Training with heart rate monitors

Training with heart rate monitors

Post by Stephen Prest » Thu, 24 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Has anyone out there got any views on training with heart rate
monitors? I've read a book by Maffetone et al, but this is written
primarily for cyclists. Is there any need to change workout intensities
when training for rowing?  Can anyone recommend a good set of HRM
related workouts (duration, frequency etc)? My current regime has
concentrated essentially on 1/2 - 3/4 hour runs/ergs at 80-85% of
maximum heart rate, which I believe is rather high.

Perhaps John Hill would like to comment. I seem to remember him posting
a message abouts HRMs.

_______________________________________________________________________

Linacre College, Oxford
_______________________________________________________________________

 
 
 

Training with heart rate monitors

Post by John Hil » Thu, 24 Aug 1995 04:00:00

Steve,
I did place a notice outlining the various categories of training and
their respective target heart ranges.  The 75%-85% of max heart rate
(150-170 bpm) falls in the "Utilisation Training 1" band (ARA
terminology).  The benefits of this type of training are, allegedly,
increased amounts of *** in the system, increased density of oxygen in
the *** and increased heart size (=> lower pulse rate).  All good
stuff.

If you are erg-based and, apparently, entering your winter training
early, I would recommend focusing on those physiological areas most in
need of longer term development ie. UT1 and UT2 training.

Contrary to popular ignorance, tiredness and exhaustion in doing middle
to long periods of ergs will not be corrected by working on strength
training.  Much though the thoughts of feeling weak lead one to suppose
that strength is the point in need of attention, the cause of that effect
is more likely to be the starvation of the muscle, not its inability to
pull harder.  Indeed, building up strength capacity might use up the
delivered oxygen even quicker!

Your comment that the heart rate target zone seems high might be based on
either your impatience to achieve it within a piece, or your inadequate
warm-up procedures.  Once a steady state has been achieved (5 mins post
warm-up, 10 mins for *** people), 75%+ of max heart rate is the norm
without intense pressure being required or major discomfort being felt
(who am I kidding here?!).

I would propose a set of three types of erg session per week.  Of the two
longer period sessions (Utilisation Training), UT2 is muscle specific and
should be done, ideally, on the water.  Erg is second best (water ergs
might be less aggressive on the back).  The shorter, sharper ergs are to
provide high pulse rate and strengthen the heart to deal with the onset
of a heavier training regimen due in a couple of months.

A reasonable weekly mix of ergs ("to be taken in conjunction with a
balanced mix of land and water based training") might be:

 ie. light pressure)

 ie. light pressure)

 ie. very sharp half pressure
* - it is inadvisable to place uninterrupted stress on the back for more
than 20 mins or so.  There should be no loss of benefit in the longer
sessions if you break every 20 mins or so and do a set of hyperextensions
(pushing up the chest (and hold for 2 secs) from a prone position to bend
back the spine) for 15-20 reps.

Hope this is useful.
John H.
- see you at the club?

 
 
 

Training with heart rate monitors

Post by Trevor Chambe » Thu, 24 Aug 1995 04:00:00

{Big snip}

Quote:

> A reasonable weekly mix of ergs ("to be taken in conjunction with a
> balanced mix of land and water based training") might be:

>  ie. light pressure)

>  ie. light pressure)

>  ie. very sharp half pressure

         ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Christ, what sort of HR do you clock at firm then? :-)))

Quote:
> * - it is inadvisable to place uninterrupted stress on the back for more
> than 20 mins or so.  There should be no loss of benefit in the longer
> sessions if you break every 20 mins or so and do a set of hyperextensions
> (pushing up the chest (and hold for 2 secs) from a prone position to bend
> back the spine) for 15-20 reps.

I've wondered about this.  The ARA guidelines say the same sort of thing,
but it causes arguments whenever a >30' ergo piece is called for at the
club - some people develop a fanatical zeal all of a sudden for the well-
being of their backs (after slouching in front of the TV etc..)!  It seems
to me that it's only in the last few years that back injuries have come
to the front(!), even to Matthew Pinsent, and a common explanation was the
switch to big blades/choppers/hatchets, without adapting either the
gearing and/or technique.

When I was at Uni, 3-4 years ago :-(, no-one ever got a bad back, with lots
of ergos.  (But then Macons were THE blade anyway).

I've never had a back problem on an ergo (just a bum one, but that's the
seat...), but then I do nearly all my ergos at (on a CII 'B') big cog, vents
closed (==> '5' on a 'C'), which gives the most realistic catch feel.

Mind you, breaking for a few exercises every 20' or so will certainly relieve
the boredom!!

Quote:

> Hope this is useful.
> John H.

Yep - how long did it take you to type in that lot?

:-)

Trev

Sudbury RC

 
 
 

Training with heart rate monitors

Post by george basil » Thu, 24 Aug 1995 04:00:00


Quote:

> > * - it is inadvisable to place uninterrupted stress on the back for more
> > than 20 mins or so.  There should be no loss of benefit in the longer
> > sessions if you break every 20 mins or so and do a set of hyperextensions

> I've wondered about this.  The ARA guidelines say the same sort of thing,
> but it causes arguments whenever a >30' ergo piece is called for at the
> club - some people develop a fanatical zeal all of a sudden for the well-
> being of their backs (after slouching in front of the TV etc..)!  It seems
> to me that it's only in the last few years that back injuries have come
> to the front(!), even to Matthew Pinsent, and a common explanation was the
> switch to big blades/choppers/hatchets, without adapting either the
> gearing and/or technique.
> (snip)
> I've never had a back problem on an ergo (just a bum one, but that's the
> seat...), but then I do nearly all my ergos at (on a CII 'B') big cog, vents
> closed (==> '5' on a 'C'), which gives the most realistic catch feel.

Hmmmm, I've always been of the mind that the concept II leads to an
increase in back problems.  I could be wrong here, since I haven't done
the math (and am not likely to!), but it seems to me that at the finish
on the concept II the flywheel is spinning with maximal velocity and thus
has maximal wind drag.  That means that the finish is tougher than the
catch (since drag is such a large part of the concept II's braking
mechanism-- nothing personal to the manufacturers :) ). This is not the
same as in a boat where the finish, while the quickest part of the stroke,
is not the hardest (in terms of load). Thus, on the concept II your back
can end up really straining.  By setting up the erg as above you minimize
the drag effect and maximize the inertial component, thus evening out the
stroke somewhat.

The old flywheel-based ergs worked more like a boat- a combination of
inertia from a heavy flywheel and friction from the weighted brake.  At the
catch one had to overcome the inertia of the slowly rotating flywheel
(very slowly in some of the pieces I pulled :) ) with the brake ***,
then one had to accelerate into the finish in order to maintain even
pressure throughout the stroke.  Thus, the finish was quick while the
catch was hard.  Somehow these ergs never hurt my back, but had some very
negative effects on my stomach!

Anyway, just a seat of the pants analysis. No fair actually looking at a
physics text here!  Feel free to point out that I am full of beans--  
that way I can get over this psychosomatic back problem I have with
concept IIs.

George Basile

 
 
 

Training with heart rate monitors

Post by Rod Laws » Fri, 25 Aug 1995 04:00:00


writes:
(Snip)

Quote:
> Your comment that the heart rate target zone seems high might be based on
> either your impatience to achieve it within a piece, or your inadequate
> warm-up procedures.  Once a steady state has been achieved (5 mins post
> warm-up, 10 mins for *** people), 75%+ of max heart rate is the norm
> without intense pressure being required or major discomfort being felt
> (who am I kidding here?!).

(Snip)
I'm a little bit skeptical about these calculated zones. As your fitness
improves, lactate at a given pulse will fall, and your pulse at your
anerobic threshold will be higher, at least partly because your
anaerobic threshold will increase as a per cent VO2 max. As it is
generally held that training should be regulated relative to the
anaerobic threshold, and maximum heart rate is pretty constant, it
follows that as you get fitter, to be in the same training zone, your
heart rate will nead to be higher. I suspect that these oft quoted zones
were derived for 'ordinary' people, so that a guide could be given for
level of aerobic activity to keep generally healthy. If as I suspect
this is true (though I haven't gone into the history in detail), it
would follow that a fit athlete will have to train at a higher realtive
pulse to be in the same training zone. There's also the question of
individual variabilty. How can we make sense of this? The answer is to
get a lactate tolerance test and individualise things thus.
Alertnatively, try a Cononconi test ( as in the much quoted HRM book by
I-forget-who-----Jannsen perhaps--but not everyone is succesfull,
especially women) or do a 'critical power test' (I can
pass on second hand details if anyone wants them). IMHO if you don't do
this, then you shouldn't throw around terms which make training sound
scientific, because it isn't. Stick to terms like light, half, firm and
completely bananas.
Quote:
> A reasonable weekly mix of ergs ("to be taken in conjunction with a
> balanced mix of land and water based training") might be:

>  ie. light pressure)

>  ie. light pressure)

>  ie. very sharp half pressure

Please sir! Can I wimp out of that last one! My max HR is 185, and the
idea of trying to repeatedly outpull that for three minutes even at a
sharp half-pressure??!!!! doesn't appeal:-)
Rod.
 
 
 

Training with heart rate monitors

Post by John Hil » Sat, 26 Aug 1995 04:00:00

Trev,
I will accept anyone's criticism for calling hard work on an erg anything
less than "firm".  However, if you ask an oarsperson - and particularly
an oarsman - to do a set of three minute pieces without emphasising the
un-firmness, you are going to get them pushing well above aerobic
thresholds where the stress on the heart is less.
Given appropriate warm-ups etc, anaerobic threshold levels of heart rate
should be attainable without massive pulling.
Shall we compromise at a good three-quarter pressure?
John.
PS.  In response to your question, (rhetorical or otherwise), probably
only as long as yours took!  Once it starts it's a problem to know where
the finishing line (sic) is.

Thought for the day:
Push into front stops, not away from them.

 
 
 

Training with heart rate monitors

Post by John Hil » Sat, 26 Aug 1995 04:00:00

George,
Is stress on the back not, as much as anything else, more dependent on
the angle of the back when it takes the strain at the catch compared to
the rest of the stroke cycle?
Not only that, but at the catch you are transmitting a potentially much
heavier load (ie. the power of the legs) than during the subsequent
movements.
Slower boat/flywheel speed + maximum power application (without the
option to tear that you have on the water) = opportunity for severe and
artificial back loads.
Large cog and closed vent, just like Trevor said.
John.
 
 
 

Training with heart rate monitors

Post by John Hil » Sat, 26 Aug 1995 04:00:00

Rod,
Sorry not to quote the usual rider that all figures are based on an
assumed max heart rate of 200 bpm.  But you probably knew this anyway
judging by the other information you shared.  I have never achieved a
higher rate than 179 using a couple of different methods for testing max
heart rate, so 165+ is pushing it for me.
If you have a better method of personalising a training program than
using rule of thumb guideline zones matched to an individual's max, apart
from regular lactate tests at 40 quid a throw, get back on your keyboard.
 Heart rate is so much better and quasi-scientifically based (ie. not
designed in a club bar) than the more common methods.
I mean, look at the number of clubs that give  entire squads the same
workouts without reference to physiological and physical differentiation.
Lets find any other mechanisms for customising training outputs.
John
"If it ain't stroke, don't follow it"
 
 
 

Training with heart rate monitors

Post by Warblwar » Mon, 28 Aug 1995 04:00:00

In article

Quote:


>> > * - it is inadvisable to place uninterrupted stress on the back for
more
>> > than 20 mins or so.  There should be no loss of benefit in the longer
>> > sessions if you break every 20 mins or so and do a set of
hyperextensions

>> I've wondered about this.  The ARA guidelines say the same sort of
thing,
>> but it causes arguments whenever a >30' ergo piece is called for at the
>> club - some people develop a fanatical zeal all of a sudden for the
well-
>> being of their backs (after slouching in front of the TV etc..)!  It
seems
>> to me that it's only in the last few years that back injuries have come
>> to the front(!), even to Matthew Pinsent, and a common explanation was
the
>> switch to big blades/choppers/hatchets, without adapting either the
>> gearing and/or technique.
>> (snip)
>> I've never had a back problem on an ergo (just a bum one, but that's
the
>> seat...), but then I do nearly all my ergos at (on a CII 'B') big cog,
>vents
>> closed (==> '5' on a 'C'), which gives the most realistic catch feel.

>Hmmmm, I've always been of the mind that the concept II leads to an
>increase in back problems.  I could be wrong here, since I haven't done
>the math (and am not likely to!), but it seems to me that at the finish
>on the concept II the flywheel is spinning with maximal velocity and thus
>has maximal wind drag.  That means that the finish is tougher than the
>catch
snip
> Thus, on the concept II your back can end up really straining.

You're not going to hurt yourself on an erg for that reason.  The magic of
the flywheel is that it only pulls against you as hard as you pull against
it.  (Not really magic, but Newton's third Law)  At the finish, you are
still applying a force and hence accelerating the flywheel.  (Probably not
as much as earlier in the drive.)  There are some velocity considerations
as well.  You cannot apply as much force at a higher velocity as you can
at a lower velocity.  (Velocity of the oar handle during the drive)  If
you want less resistance,  you have two choices, row less hard or make the
wheel move faster.  The previous poster mentioned some options and concept
II sells a device that fits over the damper that prevents air from getting
to the flywheel so that the wheel will move even faster.

The person who gets a sore back is most likely out of shape.  I'll bet you
can find someone who says you shouldn't run for more than 20 minutes
because you might injure yourself.  When the back muscles are not strong
enough to last 20 minutes then they will not protect the other tissues of
the back as well as when they were not fatigued.

I've proven this to myself on numerous occaisions.  The first is when I
went back to a fall 3 mile race after I graduated.  (Us alumni didn't have
the benifit of a week of easy work back in the boats before the race, but
we were otherwise in good aerobic shape.)  The muscles of my back were
quite sore afterwards.  Now, to stay in shape, I bike in the summer and
row on the erg in the winter.  Everytime I get back on the erg after a lay
off I can feel my back muscles get weak after about 10 minutes of
moderately hard rowing and then I have to back off. After a few more erg
sessions a 30 minute piece is no problem.

Remember, those marathoners are nuts.  Do a non weight bearing activity
like rowing to stay fit.

Eric Fuller, DPM

 
 
 

Training with heart rate monitors

Post by PMckeon5 » Wed, 20 Sep 1995 04:00:00

I'm looking for the conversion factor to go from watts to time/500m for
the Concept II Model C.  Does anyone know what it is?
-Pat
 
 
 

Training with heart rate monitors

Post by Paul Knig » Thu, 21 Sep 1995 04:00:00

: I'm looking for the conversion factor to go from watts to time/500m for
: the Concept II Model C.  Does anyone know what it is?
: -Pat

I assume that Concept II has that information.  However, there is a simple
way to approximate their conversion factor.  All one has to do is to
compare the ergometer readings for times/500m with the watts at the same
time.  Graph these points, and use as many points as needed to determine
if the graph is linear or curved.  After a graph has been constructed,
one can simply interpolate.  One can also try curve fitting by computer
if one is really interested.

                                            Peace,

                                             Paul L. Knight

 
 
 

Training with heart rate monitors

Post by Eqx pro » Thu, 21 Sep 1995 04:00:00

Can anybody explain exactly what WATTS are?  
 
 
 

Training with heart rate monitors

Post by MikeRo » Thu, 21 Sep 1995 04:00:00

Attention Rowers! The King's Head Regatta takes place this Sunday,
September 24. It is considered one of the best run and friendliest events
in the Philadelphia area. Currently, we are still seeking entries in some
categories. If you and/or your crew would like to enter any of the
following, please call Tom Pappanastasiou at 610/337-3624, or FAX him at
610/520-0162. If you mention that you saw this posting on the Internet,
the late fee will be WAIVED!!!

M Club LW 1x
W Championship 1x
M Master Fours
M Master Pairs
W high school fours
M Club 1x
M Super Veteran (75+) 1x
M Championship fours
M Champ. 2x
M high school 2x
W high school 4x
W HS and Youth 8's
W Master 1x
M Club 4's
M Youth 4's
M 4x
Mixed 2x
Mixed Master 2x
M Champ. 8's
Mixed 4x

Thanks for your interest. It will be a great day, and the more of you that
show up, the better it will be.

Thanks
Mike McCusker

 
 
 

Training with heart rate monitors

Post by Larrysha » Thu, 21 Sep 1995 04:00:00

Power = Force x Distance / Time
Watts = newtons x meters / seconds
100 watts = 50 newtons x 70 meters / 35 seconds

People who row have some idea what a meter is and what a second is. A
newton is the force required to accererate a 1 kilogram mass at a rate of
1 meter per second per second.  On Earth (where most rowing occurs) 1
kilogram weighs 9.8 newtons. There are 2.2 kilograms to a pound (on the
same afore mentioned planed), so 1 newton = .224 pounds.

If your total length of stroke at the oar handle is 1.6 meters, and your
rate is 36 strokes per minute (1.666 seconds per stroke), then the average
force during the stroke has to be 364.6 newtons in order to have 350 watts
of power at the handle. Translating, this means 81.7 pounds

 
 
 

Training with heart rate monitors

Post by David Thompso » Sat, 23 Sep 1995 04:00:00

If I'm reading this right, then a good rower can get something
like 2/3 of a horsepower when rowing?  (Or maybe I did miss a bit
of the TJ math class...)

--
-----------------------------David Thompson
1st choice-->                        COMPUSERVE---THIS ONE!

Warning.. tagline out of space.. tagline out of space. abort, r