Off on a Tangent--HR based training

[Francois]

I think HR is for athletes, Intensity for coaches. Coaches don't mind how many dead and injured they leave behind...

I have yet to meet a coach who doesn't care about the well-being of his/her athletes. That doesn't mean that such coaches do not exist but IMO they are a very small minority.
When asked for advice on training, I do what most coaches do: I make sure that the workload is consistent with the athlete's background and that a gentle rate of progression is followed, precisely to avoid injuries. I wish I had always followed my own advice!
Most injuries are caused by athletes who do not listen to their coaches and who want to achieve too much too soon, and I don't think any HR monitoring could prevent that.

[Mike McGuirk]

Good thread!

For you HR proponents - a question: What exactly do you monitor for a given piece or workout - ending heart rate, average heart rate, average excluding some portion (beginning or end), something else?

Essentially I'm asking how you deal with HR creep. For example - on a 60' steady state workout (constant pace and rate) targeted at a certain % of HRR or MHR - for this example let's say 160 BPM - do you pick a pace/rate that results in an ending HR of 160, and average of 160, what? Do you ignore a little overshoot of the target? God forbid - do you slow down to maintain the target? (I'm not in the "no pain, no gain" camp but slowing down is hard to do.)

I've monitored my HR during training for a long time but because it can be so volatile, I find it useful only as a very rough guage of the intensity (or lack of it) of my training.

Thanks,
MM

[Bob S.]

Sort of on this thread - what about spiking?

It was 6:30 in the morning at the hotel in Boston, the day before the CRASH-B. I had just completed a 21' pyramid warmup, i.e 3' each @ 15/18/20/22/20/18/15 spm at an average pace of 2:26.0. After a 5' rest, I started a recommended race pace 750m piece, but in the middle of it I suddenly realized that the HR reading was up to 196. Since my max, based on the usual formula, was supposed to be 139, I was a bit dimayed. I am surprised (and relieved) that I didn't instantly soil the seat of the ergometer. I rather gingerly finished out the piece, ending with an average pace of 1:59.6. I didn't record the time between the piece and my cool down, but it was probably about 5' to reset the monitor and get settled(!?). The cool down was 20' - 4' ea at 22/20/18/15/12 with an average pace of 2:33.2. Early in the cool down, my HR was holding at about 168 for as long as 5'. By the end it was well down to the vicinity of 100, but I didn't record the value. within a minute or so of stopping it was around 90, which is typical. I have since learned that there is an alternative formula to the old 220- age for HR max. It is something like 205 - 1/2age, which gives me something in the 160s, so the 168 wasn't too bad, but still too damn high for the middle of a cool down.

While warming up for the competition the next day, I didn't connect up the monitor. I didn't want it to inhibit me. Nevertheless, it probably did make me somewhat more cautious in the actual race, since I was over 11 seconds slower than my previous time. My daughter was watching and accused me afterwards of dogging it, saying that I didn't even break a sweat until the last couple of minutes. I didn't feel like I was easing off, but the mind can do things we are not aware of.

I have had similar spikes, though not that drastic, but sometimes lasting longer than just a spike. With a bionic aortic valve in place, such spikes always make me a little uneasy. What I am wondering is if any others have experienced spiking and, if so, what conclusions have they drawn from them.

Bob S.

[Yankeerunner]

Interesting stuff. Addressing some points in random order:

Mike M, my own way of doing it is to use the ending HR to determine UT2, UT1 or AT (as dubious as it is ). For example, if I start out a UT2 workout at say 2:07 and it goes above, I will slow down to stay right at the upper end. Whatever the ending average pace is becomes my starting pace for the next UT2 workout. If I hit the HR target without going over, 2:07 remains my starting pace for the next workout. If I complete the whole piece and stay well under the HR target then 2:06.5 becomes the starting pace for the next UT2 workout. Thoughout the course of the season I seldom have to backtrack to a slower pace. I know some would use average heartrate instead, and they may be right. More important, I think, is to stick with the same method all of the time so that comparisons are meaningful.

BobS, I ignore spikes. I get some, although it is more likely for me to experience dips. I can be going along at a steady 130bpm for 10'-15' and then have it drop gradually to about 115 over the course of 5 or 6 strokes, only to return back to 130-132 after another 5 to 6 strokes. I've come to think of it as normal. Of course I haven't had any heart problems yet that I'm aware of either. If I do I might look at things differently.

Maybe what I think of as HR training is different from what others think it to be. I tend to use it only for three of the five training zones of the Interactive UK program, and record out of curiosity for the other two. As NavHaz pointed out, it's useless for such things as short duration intervals like his 30' pieces. Although if I did a workout like that I'd record the HR's and later in the season do the same session again and compare the HR's in the hope of seeing either a faster pace for the same HR or a lower HR for the same pace. If either happened I'd happily consider it good progress.

As MikeC said to Jim, liking something is a good reason to keep doing it. Boredom can kill even the best physiological training program. To the degree that adding HR monitoring in the equation to keep things interesting, it might be valuable because it is one more reason in favor of getting on the machine when we drag our sorry butts out of bed and have a momentary thought of climbing back into bed.

I'm still on JamesG's wavelength of liking the way that the HR monitor includes things like caffiene, sleep patterns, heat, humidity etc. when it purports to measure intensity. Mike's counterargument about espresso is a compelling fly in the ointment. I must admit that I've tried (and tried again & again & again) to get better by watching scary movies and have to admit that even though they get my HR up they have only a minor positive effect on my training.

Francois, I know that you didn't like it, but when I was running some on treadmills I would have liked that workout you did. It would amount to an interval workout that I would have found interesting, although as you say it would not work for steady state.

As I mentioned above, I basically did RPE for a long time running and learned to read myself fairly well. What success I did have was usually because of good pacing. I find the erg somewhat different though because even without the HR info there is still a stroke-by-stroke feedback that I never had when running. On the erg then is no advantage to knowing by RPE how to run a hill or adjust to a headwind or tailwind or a surge by an opponent. There are also no physical bodies to pass or hold off from being passed. Except for heat & humidity there isn't much difference between erging at home and erging at a race, and RPE learned in training doesn't seem to be of any more benefit to me there than adjusting my paces at home by HR. I can see how training a team boat could make things much different because at the very least all would have to use the same stroke rate (and stroke length and pressure must surely be significant too).

And Mike, I'm sure one of us will indeed get you started on lactate based training. But I promise that it will not be me until you have had the time to address strength training, lactic acid and HR based training.

Cheers all,

Keep it interesting.

Rick

[Sean Seamus]

this is so great - I ask a question, go away for 4 days, and return to this excellent discussion !

From the outset, let me clarify that my interest & focus is on general fitness, weight loss, and recreational rowing. If & when I get a handle on that I may dare to dream of elite performances.

To me, HR is one (1) factor in judging intensity of effort, and certainly NOT an absolute. In the short term, it is, on its own, somewhat useless - with the exception of ensuring one is neither dramatically under nor over exerting the heart; but over the long term many "authorities" clearly state that for a given (sub-maximal) performance a lower HR would indicate an improvement in cardiac fitness.

Another basic measure is breathing. Another is sweat, quantity thereof. Doubtless there are others; but they are tough to quantify.

RPE <rate of perceived exertion> is excellent, and ultimately the ONLY factor to be considered in determining whether to go easier / harder, but needs to be developed. As I do not have a competent coach available in my rec room, I need some kind of relatively objective measure to help me judge what is a reasonable effort, and whether over time I am improving.
----------------
What I especially found when I began rowing was that I consistently overshot what any reasonable person would agree was a sane HR. I still often find it "easier" to row faster than I intend, and while I can keep up the pace for an hour or longer, it doesn't seem to me that what I'm doing can be contributing to my "aerobic base", as recommended by "authorities" speaking from various backgrounds.

After 18 months and 2 million meters, I am just starting to get a sense of what a workout should should consist of, and I thank the HR monitor for having helped me to develop - safely - this base comprehension.

Having said all this, let me finish with an image. HR is like a speedometer - although the road is posted at 60 mph, a sane person knows to slow down in a snow storm, and to race away from Godzilla.

Think or sink !

[michaelb]

I like to monitor my HR, but I don't set workouts by it anymore. Rows at my UT2 band (147-150 depending on calculation) seem to be too slow and too easy even for slow and easy rows. But I found Xeno's crashb training plan to be the most interesting and different than anything I have seen here before, and he seems to base the bulk of the training on long slow distance rows capped by an easy HR:

http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=4165

I didn't follow that but I got the impression that others did. It raises the fundamental question about doing long rows at a set capped HR and how beneficial that is in developing your aerobic base.

[michaelb]

Oops, I followed the link and read Xeno's plan again. He sets the HR at 80%, which is UT1 (right?), and much harder than I thought. Pushing that for 80 min would be a challenge. Without reading the whole plan again, I don't know if he suggests any UT2 type rowing (is "paddle" easier than "steady state"). He also may use HR as proxy for lactate level, since that is what he has recommended in the past.

Is there a fundamental difference between using lactate levels to determine training vs. using HR?

[Yankeerunner]

I like to monitor my HR, but I don't set workouts by it anymore. Rows at my UT2 band (147-150 depending on calculation) seem to be too slow and too easy even for slow and easy rows. But I found Xeno's crashb training plan to be the most interesting and different than anything I have seen here before, and he seems to base the bulk of the training on long slow distance rows capped by an easy HR:

http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=4165

I didn't follow that but I got the impression that others did. It raises the fundamental question about doing long rows at a set capped HR and how beneficial that is in developing your aerobic base.

At CRASH-B's Henry Baker was raving about how well the Xeno program worked for him leading up to the Beach Sprints where he did a sparkling 6:49 for a 58-year-old lwt. I think he felt that he had passed his peak by the time of the CRASH-B's, although it was still good enough for a bronze.

Rick

[TomR]

Xeno's former coach wrote a chapter (#5) in the book "Rowing Faster." He recommends "large volumes of UT2 training." He determines UT2 according to lactate values, which is highly variable among individuals.

I assume the long rows that Xeno recommends are also UT2, and I also assume 80% is a proxy for a lactate value. If you do, say, 75 minutes of rowing in 3 intervals and the HR capped is 80%, you will do most of the work in the 70+% HR range. Is that UT2?

The term "HR training" raises a number of questions, as others have noted:
--Is the % HR used to determine a particular training band based on max HR or Karvonen method (which can yield significantly different results)?
--Is the HR% for a session is a hard cap, the average for the session, or the HR achieved after X minutes of rowing?
It seems to me that "HR training" is too vague a term to be meaningful w/out clear rules being specified whenever a HR benchmark is indicated.

Tom

For me:
80% of max HR=139.
80% HR using Karvonen=149

[Sean Seamus]

Shared terminology is so important to communication.

From the C2 UK "Indoor Rowing Traing Guide, version 2".
Physiology : Section 3, page 3.09
Training Bands
MHR <maximum heart rate>.

In use, I got fuddled twixt UT1 and UT2, so I re-named them :
UT2 ==> LO
UT1 ==> UT

Anyhow.
UT2 ==> LO = Utilisation 2. Light aerobic, low intensity work. Sustainable and fat burning.
55 - 70 % MHR

UT1 ==> UT = Utilisation 1. Heavy aerobic work using more oxygen.
70 - 80 % MHR

AT = Anaerobic Threshold. Harder work. On the aerobic limit. Pushing into anaerobic area.
80 - 85 % MHR

TR = Oxygen Transportation. Working hard. Unsustainable for long periods.
85 - 95 % MHR

AN = Anaerobic (without oxygen). Short bursts of maximum effort. Unsustainable. Burning carbohydrates.
95 - 100 % MHR

The author recommends using the simple method of 220 - age for those beginning or resuming a fitness program after some years off. The chapter goes on with details and tests to determine the bands more accurately for keeners and very fit trained individuals. Many sources point out that the 220 - age formula is only a rough and conservative guide. I know of several schemes and approaches to determining these values, and they are all useful, but sometimes people get too fussy about the wrong details. A little like people who really can't cook decently, but own dozens of pots and knives and gizmos and on and on ....

The C2 UK guide is a well written document, and available as a download, free from the UK web site.

~ Sean

[billw]

Hello Sean,

I remember some debate on the forum regarding the C2 manual and people were asking is the %age on the Max HR or the HR reserve ?

I think people ended up assuming it was correct to use HRR rather than Max HR - however its something you need to be aware of when considering the manual. I remember being quite confused about this.

Example of difference : assume 50 year old athlete (me) and 220 - age for Max HR and resting HR of 50

% Max HR 70% x (220-50years) = 119bpm
% Heart Rate Reserve 70% x (170bpm-50bpm) + 50bpm = 134bpm (this seems more reasonable)

On another issue - I personally use average and max bpm for a set piece as a measure of my current fitness.

ie I know that 12 months ago I could easily pull 10000m @ s10ps 2:10 with avg pulse 136bpm max 140bpm.

Succesive trials of the same piece yielded similar bpm vs time graphs.

Yes ......... if I visualise problems at work or winning my next 2k race race whilst doing a slow piece my heart will beat faster ................. just dont think about those things ......... concentrate on what you are doing at the moment.

By keeping avg and max HR figures for various pieces with known stroke rates and paces then I have useful data ..............When I am returning to my rowing machine after a 4 month injury layoff I have handy indicators that allow me to assess where I am vs where I was this time last year and I do not have to bust a gut doing a really hard 2k or 5k or 10k when its not appropriate.

Professional coaches and atheltes may disagree with this approach and thats fine ......... they have different aims to me ......... I also enjoy "playing" with the numbers ie graphs to compare 5k this year vs 5k last year or calculate metres per heartbeat for various pieces and compare them with last year.


Regards

Bill

[dougsurf]

Oops, I followed the link and read Xeno's plan again. He sets the HR at 80%, which is UT1 (right?), and much harder than I thought. Pushing that for 80 min would be a challenge. Without reading the whole plan again, I don't know if he suggests any UT2 type rowing (is "paddle" easier than "steady state"). He also may use HR as proxy for lactate level, since that is what he has recommended in the past.

Is there a fundamental difference between using lactate levels to determine training vs. using HR?

Actually, Xenos standard of effort is a lactate measurement of 2mmol. He put out the 80% (Karvonnen I believe) as the best guess for those who cant measure lactate. I asked him once about the difference between his 2mmol and the 1.5 mmol that his coach Aiken calls for in "Rowing Faster". His answer was that in a very well trained crew, like Aiken works with, 1.5mmol will register at a level that is still very high power and strenuous, whereas mere mortals like us will probably need to push 2 for the same stimulus.

To answer an earlier question, I do think HR and lactate correlation varies much between individuals. Most folks seem to consider 2mmol as UT2 work, but I think not. I consistently need to pull with a HR bouncing off of 170 (max 190) in order to pull my lactate up to 2mmol. And my body is very drained somewhere between 10k and 15k at that level. I would vote for it being more of a UT1 level. Dont know if this means I have great lactate processing or a weak shrimpy heart. I wish it meant I was more like Aikens athletes, but I dont think thats the case.

- Doug

[TomR]

Actually, Xeno's standard of effort is a lactate measurement of 2mmol. He put out the 80% (Karvonnen I believe) as the best guess for those who cant measure lactate. I asked him once about the difference between his 2mmol and the 1.5 mmol that his coach Aiken calls for in "Rowing Faster". His answer was that in a very well trained crew, like Aiken works with, 1.5mmol will register at a level that is still very high power and strenuous, whereas mere mortals like us will probably need to push 2 for the same stimulus.

- Doug

An interesting nuance Doug. Thanks for passing it along.

Tom

[Sean Seamus]

billw wrote

I remember some debate on the forum regarding the C2 manual and people were asking is the %age on the Max HR or the HR reserve ?

I think people ended up assuming it was correct to use HRR rather than Max HR - however its something you need to be aware of when considering the manual. I remember being quite confused about this.

Bill - you are correct - and I am glad I checked before responding !
--------------------
Page 3.06
Heart Rate Range (HRR)
Heart rate range is determined by subtracting the resting heart range from the maximum heart rate. When training bands are identified by percentages of heart rate, it is percentage of the HRR that is referred to. This value is then added to the RHR <Resting Heart Rate> to give the training heart rate.
------------------
I knew this once upon a time, but forgot it when I re-set my program last February. So I have been patiently plodding along, thinking that my revised stroke and various other factors were . . . developing slower than I'd like . . . thinking hmmmmmm. I had promised myself I'd do the 6 months of "Preparation" well within the UT bands.

Tomorrow I ROCK !

THANKS VERY MUCH
~ Sean

[LJWagner]

Judging by my hearts's bpm behavior pre-bypass surgery and post-bypass surgery in January,

1) the better your cardiac circulation, the less creep you have

2) the better your cardiac fitness, the less creep there is at all.

The heart is a muscle, too, also subject too fatigue and strains. The difference is that it is the pump that lets you drive all the other muscles, especially the biggest ones.

So just as you would train other muscle groups for endurance and strength, so you do your heart. Many coaches don't state the obvious, but its common for Track coaches to not want to accept new athletes who can't run five miles. It about cardiac conditioning to handle more intense workouts.

In the past three and a half years, I've gone through an infected mitral valve and a strained mitral valve, two years apart, both of which with undiagnosed severely clogged arteries, and finally a triple bypass last January. A month prior to the triple bypass, I was using my C2 regularly for 30-40 minutes 2-3 times a week at 145-155 bpm pain free. I had great secondary circulation from years of exercise (found during my angiogram), so was totally unaware of the clogged arteries until they were at, literally, 99% blockage, and then suddenly I could not hardly do anything without very serious angina.

I now use a heart rate monitor to limit workout intensity to appropriate levels. I also have taken to strict use of the RPE scale. At very high fitness levels such as those achieved by many athletes on this forum, labored breathing should never occur. If it does, they should consider it a possible warning sign, and if nothing else back off their training intensity and see if it goes away or improves over a few weeks. Labored breathing means your heart is not getting enough oxygen. A couple guys in their 50's dropped dead a month ago in the los Angeles Marathon.

My cholesterol levels pre surgery were 147 LDL, 45 HDL with a ratio of 3.2 Post surgery and with medication they are 87/57, for a ratio of 1.6. Desired ratio is 3.0 or lower.

The most common sign of clogged arteries is ... a heart attack. Some don't live to get help or tell the tale.

The 2nd most common sign is ... chest pain and shortness of breath, not always severe at first. That is what I first had. An EKG won't identify squat if the heart is otherwise ok. How do I know ? Um, it was the 10 EKG readings I had the last 4 years prior to my surgery, and the one the night before surgery when I had a massive angina in my sleep that woke me up. THAT was scary. Reading was negative again. EKG identifies heart injury, not clogged arteries. CAT can tell if you have calcification, but not blockage. I had two arteries 99% blocked, and only an angiogram found it. I had a CAT, too. found nothing.

If HR creep occurs earlier in moderately paced workouts, and slowing down little by little just controls it, you may need to see the plumbers. Clogged pipes happen. Drugs may take care of it early. At or near 99%, they operate. Really soon it turns out, too. They'll reschedule lots of people to prevent what they think could be sudden death before they can bill you for surgery.

As long as your heart rate stays in a normal and consistent range for you, or improves, the numbers are just a monitoring device. But when heart rate behavior changes significantly, something is happening, and it may be time to consult a doctor. The longer you monitor the numbers, the more you know. And genetics may be the most significant factor. Not smoking, not weight, not miserable diet.

Lack of creep is a good thing, at whatever HR pace you are training at, be it 145 bpm, 130 bpm, 170 bpm, or 200 bpm. Using an HR monitor, you get a peek at what the heart is doing.