Bill Been
Level 5 Valued Member
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.
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.