Extended periods near maximum heart rate

[Tenshuu]

Did a 1hr row tonight restricted to 20spm. As I felt more warmed up I kept slowly increasing the engine. I spent the last 12 minutes pulling 180ish watts at 190BPM average. I'm under the impression my Max HR is 194-195 rowing, I saw a brief 196 during this row but it dropped like 4bpm immediately. Resting heart rate runs between 54 and 60bpm depending on training load/deload

Here was the row.

https://log.concept2.com/profile/1086130/log/42363964

Not something I do frequently, but what kind of risks am I exposed to when doing this?

Some days I feel extra froggy and want to see if I can find that sweet spot that hits the last stroke of the workout at the give up point - but with a long continuous effort to hit that breaking point.

[Tandstad]

What kind of heart rate monitor do you use? Could it be a matter of faulty readings?

I know for my own part that staying at 96-97% of MHR for 12 minutes would be very difficult. I have managed to average my MHR for the last 1k of a 5k TT for instance, but after such a workout I am completely drained for energy, and I am struggling to get enough oxygen after completing.

As to the dangers/risks of this, someone else have to answer that, as I do not have any competence in that field.

[Gammmmo]

Not something I do frequently, but what kind of risks am I exposed to when doing this?

Some days I feel extra froggy and want to see if I can find that sweet spot that hits the last stroke of the workout at the give up point - but with a long continuous effort to hit that breaking point.

As long as you are fit and healthy and well used to doing hard efforts (you also have age on your side - at 30 you could still be in your prime - very individual and somewhat sport specific) this is fine. When I did bike racing I raced certainly every other weekend, and I knew plenty who raced 1-2 times a week, the goal was to finish utterly spent at a time trial.

Unless you have an underlying condition (and you know yourself better than anyone) then it's OK. Your body is self-limiting. Your mind will give up before your body. Look into Noakes Central Governor theory. Remember also heat buildup i.e. cardiac drift will be inflating your HRM readings. That all said, hard regular efforts are good BUT if you do them too often there is a tendency for you NOT to get everything out. As Craig Alexander (3 time world Ironman chamption) once said "there are only so many times you can go to the well". In that case he was referring to max effort over the course of many hours but you get the point. You also want to mix up your training so plenty is much easier obviously.

[uk gearmuncher]

I know for my own part that staying at 96-97% of MHR for 12 minutes would be very difficult.

As to the dangers/risks of this, someone else have to answer that, as I do not have any competence in that field.

Firstly, an athlete would need to consult with a cardiologist if they have any concerns with heart related matters. It's not a question for forums.

Secondly, you can hold a max HR for a surprising amount of time. The reality is that your power output would be falling though. HR is the bodies response to exercise, not it's actual output (unlike power output). It's why coaches in some endurance sports like running or cycling no longer use it to govern training prescription.

[Dangerscouse]

I find the biggest issue of really hard sessions is the toll it takes on the Central Nervous System. You feel drained and doing it too much without sufficient rest will just keep draining you, exactly what Paul was referring to with Craig Alexander's quote.

[uk gearmuncher]

I find the biggest issue of really hard sessions is the toll it takes on the Central Nervous System. You feel drained and doing it too much without sufficient rest will just keep draining you, exactly what Paul was referring to with Craig Alexander's quote.

Alexanders quote was really in the context of when he was talking about those races where you just truly physically ruin yourself. There's maximum and there's true maximum. It's interesting watching the videos of races like the BIRC whereby the majority of people aren't collapsing off the rower in a heap at the end. If they were at their true limits they'd likely need oxygen afterwards but it's really hard being mentally able to go that far into the red. I watched Chris Hoy train at Manchester velodrome once. He had to be lifted off his own bike afterwards, was virtually carried away and then threw up in the rubbish bin. I don't know many that can achieve that level of commitment (which is probably why he won god knows how many Olympic Golds).

It's one of the reasons why I think some sports obsession with a focus on high intensity training sessions (indoor rowing being one) is a poor one in the long term as it's not a mentally sustainable approach if you want to maximise the gains.

[Gammmmo]

I watched Chris Hoy train at Manchester velodrome once. He had to be lifted off his own bike afterwards, was virtually carried away and then threw up in the rubbish bin. I don't know many that can achieve that level of commitment (which is probably why he won god knows how many Olympic Golds).

It's probably also why he's currently top of the leader board on TopGear's "star in a reasonably fast car".
Jack Bobridge comes to mind when he did The Hour. Or on the ergo James Crackers was notorious for going deep.

It's one of the reasons why I think some sports obsession with a focus on high intensity training sessions (indoor rowing being one) is a poor one in the long term as it's not a mentally sustainable approach if you want to maximise the gains.

I think those efforts are more common in indoor rowing because people TEND not to do the same amount of volume as say in cycling. Obviously the lower the volume the more effective those HIT sessions are...I find even with my background in aerobic sports (and despite doing a mere 2hrs/week of cardio now I've STILL got some reasonable scores in me) that a week or two of HIT sessions and there is a demonstrable difference when I come to test myself at much the same (high) intensity.

[jurgwhitehouse]

It's interesting watching the videos of races like the BIRC whereby the majority of people aren't collapsing off the rower in a heap at the end.

You can ruin yourself at true maximum without collapsing off the rower in a heap. People respond to physical stress in different ways. Some collapse for good reason, some for dramatic effect, some simply remain seated and bow their heads while questioning their life choices.

If they were at their true limits they'd likely need oxygen afterwards

Don't conflate physical exhaustion with a lack of oxygen. Blood oxygenation stays fairly stable even at maximal intensity. It's the increased blood acidity from CO2 and the metabolites of anaerobic glycolysis that cause the heavy breathing (the Bohr Effect), and it's the attenuation of the CNS on cell excitability that causes the muscle fatigue. Think about this the next time you're gasping for air after a max effort - It's less about about the need for oxygen; more about breathing off the acid in your blood.

It's one of the reasons why I think some sports obsession with a focus on high intensity training sessions (indoor rowing being one) is a poor one in the long term as it's not a mentally sustainable approach if you want to maximise the gains.

Fully agree. An obsession with HIIT can, and often does, lead to burnout. Unless you're interested only on the shorter ranking pieces (such as the 500m) then rowing is predominantly a power-endurance sport that requires a greater proportion of aerobic volume relative to HIIT.

[winniewinser]

It's interesting watching the videos of races like the BIRC whereby the majority of people aren't collapsing off the rower in a heap at the end.

You can ruin yourself at true maximum without collapsing off the rower in a heap. People respond to physical stress in different ways. Some collapse for good reason, some for dramatic effect, some simply remain seated and bow their heads while questioning their life choices.

If they were at their true limits they'd likely need oxygen afterwards

Don't conflate physical exhaustion with a lack of oxygen. Blood oxygenation stays fairly stable even at maximal intensity. It's the increased blood acidity from CO2 and the metabolites of anaerobic glycolysis that cause the heavy breathing (the Bohr Effect), and it's the attenuation of the CNS on cell excitability that causes the muscle fatigue. Think about this the next time you're gasping for air after a max effort - It's less about about the need for oxygen; more about breathing off the acid in your blood.

It's one of the reasons why I think some sports obsession with a focus on high intensity training sessions (indoor rowing being one) is a poor one in the long term as it's not a mentally sustainable approach if you want to maximise the gains.

Fully agree. An obsession with HIIT can, and often does, lead to burnout. Unless you're interested only on the shorter ranking pieces (such as the 500m) then rowing is predominantly a power-endurance sport that requires a greater proportion of aerobic volume relative to HIIT.

Very informative as always Jurg

Thx
Alex

[uk gearmuncher]

I think those efforts are more common in indoor rowing because people TEND not to do the same amount of volume as say in cycling. Obviously the lower the volume the more effective those HIT sessions are...I find even with my background in aerobic sports (and despite doing a mere 2hrs/week of cardio now I've STILL got some reasonable scores in me) that a week or two of HIT sessions and there is a demonstrable difference when I come to test myself at much the same (high) intensity.

You're not wrong Paul. However (as I know you know), the second you go past around 40-ish seconds, you're entering an aerobic sport. Couple that with Vo2 max development shown to stagnate in a persons mid 30's and that studies have shown that high intensity anaerobic work can start to see limited gains after 6-8 weeks and it becomes obvious to my mind that a lot of people could really improve if they took a longer term view and started to incrementally and progressively ramp up the raw volume. Even an event raced over 90 seconds is still ~50% aerobic.

[hjs]

I think those efforts are more common in indoor rowing because people TEND not to do the same amount of volume as say in cycling. Obviously the lower the volume the more effective those HIT sessions are...I find even with my background in aerobic sports (and despite doing a mere 2hrs/week of cardio now I've STILL got some reasonable scores in me) that a week or two of HIT sessions and there is a demonstrable difference when I come to test myself at much the same (high) intensity.

You're not wrong Paul. However (as I know you know), the second you go past around 40-ish seconds, you're entering an aerobic sport. Couple that with Vo2 max development shown to stagnate in a persons mid 30's and that studies have shown that high intensity anaerobic work can start to see limited gains after 6-8 weeks and it becomes obvious to my mind that a lot of people could really improve if they took a longer term view and started to incrementally and progressively ramp up the raw volume. Even an event raced over 90 seconds is still ~50% aerobic.

On the erg for shorter stuff, raw power is king, you see the aerobic monsters come short on the really short stuff. Anything above 1k is a different matter, for that you can never be aerobicly enough, but on the shorter stuff, Raw topspeed is very important. And on the erg raw topspeed is very much a matter of getting really strong. To pull sub 1.05 splits fitness does not cut it.

[winniewinser]

On the erg for shorter stuff, raw power is king, you see the aerobic monsters come short on the really short stuff. Anything above 1k is a different matter, for that you can never be aerobicly enough, but on the shorter stuff, Raw topspeed is very important. And on the erg raw topspeed is very much a matter of getting really strong. To pull sub 1.05 splits fitness does not cut it.

Which is why I will never be a sprinter #weedy

[hjs]

On the erg for shorter stuff, raw power is king, you see the aerobic monsters come short on the really short stuff. Anything above 1k is a different matter, for that you can never be aerobicly enough, but on the shorter stuff, Raw topspeed is very important. And on the erg raw topspeed is very much a matter of getting really strong. To pull sub 1.05 splits fitness does not cut it.

Which is why I will never be a sprinter #weedy

Its partly a choise, say instead of the endurance training you would put in that same time in Weights for a few years, this would completely change you. I know a guy who used to be a pretty serious runner. At that point he was 70 kg ish. Later on he stopped running and picked up weights, in a few years he was 90kg plus... and double, if not more in strenght.

[uk gearmuncher]

I think those efforts are more common in indoor rowing because people TEND not to do the same amount of volume as say in cycling. Obviously the lower the volume the more effective those HIT sessions are...I find even with my background in aerobic sports (and despite doing a mere 2hrs/week of cardio now I've STILL got some reasonable scores in me) that a week or two of HIT sessions and there is a demonstrable difference when I come to test myself at much the same (high) intensity.

You're not wrong Paul. However (as I know you know), the second you go past around 40-ish seconds, you're entering an aerobic sport. Couple that with Vo2 max development shown to stagnate in a persons mid 30's and that studies have shown that high intensity anaerobic work can start to see limited gains after 6-8 weeks and it becomes obvious to my mind that a lot of people could really improve if they took a longer term view and started to incrementally and progressively ramp up the raw volume. Even an event raced over 90 seconds is still ~50% aerobic.

On the erg for shorter stuff, raw power is king, you see the aerobic monsters come short on the really short stuff. Anything above 1k is a different matter, for that you can never be aerobicly enough, but on the shorter stuff, Raw topspeed is very important. And on the erg raw topspeed is very much a matter of getting really strong. To pull sub 1.05 splits fitness does not cut it.

It would be interesting to know at what distance the well trained aerobic engines and the well trained pure strength monsters would be evenly matched. I suspect it would be less than 1000m though - that's certainly the case in sprint kayaking.

I assume when you talk about raw power, you're talking about force production ? power output ? or did you mean something else ?

[hjs]

It would be interesting to know at what distance the well trained aerobic engines and the well trained pure strength monsters would be evenly matched. I suspect it would be less than 1000m though - that's certainly the case in sprint kayaking.

I assume when you talk about raw power, you're talking about force production ? power output ? or did you mean something else ?

Re raw power, simple the most force you can pull into the flywheel. Watts/pace per 500.

Re matching distance. Bit difficult to say. Pure rowers only care about 2k, most don,t bother much about shorter.
Most pure power athletes don,t make it beyond 1 min.

There is also build, the erg does not care how much you way, so bigger guys are in the advantage, but that said, pure strongman are so big that they don,t really fit on the erg. So you need to be a bit in the middle. Strong, but not to big. Thats means that not many guys go for this, but gor the ones that do I would say the 1k is roughly the crossover.
The really fast guys on the 2k, say below 5.45 are all aerobic monsters, big, but not far beyond 100kg, some closer to 90.

Faster guys on the 500/1k come more from the strenght front, with high max paces. The really fast guys on the 500 are all, non rowers, who did lots pf weights work, with not much cardio.
Cardio and strenght don,t go match well, so you seldom see people go for both at the same time.