Will the real Zone 2 please stand up!

[jackarabit]

After 30 years of rowing using pace/500m I'm experimenting with looking at watts while I erg. I do find it pretty interesting, and probably more informative than pace.

Ergdata screen is set to watts as default screen for me, as the resolution is better than the full digit pace of the PM5. So I use both, as using ergdata gives you two displays

THIS

Erg power is determined by the amplitude and frequency of an electronic signal. Erg pace is the extrapolated effect of power in an ‘as if’ simulation/pretense. When going nowhere, watts are a better measure of progress imho.

[iain]

Nothing much to add other than a serial restarters experience of >20mm. We (as well as the scientists) like to have an objective measure to determine the correct training for us. Experience and studies have shown that there is no such thing. People vary. Unfortunately 2 & 4mmol lactate is not even consistent between people as the amount of lactate tolerated varies between people and anyway lactate is not a direct measure of a useful variable, it is a useful fuel although strongly correlated with oxygen debt. The most easily observed direct reading of our physiological response (breathing) is unfortunately harder to use in rowing as not coordinating breathing with the stroke makes it less efficient so we learn to artificially maintain coordinated breathing. Finally, as some have said, the studies have largely been done of the abnormal individuals who make up the elite and part of the reason they are in this band is that their physiologies are extreme so they cannot be assumed to apply to the rest of us.

For HR to settle anywhere near the zones used (any of them) for me, I need to have done several million metres of base training consistently over a couple of years or more, I need to be healthy, well nourished and hydrated and not significantly stressed. This makes any use for me a rarity. Most of my erging has been on a journey to an acceptable level of fitness where my stroke volume is lower than optimum and so my HR is raised high without the exertion level assumed by any of the models. Fortunately the limited applicable studies show that any training will help on that initial climb to a "good" level of fitness and so while improvements are coming the main requirement is that I can train in the time I have available for it in an enjoyable way without it impinging significantly on my higher priorities. I know from my attempts at competing 15 years ago that I will never be competitive with the better regional ergers so optimising training is wholly for the ego.

Finally, I am unaware of any studies that showed that exceeding Zone 2 (by whatever measure this is determined) is inherently bad for us. What has been shown is regular extended all out efforts do increase the damage to the systems of at least some athletes. This will be staying in zones 4+ for long periods so heading into zone 3 is not the demon that it has been portrayed by some. Yes this may well reduce the ability to do the highest quality sessions for those training a lot, but that rarely applies to me and sub-optimal training is not much of a concern to me either. Sorry if this doesn't help the OP who may be in a different category, but I hope that those more like me who come to this thread can take some comfort from my thoughts.

- Iain

[seenernie]

They're only guides the formulas anyway - if you don't actually know the max (not sure if you do, as you said using 165 vs using highest observed etc), then anything you do plug in a little more than a guess anyway - further making the values less meaningful.