all posts post new thread

Strong Endurance A+A Training, what HR zone?

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)

banzaiengr

Level 6 Valued Member
A+A was originally developed using the Maffetone Method, 180 - your age for a maximum heart rate during your training. Maffetone stated that once you are over 60 the formula doesn't work well. So once you're over 60 should you just always shoot for a max HR of 120? HR monitors use close to the same formulas I believe. For instance mine doesn't show me in the cardio range until I'm over 116 BPM. So was the object not to go cardio and stay in a fat burning zone or should one want to be at the cardio zone? I realize this is all guess work and those using A+A go more by feel than certain HR's but I'll need to use the monitor for a bit until I trust my own judgement. That has never worked out so well.
 
I struggled with this when I first started doing A+A snatches. What should my HR be? after a repeat? when to start another repeat based on lowered HR? overall HR for the entire activity?
Once I focused more on a specific work/rest ratio, and varying the volume by delta 20 between sessions, A+A made more sense. Typically, I snatch 4 reps EMOM, each repeat takes around 10 secs, 50 secs rest, rinse/repeat. Depending on the length of the session, the end of each repeat I'm just over MAF (for me 132 bpm), but after a 50 sec rest it's under 110 (even after 35+ repeats). I wear a HR monitor, but I don't adjust anything based on HR, but I'm always curious of what the session looked like.
For me, I don't focus on the cardio impact of A+A, it's more akin to a farmer throwing hay bales, or chopping trees. Getting farmer strong!
 
I've never used an HR monitor or paid any attention to HR when doing A+A. [And by A+A, I mean what I think of as "classic" A+A, inspired by Al Ciampa (heavy sets of 5, generous rest, longer session duration), not the "Kettlebells StrongFirst" style where you go by a relatively short interval until you hit a stop sign via the talk test] .

Whether I go by feel or with a fixed interval by the clock, my concerns are:

--Am I resting enough to maintain full power on each set for my intended number of repeats?
--Am I resting enough so the overall level of effort for the session is easy to moderate?
--Am I recovering well enough from session to session and week to week?

Along the way, I might have ups and downs, good days and bad days, and spend a lot of time on plateaus where it may seem like not much is happening. I just focus on the process -- punch the clock and put in the time and reps. Let the accumulated time and volume do the work.

I don't worry about being in any "zone." My focus is not to stay in a particular heartrate range, but to do a high volume of high-power work. The aerobic part is the recovery that gets you ready for the next repeat, not the work that elevates your heartrate.

I want to be able to use the heaviest weight I can snatch or double clean aggressively (I'm not big on swings), make every set powerful, and keep going for a lot of repeats. Even though each set is full power, I want the overall effort to be relaxed and let the accumulated time and volume do the work. I think of it as practice recovering between repeats as much as practice doing the reps, and I want all the reps to be fresh reps, not tired reps.

If I am going by the clock, I set a very generous rest interval that seems way too long at the beginning of a session, so it will still be reasonably generous at the end of a long session. In practice, my typical interval for sets of 5 snatches or double cleans is 2 minutes. I've gone as low as 1:20 at times in the past, but that's more of a slog and getting a bit away from the relaxed feel I want with A+A. If I can go that fast and recover sufficiently, I feel like I'm using too light a weight.

I just keep pounding the rock. "Pound the rock" is a motto adopted by Gregg Popovich, the legendary coach of the NBA's San Antonio Spurs, based on the "Stonecutter's Credo":
When nothing seems to help, I go and look at a stonecutter hammering away at his rock perhaps a hundred times without as much as a crack showing in it. Yet at the hundred and first blow it will split in two, and I know it was not that blow that did it, but all that had gone before. — Jacob Riis
I just keep pounding the rock and over time the biggest measures of improvement are my level of effort to do the same work, and then being able to move up in bell size. Compressing session length or rest intervals may occur to an extent, but IMO shouldn't be a focus.
 
Last edited:
@banzaiengr, good to see you back! I remember when you and I were among one of the first test protocols for A+A with Al in the summer of 2015.

But I think you stayed with it after that, long enough to recall that we went away from MAF as any determinant of HR. In fact, HR became used less even as a guiding parameter and more as an observation that the session was being conducted correctly.

@Steve W.'s description of A+A is how I always did it. So I'd recommend you do that, and record your HR if you want to, but let your sensation of being rested and ready for the next powerful repeat be your guide.
 
I struggled with this when I first started doing A+A snatches. What should my HR be? after a repeat? when to start another repeat based on lowered HR? overall HR for the entire activity?
Once I focused more on a specific work/rest ratio, and varying the volume by delta 20 between sessions, A+A made more sense. Typically, I snatch 4 reps EMOM, each repeat takes around 10 secs, 50 secs rest, rinse/repeat. Depending on the length of the session, the end of each repeat I'm just over MAF (for me 132 bpm), but after a 50 sec rest it's under 110 (even after 35+ repeats). I wear a HR monitor, but I don't adjust anything based on HR, but I'm always curious of what the session looked like.
For me, I don't focus on the cardio impact of A+A, it's more akin to a farmer throwing hay bales, or chopping trees. Getting farmer strong!
I’ve found basically the same over time. For me EMOM relates very close to what is expected.

I believe Al had stated that you want to stay under 2 min/repeat.
 
I think of it as practice recovering between repeats as much as practice doing the reps, and I want all the reps to be fresh reps, not tired reps.
This. I have A&A snatched for several, several thousand repeats with great benefit. Steve, you vocalized what I am doing, but I do use a heart rate monitor to compare with how I feel. But yes, I’m practicing recovery as much as snatching.
 
A+A was originally developed using the Maffetone Method, 180 - your age for a maximum heart rate during your training. Maffetone stated that once you are over 60 the formula doesn't work well. So once you're over 60 should you just always shoot for a max HR of 120? HR monitors use close to the same formulas I believe. For instance mine doesn't show me in the cardio range until I'm over 116 BPM. So was the object not to go cardio and stay in a fat burning zone or should one want to be at the cardio zone? I realize this is all guess work and those using A+A go more by feel than certain HR's but I'll need to use the monitor for a bit until I trust my own judgement. That has never worked out so well.
In addition to the excellent answers above, especially from @Steve W.:

Don't worry about staying within certain cardio zones. This is usually based on research on steady state running. It is already different for cycling.

If you like to use an HR monitor, use it either for (a) just recording how your sessions goes and look at it later (this is what I do) or (b) for having a baseline for when to start the next set. Harald Motz has written quite a few times about this. For example, start your next set once your HR has recovered to 110 BPM, or even 100 BPM.

In this post you can see the difference in HR between a timeless approach and an EMOM approach.
https://www.strongfirst.com/community/threads/a-a-questions.15079/#post-255803

And here is another nice quote by Harald:
Harald Motz said:
a good measure for A+A work is your breath. After a repeat breathe only through your nose deeply in with short pause and out short pause deeply in. After just a few repeats you recognize, that the urge to breathe will get stronger. A good sign to be ready is when your breathing is free of any urgencies. This is a way to go if you want to put serious volume of up to an hour (or more, but usually the hands have a way of saying when it's enough)
 
@banzaiengr, good to see you back! I remember when you and I were among one of the first test protocols for A+A with Al in the summer of 2015.

But I think you stayed with it after that, long enough to recall that we went away from MAF as any determinant of HR. In fact, HR became used less even as a guiding parameter and more as an observation that the session was being conducted correctly.

@Steve W.'s description of A+A is how I always did it. So I'd recommend you do that, and record your HR if you want to, but let your sensation of being rested and ready for the next powerful repeat be your guide.
Thanks Anna, and congrats on all of your accomplishments. Only one of your several would be awesome. All together they are unprecedented.

Yes, later Al was getting away from HR. I know Maffetone didn't feel the system was appropriate for weights but I believe from my results that it was a decent guideline.

Due to injury I'm limited on how much I snatch right now. At least while staying close to perfect form. So I guess the answer is to begin the next repeat just a little after I feel that I'm ready. LOL
 
In addition to the excellent answers above, especially from @Steve W.:

Don't worry about staying within certain cardio zones. This is usually based on research on steady state running. It is already different for cycling.

If you like to use an HR monitor, use it either for (a) just recording how your sessions goes and look at it later (this is what I do) or (b) for having a baseline for when to start the next set. Harald Motz has written quite a few times about this. For example, start your next set once your HR has recovered to 110 BPM, or even 100 BPM.

In this post you can see the difference in HR between a timeless approach and an EMOM approach.
https://www.strongfirst.com/community/threads/a-a-questions.15079/#post-255803

And here is another nice quote by Harald:
Be careful using Harald as example. The man is a freak of nature.
 
A+A was originally developed using the Maffetone Method, 180 - your age for a maximum heart rate during your training. Maffetone stated that once you are over 60 the formula doesn't work well. So once you're over 60 should you just always shoot for a max HR of 120? HR monitors use close to the same formulas I believe. For instance mine doesn't show me in the cardio range until I'm over 116 BPM. So was the object not to go cardio and stay in a fat burning zone or should one want to be at the cardio zone? I realize this is all guess work and those using A+A go more by feel than certain HR's but I'll need to use the monitor for a bit until I trust my own judgement. That has never worked out so well.
It's useful to have a real max. Test under a doctor's supervision if your doctor says you should. Otherwise, just figure out a way to max it out. When running, I used to take the end of a run and just gradually speed up until I running as fast as I could for the last hundred yards or so. I have a number from my running days roughly 20 years ago, and just by pushing a set of swings hard I've gotten to within 5 BPM of that, so I use that number, an actual max from my own training, which is quite a bit higher than predicted.

Again, to be clear, you test your max HR at your own risk and if you do it without having had a recent physical exam, or you do it with a history of heart problems, or anything else like that - I can't predict what - then, well, don't do that. As @offwidth said earlier today, there can be a fine line between bada$$ and dumba$$.

And if you have a real max, then you stay below the top of Zone 2. For me, that's 127 according to my Polar H10 and accompanying app.

-S-
 
@Steve Freides is right. Testing ones HRmax is not for the faint of heart (pun). It’s serious business and I would have someone with the paddles standing by. However… whilst I agree that knowing your HRmax is a good thing, the smart money these days for those folks who are serious about this sort of thing is using your AeT and AnT to base their HR zones on not HRmax.
 
@Steve Freides is right. Testing ones HRmax is not for the faint of heart (pun). It’s serious business and I would have someone with the paddles standing by. However… whilst I agree that knowing your HRmax is a good thing, the smart money these days for those folks who are serious about this sort of thing is using your AeT and AnT to base their HR zones on not HRmax.
The best thing would be to train with RPE or something like that. Much better than HR IMO.
 
Why is it do you suppose that so many of the worlds top locomotive endurance athletes use HR training zones?
I dont know many that do.
I mostly into rowing, running and cykling and there insnt many that use HR.
 
I dont know many that do.
I mostly into rowing, running and cykling and there insnt many that use HR.
Yeah, me too… I guess that we just hang out in a different crowd, because most of the ones I know do.
(that being said, lots of cyclists are using power meters, because it’s pretty simple to do for that sport)
 
@Steve Freides is right. Testing ones HRmax is not for the faint of heart (pun). It’s serious business and I would have someone with the paddles standing by. However… whilst I agree that knowing your HRmax is a good thing, the smart money these days for those folks who are serious about this sort of thing is using your AeT and AnT to base their HR zones on not HRmax.
@offwidth, if you'll forgive what may be a naive question: My max heart rate was easy to determine - it might be low, but since it's already a lot higher than what all the formulas predict, I'm content with it. How would a person determine, if at all, their own values for AeT and AnT?

I found this: Heart Rate Drift: A Functional Measure of Aerobic Fitness

and


I wouldn't mind a review/discussion of these are related terms - I confess I find them confusing. In my own training, my only metrics for heart rate are my memory of what my Polar H10 told me are the tops of my Zone 1 - 107 - and Zone 2 - 127, which are based, I assume, on my actual max of 179 because I put in that number after seeing it a couple of times when I used to monitor my swing sessions. Since I do my resistance training without paying attention to my heart rate, the only times I look at my HR are occasionally when I'm out walking, and invariably I'm below 127 so I'm content.

-S-
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom