all posts post new thread

Kettlebell Using a heart-rate monitor ... for the data-averse

Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Got my son, 19 year old rugby player, to wear the HR monitor last night for a session on the rower. Having already developed an appreciable strength base, and approaching the Fall season, it's time to do some conditioning. I wanted to push the Prowler, but alas it was after dark, so we settled for the C2 rower. Easing into it, he did a 3 minute warmup then started the HIIT intervals - 20sec work/100sec rest - for 8 rounds, then stopped but continued to wear the monitor for another minute for 20 total minutes. I ran the free App from Polar that mates up painlessly with the chest strap (I have an H6 model) on my iPad and set that up next to the rower so we could both see it. It's neat to encourage him to breathe better during the rest periods and have him see for himself how much more quickly it drives the HR back down. He was hitting about 170 BPM during the early intervals, increasing to 175 on most of the mid-late ones with the finale being 181, so 87-90% max HR. The rest periods are where the money is to be made for his sport as his min low and max low were right around 135-140 or 67-70%. The rower tends to do that, as it doesn't facilitate recovery breathing very well simply due to the facts that you keep rowing and your knees keep smushing your belly. A bit like the challenge of recovery breathing with two kettlebells in the rack. His overall average HR for the warmup and the session was 148.
He stood up, I sat down and did the exact same protocol. Comparing the shape of the HR traces is telling: my 52 y/o heart reaches 155 or 92% max and about 137 or 81% min. I produce more watts than he does during the work, due to better technique, primarily a longer stroke. His heart reacts much more quickly to rest, producing "sawtooth" shaped transitions whereas mine are much more rounded and gradual. My average HR for the warmup + the session was 136. The app's guesstimate of calorie burn had him at 285 and me at 270, the rower itself said he went about 70 yards further than I did. Both these differences were likely due to him using too many watts during rest for a couple of the early intervals until I told him it was OK to throttle way back during the recovery period.

Next will be the same protocol on the Prowler with 90 pounds on it. You can slog your way through an interval on the rower, putting out less than stellar effort. But you can't on the Prowler or the thing won't move or it'll stop moving. Wonderfully self-regulating. The rest periods will be more "rugby-like" as well, aimless wandering around hoping the suck doesn't start again for a few more seconds. I imagine the HR monitor won't be necessary after getting a couple sessions to validate the protocol reliably achieves the desired training effect of mimicking the energy pathway dominant in the sport.
 
Then please, Jeffrey Tabb, tell me more about your approach regarding the heartrate thing, please!
 
Jeffrey... hear hear!

Bill... why not improve his aerobic function? The season will take care of his anaerobic prep.
 
Al,

Increasing the rest periods in S+S is working great. Have managed to keep HR in the aerobic zone throughout now. Feeling stronger, no fatigue, absolutely feeling like the sessions are a recharge not a work-out. As a 42 yo I highly recommend this way of training.

In fact it was working so well I decided to test myself (aka screw it up) and did the 100 swing and 10 get-ups in less than 14.5 mins with the 32kg. Feels like a huge achievement for me.

I am going to stick with it for a while longer but I am looking towards the RoP as my next program to try and get my press stronger (and get an unassisted pull-up - nowhere near at the moment, never have been).

I can imagine stretching the rests between ladder rungs to keep the pressing portion of RoP aerobic but would you have any recommendations for tweaking the swing / snatch portion?

I was thinking of:
Light day: roll the dice and do 10 snatches (5 each side) for each number you roll but put rests between the sets of 5 to stay aerobic.
Medium day: 20 one handed swing (10 each side) for each number you roll but put rests between the sets of 10 to stay aerobic.
Heavy day: 30 one handed swings for each number etc.....

Variety days would be tension work and some nice slow easy running or rucking.

Obviously there is a risk that double six on a heavy day would keep me busy all day.

I'm very wary of messing with Pavel's programme but I am enjoying the longer rests that I am using at the moment.
 
Karl,

This "is" Pavel's program, except that you are working to a more fine-tuned objective (HR) rather than the "feel" of when to begin your next set. Both sets of instructions are trying to avoid "too much" cellular acidity. You will still see the rest between sets slowly condense over time.
 
Al,

Why is it important to stay in my aerobic zone when doing conditioning work but not important when doing strength work? How does my body know the difference?

Also:

Is going glycolytic more of a systematic affect or is local to the specific muscles being worked?
 
Jeffrey,

The answer for #1 is simpler than you think. I know that you know this based on your previous posts. I am going to give you a chance to "learn how to fish"... think about it for another day.

I'll give you a hint: put everything in context.

For #2, it is linear, first local, then systemic. Cell >> tissue >> then, out to the bloodstream. HR is a glimpse into systemic acidity.
 
Al,

I am not sure but here is a guess.

I want to develop all around strength and conditioning. I can develop my aerobic capacity by forcing my body to remain aerobic during what we call the conditioning phase, but to develop grinding strength it will be necessary to train differently. My HR very well might leave the aerobic zone during my grinds, but that will not compromise the aerobic conditioning work I have already done. By doing swings for my conditioning I get the bonus of also developing power and strength, so I get multiple benefits from swings as compared to continuous low intensity work on an elliptical trainer (which I never do).

But....
Do I get the "systematic acidity" if my HR leaves the aerobic zone during grinds (getups) which affects the mitochondria in a negative way? Why wouldn't the systematic acidity be a bad thing regardless of when it was produced, be it swings or getups?

Don't worry about me overthinking it. For the time being I am going to stay aerobic during swings and throw caution to the wind during getups, but I anticipate the same principles applying to other workouts. I would like to be able to apply appropriately.
 
And another thing....

My HR can get above 180-age from the goblet squats during the warmup. Is that okay?
 
As noted earlier, me and Big Kid got on the Prowler again on Friday for what I intended to be a fairly straightforward session for us both. I loaded only 90lbs on the thing and reverted to a fairly standard Prowler protocol of 20 seconds work to 100 seconds rest. Big Kid took off at a fast trot, recovered, pushed again for 3 more cycles - and was smoked. His HR was hitting 172, only 85%. I had what I thought was a fair appreciation for the ephemeral nature of conditioning adaptations, but his detraining over the last month and a half is pretty surprising nonetheless. At the end of May, he was fully capable of going hard for the short 15 minute duration of a Rugby Sevens match at a respectable level - the Small College National Championship Tournament to be exact. Like most teens, his planning skills leave much to be desired, so the concept of getting up, eating something, and being hydrated are non existent, so I'm sure rolling out of bed and meeting this was.....suboptimal. I pulled the chest strap off of him, put it on and did all 8 rounds as planned. It did suck pretty hard though. His HR was plummeting during rest - much sharper and deeper drops than mine which only recover to about 130/78% after hitting 145/86% immediately after the work. Despite that, he was not ready to go again and will need dramatic changes in the program. Weird also is the fact that the same protocol on the Concept2 rower - 8 rounds of 20/100 - presented no particular struggle for him several days prior. So either he and the Prowler just don't get along, or his physical preparedness, sleep, food, rest, etc., are becoming more important to his performance than they used to be. Time is dwindling before his return to college and rugby (for which there is no appreciable pre-season), so I'll have to sin a bit, changing more than one variable going forward. He'll eat, drink, and be awake longer before the next session which will be only 50lbs, 5 rounds, 20sec work and recovery self-regulated to "whenever you're ready". Gotta get to something that can be built upon, which is where I thought we were.
 
This whole idea of staying in the aerobic zone is new to me. I used to think that doing hard intervals would provide all the conditioning I needed. I didn't know I needed to stay at 180-age to develop aerobic capacity. Maybe that is why I am discovering that my aerobic conditioning isn't very good. I am convinced more than ever that I need to stay in the aerobic zone and be consistent with my training sessions. I think aerobic conditioning is much less forgiving than strength training for missed workouts. Having an aerobic ceiling of only 127 doesn't give me much to work with. I don't totally understand how I could stay aerobic at 160 bpm when I was 20 but have to stay below 127 now. Just doesn't seem right.
 
Very interesting thread. Jeffrey I'm not a trainer, so if I'm out of place here those who are more qualified than me please set me straight too. The Maffetone formula is a base, developed most likely through averages from testing. You may very well be able to have a higher aerobic threshold but that could only be determined through a Lactate Threshold test done in a lab.

With that said let's suppose that a student with a 127 aerobic threshold or HR limit (HRLim) can run (oh the dishonor of even writing this) for 30 min. and keeping his HRLim at or below 127 puts in 2.5 miles or about a 12min/mi average. Later he is able to due the same but can now put in 3 miles or a 10min/mi average. Would that student now have a higher work capacity? Is the student's energy system more efficient?

I've been using this protocol for about two months now, I would like to give it some more time before I give my full review. I can tell you that while doing this my spiderman crawls and farmer carries have improved. Is that due to a stronger core from all the swings? Maybe, but I'll take that. I think they are on to something here.
 
My limited understanding is if you improve your aerobic capacity then you should be able to do more and remain aerobic. Otherwise what would be the point, or even the definition, of improving aerobic capacity? I am not sure how, but I get the impression that you also improve recovery with alactic system, or why would the time it takes to complete 10x10 swings improve?
 
@Al Ciampa: Thank you very much for all your informative articles and posts. However, I am a bit confused about swings and Maffetone.
I was assuming the swing sets is rather interval training and thereby being partly anaerobic. Then you let the heart rate go down and start again.
if you stay in the aerobic zone all the time don't you end up with a short aerobic session of five to ten minutes? Normally aerobic sessions last twenty minutes up to several hours. How can a short ten minute session be effectiv in comparison to longer aerobic sessions where I keep the heart rate in the same zone? I am referring solely to the effect on the heart itself.
 
Apologies Al, don't mean to gatecrash a question posed for you. I was going to reply to another similar, related thread and thought it more relevant here...so sorry, again but thought this may help:

About a month ago in seeking some clarity to answer the very same question I thought I'd just ask Phil Maffetone for an answer.....why not, can but try so this is his reply, well not him personally but from his team...quote:

"The 180-Formula is specifically designed to give you a heart rate that coincides with alactic training (and therefore a minimal amount of H+ ions)"

.....there you go.
 
Alistair, you must mean "aerobic" in your quote, above...

Leon, the swing protocol where we are staying below a specific heart rate is a longer session. I'm part of a test group that is doing this for 20 to 60 min sessions. I'm sure we'll be hearing more about that as it is developed. As for S&S sessions, which are shorter, I think a similar principle applies to the daily sessions and HR, but I don't have the impression that it's as critical to stay within that particular HR zone.

More will chime in I'm sure...
 
Anna, no, it means alactic........

The answer (I hope!)........staying within the zone the vast majority of your training sessions allows for adaptations to occur in the mitochondria of fast twitch muscles.

The reason (there is probably more to it)......S&S is about developing alactic capacity, right? What does that mean? Developing the ability to produce power and then to keep churning it out. When we ask the body to perform a task with power, we use our fast twitch muscle fibres to do the job, right? We need to fuel that task and when the demands on a task ask too much of the aerobic system, it switches to the anaerobic system. So your last set of halos, aerobic....first set of swings anaerobic. The fuel of choice is phosphate-creatine, Pcr....this only lasts a few seconds. When the demand for power still exists and the aerobic system cannot contribute significantly, glucose steps in and with it lactate. It isn't as linear as that but for the sake of clarity that's call it 1-2-3, where 1 is pcr, 2 lactate, 3 aerobic......so all 3 energy systems are on and working to provide energy for the job, right? You could absolutely do S&S in this way, in fact we probably all do in differing amounts. You are getting the job done but really you are conditioning all 3 systems at the one time in intervals as a high intensity interval training protocol. You will improve but.....as the pcr fuel system is short lived and there isn't much of it about, the demands of the job are too much for the aerobic system, where there is a lot of fuel hanging about but is slow to get going, the burden will be on the lactate system to continue with the power that is needed.

So....pause.....how then can we tap in to the more powerful fuel sources? The energy substrate in Pcr is creatine...so it follows, the more of this, the better, for us. The body only has a limited store of creatine ready for use in its mitochondria and it takes 5 minutes at least to replenish it fully. So when you swing with max power, your power may begin to fade. Stop and rest.....don't stop or don't rest enough, the lactate kicks in......Overtime, your are sending a signal to your body to adapt to this process. During recovery, ie sleep and active recovery, your body repairs and rebuilds...it adapts. You are saying to it....'repair the fast twitch muscles I've just used and give me some mitochondria, while you are at it, waiter'. Now with nicely repaired muscle fibres and some extra mitochondria you have a bit more creatine stored ready to go. Your next set of swings may allow you to stay for longer in the pcr system....ie you have access to more power...ie you have improved your alactic capacity. Conversely, go back to the interval 1-2-3 training and it will adapt to it....it is getting the job done pretty well with lactate in the picture, it conditions that too, gets more efficient at buffering lactate at the cost that it cannot allocate its resources to building up the alactic system.

So, all very well. How do you know when to stop to allow this process of adaptation to occur? You could have a very good mind/body connection and know and judge when your power fades, when you are going slightly into lactate processing. You could attach yourself to a whole host of monitoring devices to alert you to stop. Most of us don't swing in a lab setting, so use your own judgement OR a heart rate monitor.

This is how they tie in.......your hr is only one measurement of stress. Remember the 1-2-3 interval and from what you know and feel when faced with a challenge, you get winded and into oxygen debt. You have been performing high intensity powerful work without oxygen, you need to recover, your hr is high as your heart is busy pumping needed fuel back to your cells.....oxygen....for aerobic respiration. We have access to a large supply of potential energy when using the aerobic system to produce large amounts of ATP. Remember.....back to the alactic thing again, we've boosted our capacity to work alactically by signalling the body to produce more mitochondria. Now we have more mitochondria we have an even larger supply of ATP to tap into aerobically aswell. So, power is provided by an increase in fast twitch mitochondria, this increase allows for the aerobic system to help out a bit more......why?....because you are no longer winded, no longer in oxygen debt, you can still use the aerobic system with all its copious amounts of fuel. You perform the task now.....as 1,3.....and a little bit of 2 to fill in the gaps. In other words, this cellular adaptation minimises the role of the lactate system.

So, you work at over your heart rate as defined by the 180-age formula. The world will not stop spinning!! But there are pros and cons - a cost to adaptation (see Pavel's blog piece).....don't sufficiently develop alactic capacity and rely too much on lactate, train that way all the time and the build up of hydrogen ions will damage the mitochondria....possibly that is...no doubt that is totally down to the individual's genetics, age, lifestyle, diet, stress......so training alactic and aerobic limits that, that's all. The 180-formula is a marker, an alert. Pavel and Maffetone combined and you have a superior and healthier training system for most people, most of the time, most athletes most of the time in preparation for more sports specific training - exactly what S&S is designed to do.

Whilst the 180-formula is designed for endurance events it absolutely ties in with developing the alactic system. Training at a constant pace develops aerobic function without using the anaerobic system. When running at a fast pace beyond the current capability of the aerobic system, anaerobic kicks in but you aren't running at a sprint, you don't need full power rocket fuel just a little glycolysis will do and the lactate system kicks in. Train with an undeveloped aerobic base and the body will use the anaerobic system and function and adapt to that....you can't run like that all the time, too demanding but you get the job done. Like swings and 1-2-3, only here with running you are using,3-2....switching to 2-3.....not allowing 3 to adapt properly. So, slow down, take a step back and stop at the point where the anaerobic lactate system wants to help out. Sound familiar?

So, alactic/aerobic or alactic/lactate/aerobic? Pros, cons, costs, benefits depending on your goal of each. The goal of S&S is to improve alactic capacity. The 180-formula might just help in reaching that goal.

Sorry, hope that helps......off for a lie down...
 
OK, you are using "alactic" as a term that INCLUDES aerobic... any fueling that does not produce lactate (using your references: 1 and 3, not just 1 as the term is often used). Terminology is often the most confusing part of these discussions.

Very nice descriptions you've provided, above! Thanks.
 
Anna, yes, the quote from team maffetone:

“The 180-Formula is specifically designed to give you a heart rate that coincides with alactic training (and therefore a minimal amount of H+ ions)”

.....yes, you could substitute aerobic for alactic and the formula is intended for endurance to limit, or minmise, the lactate system. Agree with you, terminology can get confusing. Glycolysis is used often to describe aerobic respiration in that glucose is used as a fuel source in aerobic function when it is also used to describe the anaerobic use of glucose. They are different.

As we know, the systems work all the time, one over the other until a tipping point, whatever or wherever it is, to favour one or the other. So power, 1-2-3: endurance 3-2-1.

When power is the aim, strip out 2 to by pass it all together, allow a little bit in here and there or minimise it. When endurance is the focus - or to improve aerobic function - strip out 2 to by pass it all together, allow a little bit in here and there or minimise it. Same thing from different start points.

So power endurance ....the ability to produce lasting power to do the task, so most sports. Endurance and power, the ability to produce long lasting energy over time with the ability to produce power when needed....a marathon and a sprint finish...and still walk the next day.

You can work all three at the same time, as 1-2-3 and still perform well at sports and run a marathon with a sprint finish. You will improve aerobic function and anaerobic function. So...sounds like a good conditioning programme for all round performance increase. It is.....but at a cost....you run the risk of accruing a long list of sport injuries and trips to the doctor.

It's all there is S&S......power first, develop capacity, Once at the 32 for a bloke, 24 for a lady, sprinkle in some lactate with continuous swings every 2 weeks. Every 2 weeks!! Everything for a reason! ie not every day....a little acidity now and then, not too much....back to training by not aggressively shortening the rests periods, by not breathing too heavy....use the breathe to control the system to prevent and minimise the use of the anaerobic lactate system....it is in the book, chest breathing facilitates glycolysis ie it is a stressor.....get to the point where power does not fade regularly and you can move on up. Get to the simple goal and you have the conditioning for whatever you need, less stress, healthier and more safely. Or go 1-2-3. In a way, it is a gamble - do you risk it or not? More to the point, is taking the risk worth it for you and your goals?

For aerobic function, ie maffetone running/biking......slowly add distance, not too much, don't exceed your hr threshold....overtime you will run faster at the same hr...get to the point where you can run the distance you need to, want to, introduce some speed, power....Or go 3-2-1.

Pros and cons. Both 1-2-3, and 3-2-1 will work so too will alactic/aerobic base building. One is quicker to achieve, short-lived and potentially damaging to your health and the goals that you have set; the other takes time, takes a bit more time, and then takes a bit longer than that, is more sustainable and is healthier in the long run.

Young, stress and injury free, type A personality and wants to win at all costs, a go getter...then 1-2-3. Maybe not so young, a bit more cautious, an easy come/easy go type B, likes a bit of yoga from time to time, green tea and teeth flossing then maybe alactic/aerobic is more your thing. bit of both maybe, keeps it all in check and now and then unleashes the pent up beast within......apologies for all the nonsense and rather long ramble
 
Status
Closed Thread. (Continue Discussion of This Topic by Starting a New Thread.)
Back
Top Bottom