Topic - Off-snow training:
Nordic Track machines 2
Date first posted on eCommunity - 22
July 2007
Back in September 2006 we posted a general article
about Nordic Track exercisers. Recently an exchange of emails on another
XC web forum has brought the machines back into focus. (The exchange
itself took place last November, but I have only just seen it.)
The forum is at
http://uk.groups.yahoo.com/group/nordicscotland. One member asked:
"Does anyone have any advice for use of a Nordic Track ski machine for
training and its suitability? Ebay is now littered with second hand
Nordic Track machines."
Two other members responded. One said, "Personal experience of Nordic
Track machine is not good in terms of technique, or fitness." Another
said: "Having tried a Nordic Track a few years ago, it's nothing like
the real thing and I can't say it gave me much of a
workout or did a great deal for my stamina. Could that be why eBay is so
well populated with them?!"
I thought this was a little harsh, especially the last bit. After all,
eBay is populated with all sorts of fitness kit, not just ski machines.
And the fact that something is on eBay may just mean it is unwanted
rather than unsatisfactory. A recent survey, reported in Fitpro Network
magazine, April/May 2007, found that one fifth of all the fitness
gadgets bought in Britain each year are used only once - or never at
all.
Our own September 2006 posting had said "[The Nordic Track machine]
gives a low impact workout that is relatively ski-specific in terms of
both muscle groups used and intensity of cardiovascular effort - even on
low resistance settings your heart rate will quickly rise to
effective training levels." In spite of the comments made on the other
web forum I still believed that to be true, but I had to admit I had
never been very scientific about the way I used my own machine. I
usually just climbed aboard and worked at a reasonable pace for a while.
I had seldom measured my work-rate. So in the last week I've tried to
rectify that, bench-testing the machine in a range of fitness workouts,
each time using a heart-rate monitor to track energy expenditure.
(If you are new to training with a monitor, the first thing to do is
establish your Maximum Heart Rate (MHR). The quick and dirty way is to
start with the number 220 and then subtract your age in years. So, if
you are aged 40 your MHR will be 180. Once you know your own
MHR you train at varying percentages of it - depending on what type of
fitness benefit you are trying to achieve in each workout.)
TRAINING PROGRAMMES
I did five sessions in the course of the week.
Monday: 30 minutes steady-state at about 70-75% MHR.
I started too slowly and took a few minutes to get into the target
training zone. (Should have warmed up properly first!) However, once in
the zone the problem was keeping within it and not drifting higher – it
was such a comfortable workout.
Tuesday: medium-length, medium-intensity intervals at about 80% MHR.
A 15 minute warm-up on the machine got me gradually to 70% MHR. Then six
3-minute bursts at just over 80% MHR with one-minute recoveries. Then
warm-down on the machine for 10 minutes. Once again the main problem was
keeping within the target zone during the intervals. I often hit 85% MHR
and had to ease off.
Wednesday: "recovery workout" at about 65% MHR.
I did 30 minutes at 65% MHR then 5 minutes warm-down. It felt very, very
relaxed.
I had expected this to be the most difficult session to control, as in
the previous two workouts my HR had always edged higher and higher. In
fact it was easy and I was only ever about 3 beats off target.
Thursday: short-length, high-intensity intervals at about 90% MHR.
A 15 minute warm-up on the machine gradually got me up to 75% MHR. Then
five 1-minute intervals, with 3-minute recovery periods. This wasn't
very successful. I could only reach to the target when I was about 45
seconds into the interval. The problem was partly because it is
difficult to make quick adjustments to the machine. But it was also
because a 3-minute recovery is really a bit too long. Normally I would
have gone for 1-minute intervals and 1-minute recoveries – and I think
that would have worked well. But in the last month I've had a lay-off
with a chest infection and just didn't want to work that hard.
Friday: steady-state workout at race pace (85% MHR).
A 15 minute warm-up got me gradually up to 75% MHR. Then 30 minutes at
85% MHR.
Then 15-minute warm-down. This was hard work, but manageably so.
CONCLUSIONS
Although I've had my Nordic Track for many years, I was surprised this
week to discover how versatile and effective it is. The versatility
allowed me to try different sorts of workout. The
effectiveness had two aspects: I could work quite hard, yet it seldom
actually felt hard. (In fitness jargon the "rate of perceived exertion"
is low.) There are other things I can do to get my HR up to 85% (Nordic
walking on hills, for example). But I'm not sure I could sustain them
enjoyably for 30 minutes at a time.
The main problem with exercise machines is usually boredom. And until
now I've usually found that half an hour at a time is enough. This week,
though, the machine sessions were actually interesting, largely because
I was always focussing on stop-watch and heart-rate
monitor, rather than simply plodding along. Nevertheless, I just
couldn't stomach the thought of the lengthy endurance sessions that were
needed to balance the fairly short sessions described above. I really
should have done a couple of 2-hour workouts at low intensity on the
machine. But as the sun was shining I chose instead to grab my Nordic
walking poles and head off to the park. Much nicer!
(PUBLIC HEALTH WARNING: some of the training sessions described above
were quite strenuous and I don't mean to suggest that anybody should
copy them. In particular, people who are new to training should avoid
interval sessions until they have built up some fitness.)
|
