand what the actual question is in trying to determine what the 'best' answer is. It unlikely to be the same for all unless the training objectives are the same for all.

With regard to HR training, the suggestion that one should always be increasing pressure and if not, then there is no training benefit seems too simplistic.

I am training to row continuously for many hours, most recently 5 hours averaging c.83% max effort for 1st 50k followed by a final 10k @ c.87% max effort, measured by reference to HR values.

In my prep, i was training to help my body adjust to doing this ie. rowing for long durations at a 'moderate' exercise rate, i could have spent a lot of time rowing at max effort but not excepting to do so (well apart from the last 100m ) would in my view have been unproductive.

I would further add, that whilst many us row (run, cycle, whatever) to achieve these goals, i did not with my longer sessions at 90 minutes at an effort of 80% max.

Whether one considers this to be increasing pressure is a matter of perspective perhaps, it did not feel like it to me, others may have a different view.

As Stu said, we all have our ways that suit us.

[max_ratcliffe]

<>

With regard to HR training, the suggestion that one should always be increasing pressure and if not, then there is no training benefit seems too simplistic.

<>

Agreed.

While the basic premise of training to increase stroke power isn't in doubt, suggesting that training stops when pressure decreases just seems wrong to me.

If a rower is otw in a crew and routinely pulls with great stroke power but doesn't have the engine to do that at race rate, then they have to reduce pressure until they can complete the whole race. They can't row at 24 while everyone else is at 32.