Steady State Heart Rate

[Stewie Griffin Should Cox]

A lactate pro and strips spread out between a few athletes costs very little and makes a huge difference.

You dont need huge resources

[black night]

@arbrighton

You may be surprised at what you can get done in terms of testing. Most people live within a reasonable distance from a university, and most universities have sports science/kinesiology programs. Dollars to donuts, I'd be willing to bet that there is someone in your area with the equipment for lactate testing that would be willing to indulge an ergometer step test for a modest fee (less than a new HRM).

OTOH, lactate measurement probably isn't required for non-aspirational club rowers. Row every day (at whatever intensity) with fast people, and you'll be competitive in most club races. If that's not enough, then maybe you ought to think about getting some testing done. I believe that Xeno offers it too.

@Arch

The 77% figure that Stewie is referencing is straight out of Rudern. The Easties prescribed moderate intensity endurance training at 73-80% of race velocity. While it is true that many people paddle at far below this speed, I feel that Stewie's a bit off when he says that most are too low in their pacing. I know several, very quick college light and heavy rowers that simply define SS pace as "less than 2:00." I've heard this exact same pacing strategy from rowers ranging from 160# and 6:25 to 200# and 6:05. I can't understand how their coaches came up with this pacing strategy: it makes no sense according to exercise science that we've known since the 1970's.

If you have no opportunity to get an accurate lactate test, I'd advise that an accurate 2 000 m test should suffice. Calculating SS paces as 73-80% of that speed should yield effective training numbers for all groups.

[Stewie Griffin Should Cox]

I think I said a lot, not most.

Its tricky when you are doing drills and getting coaching and turning around and having drinks blah blah blah.

Time at pulse/lactate level is key and a downloadable HR watch is often very revealing as to the length of time you actually spent at the correct intensity.

[MChase]

I am developing stronger and stronger feelings that there is a disconnect between what elite coaches find and what those of us with a more varied population of kids find. Elite coaches have a homogeneous population of high VO2max rowers. They are all very aerobic, by definition. They would not be rowing at an elite level otherwise. They are several standard deviations above the norm.

Take a regular high school team and there might be several kids who are a couple of standard deviations from the norm, but there are many more kids who lie smack dab in the middle of the curve.

For example, Ed McNeely studied the relation of peak power and 2K times. If a rower cannot develop sufficient peak power, then his erg time will suffer. It sounds obvious. It hardly needs a study, at least when you are talking about a homogeneous group of rowers.

But take the not-so-homogenous group where there is a "no cut/no tryout policy; everybody rows in every regatta" and you can throw peak power out the window.

My fastest lightweights (6:38 - 6:44) have poor peak power but good erg scores for their size. The highest peak power kids, for the most part, are also more anaerobic on lactate testing, and their lack of aerobic ability, hurts them on a 2K. It becomes an inverse relationship for the not-so-athletic group-- the ones who will never have a chance at being on an elite, or even a fast team.

My male rower with the greatest peak power in the club is so anaerobic that he must keep his steady state lower than many of the heavy weight girls; to do otherwise means he'll be pushing a high lactate on long-and-slow. No kidding, his SS watts last week was a meager 155 watts (2:11 pace) with a lactate of 4.0. I recently had him as low as 127 watts and he was still pulling a 2.7 lactate. But the good news is, his peak power is fantastic. He can pull close to 1000W on a 10-second piece.

The point is, the rules that might apply to one group may very well not apply to another. Invest in a lactate meter and some strips. It'll give you a new perspective. Now whether that perspective will make a faster team, it's yet to be seen, but it is without a doubt, another view of the landscape.

[arbrighton]

Will ask my co-coach as he's studying sports science and may be able to get me in as a test subject.

But, in terms of spreading the cost of testing stuff, I am one of a 'squad' of two, in a mid level UK club. I am not currently working in a paid position, so any cost over the basic HRM I have, is prohibitive. My race fees, boat racking fees etc ultimately will take priority.

I appreciate the principles behind lactate testing, and yes, that would be the ideal, but I have a good idea of the work I'm doing, from my HR, and yes, I acknowledge that it is an imperfect subsititute.

[southernrower]

One test session and you will have all the data you need to sit between 1.5 and 2.0mm

Are you saying that the majority of your SS should be in this zone? My plan has about 700 mins. of work a week excluding weight sessions. And about 60% (which includes warm ups and cool down) is below 1.5 mmol in intensity????

[Long'n Strong]

One test session and you will have all the data you need to sit between 1.5 and 2.0mm

Are you saying that the majority of your SS should be in this zone? My plan has about 700 mins. of work a week excluding weight sessions. And about 60% (which includes warm ups and cool down) is below 1.5 mmol in intensity????

That means that 60% of your training is likely to be in recovery mode. Stewie is correct that most of your ss should be 2mmol, or less, but some of your ss should be quite hard work and will bump up against AT. Total ss (intensive and extensive) should be around 95% of the total training volume.

[southernrower]

That means that 60% of your training is likely to be in recovery mode. Stewie is correct that most of your ss should be 2mmol, or less, but some of your ss should be quite hard work and will bump up against AT. Total ss (intensive and extensive) should be around 95% of the total training volume.

I think I am getting confused. Yes there is threshold work, yes there is work above threshold, yes there is work at 1.5-2mmol, and yes there is a little work just above 2mmol. But 60%ish is below 1.5mmol. I do at least 2 sessions of cross training for 1.5-2 hrs each with lactic acid below 1.5. Are these useless hrs and if so why? I thought that they helped build the mighty mitochondria.

[Long'n Strong]

That means that 60% of your training is likely to be in recovery mode. Stewie is correct that most of your ss should be 2mmol, or less, but some of your ss should be quite hard work and will bump up against AT. Total ss (intensive and extensive) should be around 95% of the total training volume.

I think I am getting confused. Yes there is threshold work, yes there is work above threshold, yes there is work at 1.5-2mmol, and yes there is a little work just above 2mmol. But 60%ish is below 1.5mmol. I do at least 2 sessions of cross training for 1.5-2 hrs each with lactic acid below 1.5. Are these useless hrs and if so why? I thought that they helped build the mighty mitochondria.

Your cross training recovery sessions are not useless at all, Far from it. They can be vitally important. Especially if they come after your harder intensity days/workouts. Those sessions help the body to "absorb" the anaerobic capacity sessions, and they help the process of super-compensation. 60% may be too much, but it may be appropriate for you - lactate testing would help you figure out how your body is responding to the training.

[MChase]

You brought up mitochondrial biogenesis and what kind of stimulus intensity would be required to build mitochondria. That's an interesting question. There has been intense research into PGC-1 alpha. It is an activator with many functions, one of which is to increase the mitochondrial content of muscle cells. With increased mitochondrial content, we have improved aerobic function. Simply exercising will increase PGC-1a and downstream, increase mitochondrial content.

Now at what intensity of exercise, for a well-trained athlete, is it perhaps better to just stay home. Good question.

[Stewie Griffin Should Cox]

One test session and you will have all the data you need to sit between 1.5 and 2.0mm

Are you saying that the majority of your SS should be in this zone? My plan has about 700 mins. of work a week excluding weight sessions. And about 60% (which includes warm ups and cool down) is below 1.5 mmol in intensity????

That means that 60% of your training is likely to be in recovery mode. Stewie is correct that most of your ss should be 2mmol, or less, but some of your ss should be quite hard work and will bump up against AT. Total ss (intensive and extensive) should be around 95% of the total training volume.

Agreed.2 x 29mins 18-26-18 will certainly bump against the AT world'

60% just says you are wasting opportunity, its harder at 75% but it wont be damaging.

[blueman]

I think the term Steady State should be thrown out. The range is too broad to have someone with HR between 133 and 150. The problem lies in that most anyone competitive will sit at 150 thinking that harder is better (anyone care to disagree from their own workouts!!!) I do it all the time. Well 2 hours at 150 is NOT 2 hours at 133.

I just completed my first 20 week marathon training cycle and had AMAZING results (dropped 1 minute in SS pace) following a basic rule: Keep your easy workouts EASY. They are designed to recover and repair. I rowed for 4 years of college and I don't believe I EVER let my body repair and recover, thus stagnating myself. I do not need a lactate strip for this. If you are looking for SS, aim to the low range. If you push to hard, you risk breaking down more than rebuilding and thus your hard work goes for naught. In 20 weeks of training, I spent about 1% of my training between 145-160 even though my SS "Range" went up to 151. Just to note, my marathon pace was a 157 HR.

Through my readings from elite marathoners - they refer to the area of 150-165 as "junk miles". Not hard enough to really break down, but too hard to recover. So Stewie, I disagree with having your SS bump up against the AT. What's the benefit? I think you just risk overtraining and the benefit of.... burning more calories??