Pete Plan Thread

[JerekKruger]

You will be amazed how many people try and attain OCD perfection!!!

It gives you something to focus on during slower sessions I think, makes it go faster. It's also write satisfying when you manage it.

[lindsayh]

To cut a long story short, they show that the classic formula underestimates maxmimum heart rate in older people. After a careful statistical study of several thousand healthy Norwegians, they come up with a much better formula: HRmax= 211-0.64 x age. More complex formulae do not give better predictions. Surprisingly, several factors have no effect: VO2max, gender, obesity... The result can be in error by up to 10bpm, just due to the person to person variability.
To avoid the need for calculation, I converted the formula into a table (I'm sorry that it looks such a mess. It looks fine in the preview):

Age HRmax Age HRmax Age HRmax Age HRmax Age HRmax
30 192 40 185 50 179 60 173 70 166
31 191 41 185 51 178 61 172 71 166
32 191 42 184 52 178 62 171 72 165
33 190 43 183 53 177 63 171 73 164
34 189 44 183 54 176 64 170 74 164
35 189 45 182 55 176 65 169 75 163
36 188 46 182 56 175 66 169 76 162
37 187 47 181 57 175 67 168 77 162
38 187 48 180 58 174 68 167 78 161
39 186 49 180 59 173 69 167 79 160

Alan PS This is my first post. Glad to be part of this friendly community.

Thanks Alan and well spotted You are right the table does look fine in preview!
Still doesn't work for me though (my real is 173 and the table says 169) I guess if they say that it might be 10 out then has the same flaws of all the other formulae.
It obviously only matters when people are doing HR training but that is quite a few of course.

[NavigationHazard]

There's also a typical +/- 3 bpm or so of day-to-day individual variability to consider.

HR is always going to be an imperfect proxy for actual physiological intensity during exercise. The thing is, all the other possible markers are at least as imperfect and/or impractical (e.g. who really wants to, say, erg a marathon while breathing into a gas-exchange measurement mouthpiece). IMO one shouldn't fetishize it, but it's still a useful tool both for setting up workouts and for tracking results over time.

This quite recent study suggests that factoring in a sub-maximal HR observation considerably reduces the standard error of estimation in a max-HR formula, from the 10-12 bpm in the common equations to maybe 4 bpm.

https://www.asep.org/asep/asep/JEPonlin ... Pompeu.pdf

The formula in it is: HR max = 166.088 - (0.584 x age) + (0.27 x HR150w). r = 0.79 and SEE = 4.15

[jackarabit]

NavHaz writes:

This quite recent study suggests that factoring in a sub-maximal HR observation considerably reduces the standard error of estimation in a max-HR formula, from the 10-12 bpm in the common equations to maybe 4 bpm.

All the max HR formulas that utilize percentage age merely tweak the inept original. Age is the datum that is readily available as everyone knows their birth yr. Lazy science fulfills the classifying imperative of medical sociology. Of course the insertion of direct observation departs from class prediction and approaches individual determination. Why not sccept observed max as the best choice?

[JerekKruger]

I tend to agree with Jackarabit. Wear a heart rate monitor during something like a 5km test and the highest value you see is going to be close enough to your max heart rate to work with. Adjust if you see a higher number.

It's interesting to look at how max heart rate varies with age but not very useful from a training perspective in my opinion.

[hjs]

I tend to agree with Jackarabit. Wear a heart rate monitor during something like a 5km test and the highest value you see is going to be close enough to your max heart rate to work with. Adjust if you see a higher number.

It's interesting to look at how max heart rate varies with age but not very useful from a training perspective in my opinion.

I have a friend, 2 years my senior. His max hf was always around 25 beats lower then mine. I mine was pretty average. Using a formula can go wrong a good bit. Just like you say, do a test, thats always pretty close. And yes, you need to feel fresh and rested if you do that test and should it hurt? Yes, thats the point, you need to hurt to reach your max.

[JerekKruger]

Pete Plan 1.5:

10000m - 37:46.2 - 1:53.3 - 24.9

02000m - 7:35.3 - 1:53.8 - 24
04000m - 7:33.0 - 1:53.2 - 25
06000m - 7:30.7 - 1:52.6 - 25
08000m - 7:37.5 - 1:54.3 - 25
10000m - 7:29.7 - 1:52.4 - 26

Decided to have a crack at a 10k TT for the hard distance piece. My aim was sub 38 so I'm quite pleased with this. It's a PB by 52s, though my previous best 10k wasn't a true TT. This was largely psychological and I had to use a few tricks to get through it.

[RayOfSunshine]

Pete Plan 1.5:

10000m - 37:46.2 - 1:53.3 - 24.9

02000m - 7:35.3 - 1:53.8 - 24
04000m - 7:33.0 - 1:53.2 - 25
06000m - 7:30.7 - 1:52.6 - 25
08000m - 7:37.5 - 1:54.3 - 25
10000m - 7:29.7 - 1:52.4 - 26

Decided to have a crack at a 10k TT for the hard distance piece. My aim was sub 38 so I'm quite pleased with this. It's a PB by 52s, though my previous best 10k wasn't a true TT. This was largely psychological and I had to use a few tricks to get through it.

You went well below 38, congrats! That must feel awesome. Your splits tell a great story based on your goal of sub 38.

[Dangerscouse]

Pete Plan 1.5:

10000m - 37:46.2 - 1:53.3 - 24.9

02000m - 7:35.3 - 1:53.8 - 24
04000m - 7:33.0 - 1:53.2 - 25
06000m - 7:30.7 - 1:52.6 - 25
08000m - 7:37.5 - 1:54.3 - 25
10000m - 7:29.7 - 1:52.4 - 26

Decided to have a crack at a 10k TT for the hard distance piece. My aim was sub 38 so I'm quite pleased with this. It's a PB by 52s, though my previous best 10k wasn't a true TT. This was largely psychological and I had to use a few tricks to get through it.

What I love the most about this Tom, is that fairly recently you were struggling with motivation and now you're struggling to slow down!!!

[JerekKruger]

You went well below 38, congrats! That must feel awesome. Your splits tell a great story based on your goal of sub 38.

Thanks Ray, it does (although it didn't immediately afterwards ).

What I love the most about this Tom, is that fairly recently you were struggling with motivation and now you're struggling to slow down!!!

You helped a lot with the second of those two.

I think I've reached the stage now where I'm fit enough that if I'm off the erg for a week or more, due to illness say, it knocks me back enough that I need a few weeks to get back into it. Earlier on in my rowing "career" it would only take a day or two. I think that's what caused my ergophobia: I was ill, came back and expected to jump straight back in where I'd left off, and when I couldn't it demoralised me. A very useful lesson to learn.

[bob01]

Hi ... I can empathise with that 'phobia' A good few years ago I trained really hard and got a 6.44 as a lightweight 50year old ...whilst Ive got back on the Erg numerous time over the years and have been negatively affected with my ability (or lack of).... whilst recognising it is by far the best exercise walked away.

Only now, with my cycling causing numbness (where males don't want numbness) that I have returned to the rower.... Now the problem is going to be losing sufficient weight to compete as a lightweight. I recognise that at 79kg I wont be competitive

[rascott]

BPP 18.4 -10,000m.

row 1st 5k at 20spm, then increase rate during 2nd half whilst also increasing pace...so I aimed for increase of 1 spm and 1 second pace per 1000m during the 2nd 5k (hope that makes sense)

I enjoyed this as it gave me something to concentrate on

[RayOfSunshine]

@Bob My long term goal is to do a sub 7 @ age 50 as a LWT. I'll need to 1) make it to 50, 2) row a sub 7, and 3) drop another 45lbs. My near term (hopefully 2018) goal is to do a sub 40 10k.

@Robert Nice work! I love that type of workout. I'm 7 weeks behind you, but I do the variable SPM on my longer pieces already. I do it out of necessity though so that my heart doesn't jump out of my mouth.

Today was BPP 11.5: 4x1500. Goal was 2:03.8 on 1st 3, then faster. I did 2:03.6, 2:03.5, 2:03.2, and 2:02.1. I felt pretty good because I had a couple days off due to work/travel. Also, I stopped doing the 10k mud challenge because i found myself more worried about fitting in the additional meters than the BPP.

[RayOfSunshine]

BPP 12.1, 10k
Planned on negative 2k splits: 2:12, 2:11, 2:10, 2:09, 2:08. I didn't hold myself to the plan and struggled at the end. It was a faster pace than it would've been, but it definitely wasn't a satisfying workout. I wanted to HD with about 1500 to go, but I backed off for about 10 strokes then focused on form. My cardio is awful. Oh well, that just means there's a lot of room for improvement! I looked ahead and the next few weeks I'll repeat the 10k. Next week, I'll shoot for sub 43. My goal is sub 40 by year-end.

Time Meters Pace Watts Cal/Hr S/M
43:09.7 10,000m 2:09.4 161 854 24 155


2,000m 2:11.7@23, HR@143
4,000m 2:09.6@24, HR@155
6,000m 2:08.4@24, HR@164
8,000m 2:08.2@24, HR@169
10,000m 2:09.4@25, HR@174

[Dangerscouse]

@Tom, glad to hear that mate. The mind is a very powerful thing when used positively, and negatively, and plays a massive role in rowing, especially the longer distances.

I don't think I ever remember a time when I could recover quickly! It's always been a rough rule of thumb for me that it takes twice as long to get back to where I was if I have longer than 10 days off.