"Zone 2 training" query

[aegis]

90% of mhr for 90min is a long time to suffer! Maybe you have a higher mhr. Zones 4/5 for 30min is plenty of suffering for me.

I did my last HM at 90-94% of HR max

I see you like being in the pain cave.

[Sakly]

90% of mhr for 90min is a long time to suffer! Maybe you have a higher mhr. Zones 4/5 for 30min is plenty of suffering for me.

I did my last HM at 90-94% of HR max

I see you like being in the pain cave.

Absolutely!

[p_b82]

90% of mhr for 90min is a long time to suffer! Maybe you have a higher mhr. Zones 4/5 for 30min is plenty of suffering for me.

I did my last HM at 90-94% of HR max

I see you like being in the pain cave.

It wasn't painful at 90% - but my mind was the only thing that got me through, as my legs were telling me they were dead and couldn't keep going - which I knew was false really....

In my 10k pb I was at 95% MHR (180/189) at the 37min point and the last 10mins were 180->188 as I upped the pace... my split time on my HM is faster than that 10k though; I really need to have another go at it!

[Dangerscouse]

Let me cut to the chase to make it simpler: for a 1h steady session, what would be a reasonable drift showing that I "should" still be probably in Zone 2 (for the specific purpose I have outlined in my earlier post) ? You seem to be fine with my 4bpm tpday (but that wasn't an hour, that was like 20 minutes), but not 10bpm. So shall I consider that anything about say 5bpm drift after an hour, I am probably outside Zone 2 ?

It's actually quite hard to say about this. As an example, if I did a Zone 2 session I'd aim for circa 75% of max HR, and my HR will stay steady for the majority of the row, but Nick (Rockliff) who is a very good erger has said that his HR always increases, and he's still within Zone 2 (he's had lactate testing).

This is why I'm always including RPE as HR can be affected by stress, dehydration, lack of carbs, tiredness and humidity & heat. Imo, you may stick to a specific HR but you're missing out on progress as a result. Crudely speaking all you're trying to do is find what you're capable of recovering from and adapting accordingly.

The HR results on the monitor and logbook are purely a snapshot at that moment, so it will always be at least a difference of 4bpm average, sometimes it's up to 7 or 8bpm as I also track my HR with a Polar Beat app.

I know that it's preferable to find scientific information that you can use, but there's too many variables to rely on anything that isn't confirmed in a lab test. Don't overthink, use old fashioned intuition and empirical evidence as your guide along with HR and you won't go far wrong.

When all is said and done you'll never truly know if something is ideal, so it's just finding what feels right and covers most of what you want. For me, that's enjoyment, results and recovery.

[GlennUk]

I believe I physically cannot sustain an effort at 140 for an hour. I believe I would need to stop before.
With that said, I shouldn't have said "there's no way", because I have not tried. It's just a feeling.

I know I can row at 130 for an hour because I've done it a few days ago. See below. In this row, I fixed my HR at 130 and adjusted my effort accordingly. But you can see my splits are getting a little bit slower over time*.
I think it would be better, as a test, if I fixed my splits at say 3', and see what happens to my HR. That would be more relevant to my question. I think.
But I'm coming here seeking for suggestions.

* not a lot, granted, a few seconds only.

Sounds to me like you may be reaching the threshold of your anaerobic limit. Its worth noting that at whatever hr this occurs, it is an individual value, others may have higher or lower values than you.

[Dangerscouse]

I think it would be better, as a test, if I fixed my splits at say 3', and see what happens to my HR. That would be more relevant to my question. I think.
But I'm coming here seeking for suggestions.

Yes, more splits will be beneficial and also maintaining the same spm at the same pace will be too, so you can see how your HR behaves. Don't discount how a lower spm can affect your HR, and coupled with a slower pace you've possibly got a similar effort per stroke. I almost always row at a faster pace for a higher spm.

I have my HR increase up to about 20-25 mins and then it will plateau, even at the same pace. This may or may not happen, but HR is very personal and doesn't always follow your assumptions.

[jrkob]

Yes, more splits will be beneficial

Could you clarify this please ? You mean I should do a longer row like 1h30 instead of 1h ? If yes I think that should be possible.

Or you mean I keep my row at 1h but in my PM4 I shorten the splits to say 5 minutes instead of the 15 minutes I had the other day as per my screenshot
so there will be more of them, just shorter ?

[RayOfSunshine]

Yes, more splits will be beneficial

Could you clarify this please ? You mean I should do a longer row like 1h30 instead of 1h ? If yes I think that should be possible.

Or you mean I keep my row at 1h but in my PM4 I shorten the splits to say 5 minutes instead of the 15 minutes I had the other day as per my screenshot
so there will be more of them, just shorter ?

The PM5 only captures the HR at the end of the interval. It's not an average across the interval. Sometimes a HRM can lose connection (even if only slightly) and you will have poor data. If you're looking to monitor HR, you'll want more shorter intervals. I think the max # of splits is 50 or 100. I've started doing 1 longer weekly SS each week. I add 1k each week. This week will be 21k, so I'll have 21 1k splits.

[Dangerscouse]

Could you clarify this please ? You mean I should do a longer row like 1h30 instead of 1h ? If yes I think that should be possible.

Or you mean I keep my row at 1h but in my PM4 I shorten the splits to say 5 minutes instead of the 15 minutes I had the other day as per my screenshot
so there will be more of them, just shorter ?

I was referring to shorter split timings so you can get a better idea of your HR movement, but longer distance is also beneficial if you can do it.

[jrkob]

I was referring to shorter split timings so you can get a better idea of your HR movement, but longer distance is also beneficial if you can do it.

Ok, I went to the gym this morning and did both: increased the row from 1h to 1h15, and shortened the splits timing from 15:00 to 5:00.
I have done my utmost to maintain 19s/m and 3:00/500m at all time, as constantly as possible. I think for the most part, I did maintain very close these 2 parameters. What I have also done, is put some post-its on all other parameters on the PM4 except these 2. I did this to avoid being distracted and the adrenaline thing you mentioned in your first post. So I wasn't "chasing" anything. I just focused, all along, on these 2 parameters.
Below are the results.

I've done a few more things while rowing: talking to my wife was possible but not super comfortable and not with a loud voice. I also tried breathing through my nose: it was possible, but here again not very comfortable.

Based on this, can I comfortably say that I was probably rowing in Zone 2, again, for the purposes I have outlined before in this thread. It seems the variance in HR as given by Garmin are within acceptable as per your other quote last night.

If yes, what's the next step, I try it again but with slightly faster splits say 2:55/500m and see what happens ?

[Dangerscouse]

Based on this, can I comfortably say that I was probably rowing in Zone 2, again, for the purposes I have outlined before in this thread. It seems the variance in HR as given by Garmin are within acceptable as per your other quote last night.

If yes, what's the next step, I try it again but with slightly faster splits say 2:55/500m and see what happens ?

That's an ideal HR range for what you're aiming for, and just compare that to your other row when you averaged 3:04.

Try 3:00 for a few more sessions, then increase it to 2:55, as you need to consolidate your progress and adaptions to the effort.

[jrkob]

Try 3:00 for a few more sessions, then increase it to 2:55, as you need to consolidate your progress and adaptions to the effort.

Perfect, very clear instructions, exactly what I needed. Thanks a lot.
Will update in due course.
These long sessions are extremely refreshing.

[iain]

Your HR is pretty consistent and so I would say this is probably a UT2 row, but I have used the pace to determine this.

As you may have noticed I am not a fan of UT2 training for anyone with limited time to row as I believe that UT1 gives greater benefits and, if I can't recover from an hour UT1 in 24 hours I need a rest day! A lot of learning to row faster is learning what you are capable of. Yesterday I did an HM at 6:15AM (not optimal timing, ate 10 min before start, less hydrated than optimal etc.). Around 25min in my HR stabilised between 166 and 168 until I started pushing for the final 2.5km. Not sure of my HRMax at present, 3 years ago I hit 187 but did little exercise in 2022. Since then I haven't seen >182. If I assume HRmax is 184, I was a little above 90%. No overt CV stress, but had to keep pushing to maintain 18SPM, I assume that my slowing rating was due to CV distress. As for others, the muscular discomfort was more noticeable, on this row from 55min onwards. Sorry for the info overload! My point is that merely leveling HR is not sufficient to prove UT2 as HR will stabilise in any consistent row! Also when you get the confidence from having done other harder rows and are used to the discomfort, you will be able to maintain a pace that now seems impossible for longer than you can currently contemplate.

Excuse the deviation, but in my opinion you can't take much from the HR trace of the first 20-25 min of a row. What you require from your body is changing. On a UT2 row, you will be increasing the heat loss requirement (depends on conditions), fuel type (initially mostly sugar based, but will introduce increasing fat if the effort level is low enough) food source (sugars will increasingly come from the blood stream and require fuel distribution from liver and potentially fat stores), while your body may be shutting down temporarily unnecessary activities (digestion, even kidney function at higher work rates). As a result, the total energy requirement of the body will change even if the muscular requirement stays constant. It is easy to forget that we are not just doing work on the erg.

Please forgive my repetition of points made elsewhere, but even laboratory tests will vary on determining the thresholds. I have only seen one scientific approach to UT2 definition and that was the same as your determination (ie where you can maintain a constant HR for a sustained period). The problem is that HR drift on a rower is enhanced by dehydration (unless you use a Camelbak) and in my case at least, a tendency for my technique to get sloppy as I get muscularly tired (drop in efficiency will make rowing at the same pace harder work so HR rate increases). In addition, the heart adapts to increasing workload in 2 ways, rate and stroke volume. I am convinced that the response varies between people and for the same person over time. As said in a recent thread, as I get fitter it becomes increasingly hard to maintain the same %HRR. I believe that this is because stroke volume has increased (as well as blood viscosity). I also think that increases in stroke volume occur at lower HR so the total work done by the heart as a proportion of maximal sustainable work increases at the same %HRR. As a result, any % will vary for the same person through time and presumably between people as well. So getting hung up on how to calculate it is missing the point. That is why the speech test and RPE matter.

I don't believe the mechanism of what usually reduces our capacity to perform maximally (ie to be under recovered) is well established. This is what we need to understand what to avoid on SS rows so that they do not reduce the benefit of the subsequent harder sessions. If this is CV as championed by Eddie Fletcher, then it is the work done by the heart that needs to be limited. This is a function of both how hard it is working (HR x % of maximal stroke volume) and the time it has to perform at this level. As a result you need to reduce the pace for longer SS rows while shorter ones can be done at higher paces, there is nothing magical about UT1 or 2. I assume UT2 is used on the basis that even long sessions on erg at this level should not be too taxing (as there is no noticeable increase in cardiac stress from continuing at this pace). As far as I can make out, UT1 is where increasing the HR for increased CV output slows and so presumably stroke volume is increasing to more stressful levels1. That sounds to me like something that needs recovery from and so should be limited on SS rows. But I suspect that optimal pace for SS should actually be a function involving fatigue at start of the row, duration of row, how optimal recovery will be between SS and next hard row (nutrition, stress and other exercise, sleep etc.) and time to the next hard row. I would expect this will usually produce a value between UT1 & 2. I suspect that HR fatigue is the major component in over training so not to be ignored by anyone training hard.

In addition to cardiac fatigue, muscular recovery is also important. Personally I find that if I am under recovered (as measured by poor performance on tough sessions unrelated to outside stress or other limitations) it generally shows up most clearly in my work per stroke at constant RPE (ie I have to push my stroke harder to get the same pace at the "normal" rating for that piece). This seems most likely to be due to muscular fatigue. I would expect CV fatigue to lead to a decrease in rating at the same RPE (as experienced on longer rows). So for me moderating HR on SS rows at this time is less important than ensuring that work per stroke (and therefore rate of muscular fatigue) on these sessions is not pushed too high.

If you look at the best trained ergers, they usually perform SS rows at a range of paces (and this ignores the impact of restricting stroke rates and other variables). You need to identify what the correct pace feels like for a session with an intended target (length, time to recover and degree of fatigue at start). This requires some trial and error and getting it wrong (ie pushing too hard so you know you have exceeded a sensible limit). As it is the feel of the session that is identified, this should be more useful for the future as it can still be applied when you are in differing states of fitness as well as building in flexibility to adjust the intensity if we are overly fatigued or impaired in other ways. I see the main argument for regulating pace by HR is that it is not impacted by expectation and ego and affected by changes in willpower. In contrast, HR is affected by expectations. My "HR astride" (ie before erging) has varied recently from 70 to 120, with higher values before really tough sessions. Some of this increase will be transferred to useful capacity, but some may be useless "nervous energy" or even due to reduced stroke volume. So HR is not a wholly objective measure of how hard we are working.

Really sorry for the unintended diatribe, I hope that some of this is useful. In conclusion, I suggest that you try and do a longer SS at the 2:55 pace when you are similarly rested and see how your HR responds and (perhaps more importantly) whether you recover sufficiently for the next hard row.

- Iain

1. In laboratories this is often measured by concentration of lactate being 2mmol, I believe this to be flawed as studies on lactate concentrations between athletes have shown significant variation, so why should a threshold concentration be a definitive measure of a transition to a different level of exercise intensity? THat is why I have used this alternative measurement. I suspect that Stu recovers so quickly and can maintain high HR longer due to a higher % of slow fibres so his anaerobic byproducts don't build up as quickly as it does for the rest of us at the same relative exercise intensities, this would mean that his blood lactate should be lower at the same exertion level. Contrasting to Nick, he would seem to have a higher proportion of fast fibres (although this is relative as seen by his huge ability in longer rows as well) and so in his SS he is using more of these fibres and producing increased lactate as his slow twitch fibres fatigue and so increased oxygen requirements mean continued cardiac drift.

[aegis]

I am actually also questioning where the 2 and 4 mmol thresholds for lactate comes from, it would be great if someone here can point me to the literature on this.

[btlifter]

I am actually also questioning where the 2 and 4 mmol thresholds for lactate comes from, it would be great if someone here can point me to the literature on this.

Typically, if you view a graph measuring an athlete's lactate levels while exercising, there will be an inflection point ("first lactate turnpoint") at approximately 2 mmol. There will be a second at approximately 4 mmol.

There is good reason to believe that these turnpoints correspond with significant changes in physiological demands. But, It's very important to emphasize the word "approximately", as there is nothing inherently magical about 2 or 4 mmol.