Free Spirits Rowing

There's an interesting debate going on chez moi at the moment. I was chatting about the C2CTC with my partner today and happened to talk about heart rates. She asked me what my HR Max was (189) and then pointed out that I very frequently row consistently above the recommended heart rate during exercise.

According to the British Heart Foundation the safe maximum is 70% of HR Max. American Heart Association says 85%. This would give me either 132 or 161.

If I am just rowing for metres and conditioning I would typically cap my HR at 170. If I am doing something like C2CTC I would frequently row for extensive periods in 175-8 range, and if I am chasing Plummy for a place in a boat I will normally hit HR Max in the final interval.

So, the question is what do others experience, and what opinion do you have in terms of whether I am rowing dangerously? I am hopelessly competitive and driven, so I doubt I will change

If you do sport for max heath these rate ably, but that is obviously not the case for max fitness or preparation for races, but if you race then you want to be sure and check with your cardiologist 1st anyhow.

Unless you have a heart problem, I don't think there's any problem with rowing at or near your maximum heart rate. Obviously, it's not something you would sustain for a long period. When I was fitter, I often reached or got very close to my max heart rate at the end of a time trial or interval session.

By the way, the 220 minus age (and variations thereon) is, like most rules of thumb, practically meaningless. My max heart rate two years ago (when I was 62) was 178, which is 20 beats per minute more than the formula suggests.

Paul Victory wrote: ↑Sat Dec 30, 2017 2:24 pm Unless you have a heart problem, I don't think there's any problem with rowing at or near your maximum heart rate. Obviously, it's not something you would sustain for a long period. When I was fitter, I often reached or got very close to my max heart rate at the end of a time trial or interval session.

By the way, the 220 minus age (and variations thereon) is, like most rules of thumb, practically meaningless. My max heart rate two years ago (when I was 62) was 178, which is 20 beats per minute more than the formula suggests.

No heart problems for me. Annual health check at work always ends up with ECG being sent to a cardiologist. All good on that front with a minor irregular beat issue "typically found in people with above average fitness". So I'm not concerned about that. The HR Max that I quote is my actual HR max. It was 188 consistently when I rowed and cycled, and then I did the torture of referee fitness training over the summer which saw a new record high.

(As an aside, we did some fantastic ref training to demonstrate how quickly mental agility falls when you are tired. The format was to do some simple problem solving, then do some horrid interval training, and then do similar problems. I was amazed how bad our results were after the intervals. The point of course is that you don't stand a chance of making good decisions on the rugby field in the 79th minute if you are knackered).

Ok. I won't stress too much about the heart then. I will to do more focused work with a capped rate though, if nothing else it makes regular rows less painful.

I went through the recommendations from the AMA and the heart association. I could find no reference in the document for where the 85% upper limit came from. Basically, it is part of the overall recommendation that people should try to get at least 5 x 30' of activity a week and at least 3 of those should be intense enough to elevate your heart rate to between 50% and 85% of your maximum. It says is that you will not get additional health benefit by pushing harder than 85%.

I think that this might be true, that the benefit of pushing harder than 85% is mainly in terms of improving performance over time, not in terms of avoid the downside of sedentary living.

If anyone is interested, here's a link to the recommendations: http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/cir ... 4.full.pdf

Thanks for posting this Greg. Reading this article and other material, including posts here, leads me to think that pushing towards HR Max as part of a more controlled regime is perfectly OK and will ultimately help performance....as long as the old tinker is in good shape. I coincidentally found my health report from last year while clearing out the study (aka dumping ground) yesterday. The two cardio conditions identified were:

- Sinus bradycardia, which is essentially a resting heart rate (mine is 44) significantly lower than the norm.
- First degree heart block, which is a slow start to each heat beat and is very common in athletes (which I don't count myself as , but I'll take it!)

So I will continue with the programme and just watch out for spending too long in the Red Zone. Speaking of which, time for a gentle row....and possibly a bash at a Nonathon event or two

Jon, it sounds to me like the only two "issues" they identified were indicators that you are a lot fitter than the average person!