Older rower seeking opinion

[jamesg]

Digging deeper into this it seems there are benefits of rowing for lengthy periods in UT2

The problem is how to do it. Rowing is not like other sports. It's a power sport that uses as much muscle as possible and fast, since the idea is to shift a boat. So if you pull a decent stroke, worth say 8W-min, even at rate 20 (so 160W) you'll be over UT2.

To keep HR down in long work, better go for fastish walk; if no hills, HR will stay down, as you know already.

So on erg try warmup plus 15-20 minutes a day hard and fast: rate 23-24 and average 200W. See the C2 WODs, which are specific to rowing.

[JaapvanE]

The problem is how to do it. Rowing is not like other sports. It's a power sport that uses as much muscle as possible and fast, since the idea is to shift a boat. So if you pull a decent stroke, worth say 8W-min, even at rate 20 (so 160W) you'll be over UT2.

Its doable, just bring the rate down and have a more relaxed stroke (i.e. not that explosive). In the weekly EXR group rows we have two groups specifically working at HR zone 2: one aiming for 2:30/500m pace, and one 2:45/500m pace. And the people in these groups aren't slow by any means, they just choose to take a low HR training. Just like a runner can take a brisk walk.

[jamesg]

rate down and have a more relaxed stroke

That's fine; once the real work has been done. But you can't train a stroke by not pulling it. We don't need an erg or a shell to avoid hard work. Just go for a walk in the park; possibly with no hills to run up.

[iain]

Just to complete the picture, there is significant difference of opinion about most of the above. For instance there is some evidence that the "damage to the heart" in the above talk is not what was originally thought as while the plaques that make the hearts of higher intensity athletes appear damaged don't appear to have the same mortality risks of the similar looking plaques on untrained individuals. Also there is substantial variation to the ability to cope with oxygen debt between individuals so that even lab tested thresholds don't tell the whole story as they assume an average sustainable lactate level. In particular many exercise specialists strongly disagree with Maffetone as there is little evidence that UT2 limits have any special meaning. The 80/20 split is from those exercising for >15 hours a week and is to allow rapid recovery unnecessary if you are exercising less frequently. So while "UT2 zone training" is the current internet favourite this may well not persist. Each individual needs to tweak their training and see what works for them and what they are prepared to do.

[Dangerscouse]

Each individual needs to tweak their training and see what works for them and what they are prepared to do.

+1. Always analyse, assess and adjust with an acceptable amount of cynicism for what is 'normal'

[pauld58]

Clearly a variance of opinion regarding this but I think my original question still stands - is it safe/wise/appropriate given my age 65 and good levels of fitness to row at 90%+ HR for any significant amount of time? I understand the need for a solid basic aerobic fitness but I am not rowing for speed competition but for improved endurance so if I can row at 22spm for any hour at say 30 minutes ut2 <70% and 30 ut1 > 70% why won’t this improve my aerobic capacity and then on occasion I put more power in which may mean longer in ut1 which should increase distance. The free spirit rowing calculator has my ut2 max at 130 and ut1 at 140, which is interesting as when I row for an hour I have been trying to stay at below 129 for as long as possible as that is top of band 2 on my app. Really interesting to read all the views- thanks for your time guys.

[gvcormac]

I don't think it is dangerous to push your heart rate so long as you don't overtrain (and so long as you don't have an underlying condition).

I think it is beneficial to do intervals, each several minutes, with several minutes rest in between, at a speed somewhat higher than you can maintain. There's a high correlation between high VO2 max and longevity/health.

You raise V02 max with intervals, and you raise your endurance with longer workouts. Arguably, it is better make your long workouts longer than to push harder, if you have the time. But there is no bright line, notwithstanding what many of the prescribed workouts indicate. And I don't think there's any real evidence that doing the same workout faster is detrimental, other than requiring more recovery.

[pauld58]

i have just done an hour row all in UT2 or below

12715m, split 2.21.5, 22spm 50min UT2, 10 min below, ave HR 118bpm, max HR 128bpm, 123 watts, 116 drag

Recent row...
13019, split 2.18.2, 22spm, 29min UT2, 27min UT1, ave HR 122, max HR 141, 132 watts, 123 drag

I'm not sure what I take from this other than time in UT1 equates to more power and more distance...whether it is an efficient use of the time as it is only 300m more (5m per minute) is an interesting question. I think i might do a period of UT2 rowing and then an hour focsing on distance bt not going past 90% to compare.

[MPx]

... but I think my original question still stands - is it safe/wise/appropriate given my age 65 and good levels of fitness to row at 90%+ HR for any significant amount of time?

As long as you have no known underlying heart issues, and you are not a recent convert to exercise (which you're clearly not), then my completely medically unqualified opinion is that it is "safe" for you to push your heart as hard as you want. At 66 I still push mine to 95% or more twice a week - have for many years, and more often when younger. Indeed if you do a step test to determine your real max on the rower you'll probably find that your Max is higher than you currently think and you've only been cruising up 'til now....

Is it wise to do it? Occasional but regular High Intensity exercise has some pretty good science behind it to say it is likely to be "beneficial" - but those benefits are most often articulated as being about improving performance rather than just health and wellbeing so your goals are an important caveat here.

Appropiate is just a nuance of Wise...

On the significant amount of time thing, that is self regulating. You simply wont be able to. Which is why nearly all high intensity work is prescribed as intervals. However a second approach to testing your MHR is to erg a 5k or 6k TT as fast as you can sustain and then raise the rate/pace to sprint as fast as you can for the last 500m - your HR after that will be at or very close to your true max - and you'll have a new PB to celebrate!

[GlennUk]

If you're medically fit and have no health issues then as far as i can tell there is no reason to give the heart a good workout at any age.

The point the TEDx talk is that routinely pushing beyond the easy exercise limit (in my perception the 70% HR boundary almost daily) for prolonged excercise times damages your heart muscle and can actually increase mortality. So limiting most trainings (approx 80%) to HR Zone 2 makes a lot of sense from that perspective.

Thanks, i am not advocating exercising to the limit everyday, and as far as i can tell the Ted talk is not saying anything that many others are not saying, i.e. that the largest proportion of any exercise plan should be at a restricted HR/level with higher level efforts at a smaller proportion of the time available.

For clarification, I have heard or seen nothing that suggests that exercising to HR max values on occasions has any detrimental effects for those in good health.

[GlennUk]

Clearly a variance of opinion regarding this but I think my original question still stands - is it safe/wise/appropriate given my age 65 and good levels of fitness to row at 90%+ HR for any significant amount of time?

I think the key point is

Are you generally healthy and do not have any concerns over your cv systems?

If yes, then train for whatever your objective is specifically, and if you wish to push to levels above 90% then do so 'occasionally'.

I, and a number of other 'oldish' people on this thread have trained specifically for FM/100k which requires us to exercise for several hours with HR values at 80-90% HR max values, but only occasionally.

The training most seem to follow as far as i can tell, relies on a mixture of work typically at lower HR values for long periods, and higher values for shorter periods.

What your training looks like will vary from individual to individual, and plan to plan.

Obviously if you have concerns over your health, in any area, then see your doctor before engaging on any exercise plan, whatever it is, but i am not getting this is a concern for you.

[JaapvanE]

Thanks, i am not advocating exercising to the limit everyday, and as far as i can tell the Ted talk is not saying anything that many others are not saying, i.e. that the largest proportion of any exercise plan should be at a restricted HR/level with higher level efforts at a smaller proportion of the time available.

For clarification, I have heard or seen nothing that suggests that exercising to HR max values on occasions has any detrimental effects for those in good health.

We are in complete agreement here.

[iain]

While I would be far less definitive than Gvcormac, I believe there is wide consensus that exceeding 90% HR at least weekly does lead t higher fitness in well trained athletes and some of the studies supporting this are in older individuals such as yourself. We can all expect our VO2 max (and other related measures of our performance limits) to decline as we age, but the higher it is the later it will be before this decline causes a significant impact on our day to day activities. As such it seems that one of the major reasons for continuing to train is to increase our potential "healthy" lifespan (ie that with limited impairment) and so regular sessions >90% do seem sensible. To date I do not believe that there is significant evidence that the increased likelihood of coronaries makes a sensible training program including such sessions would get close to offset the increase in health.

That said there are many >90% sessions. my HR stabilises above 90% Max for any TT below 35km. I would be nervous of doing >30min above 90% more than a couple of times in most months. No evidence for this, but there is no evidence of this and I believe that the risks associated with this although still small, might become significant if repeated regularly for older athletes and so I don't think they are worth the risk when the only objective is improved health. As a result I too do most of my >90% sessions in intervals and I no longer do the long sessions of the PP as often as the interval sessions.

Re your 2 SS sessions, the difference is a 7.3% increase in average power, that is a lot. As I have said elsewhere, there is no "correct" pace for SS rows. I would say that the right pace is that which allows you to do faster sessions largely unaffected (ie you are basically recovered from a harder session the day before your SS session by the time of your next hard sessions). Personally I find that I can get another 1S pace or so after a 2 day gap from my last session, but suspect that is likely to be mainly psychosomatic. This definition means that before a rest day a SS session can be done harder than if you are rowing the next day.

[H2O]

I hold it with the C2 Training guide and in particular the paces on page 75 which are derived from your current 2K pace and pay no attention to heart rate. I cycle through all intensity bands UT2, UT1, AT and TR (but no AN).

I believe that the TR sessions (rowing at 2K pace for VO2max training) are the most valuable and are even healthy.
However as I have become older (65) I have mellowed out considerably when doing a 2K or anything else. I used to be nauseous at halftime on each time trial and that was actually the sign that the pace was right. Now I am never nauseous at all.

[Cyclingman1]

Puzzling bunch of questions. Why do you have to row at 22-23 SPM? the wattage per stroke has to be fairly high [around 6W/stroke] to maintain the pace. If you did 27-28 at the same pace, I would imagine that the wattage per stroke would go down and permit longer distances. I don't use a HR monitor, but I cannot imagine that rowing at 90% HR would be particularly sustainable.