HR Zones
Posted: April 21st, 2020, 9:55 pm
Hi there. Just purchased a Polar OH1 HR monitor for the main purpose of keeping my HR down on long UT2 pieces.
My first piece (2x6k) was at a 152 hr and a 2.13 split. Repeating the workout the week after at a 154 required my splits to drop by 10 seconds to a 2.03 to reach the new HR derived from a change in my max HR. This was probably my own error or I may have been ill or some non ideal conditions for my first piece which is fairly plausible. However when my max HR rose again my UT2 hr (65%) became 158. From what I’ve been told UT2 is supposed to feel easy but working up a sweat gradually and you should be able to hold a conversation. The second set of 2x6k was a bit harder and while my breathing was controlled it wasn’t quite at the level to hold a conversation. Then doing a supposedly UT2 workout at the 158 was definitely not conversation level and could only manage a couple of words between deep but controlled breaths.
I’ve seen two ways of calculating HR zones. One from the Polar beat app which divides the max HR by 100 and multiplied it by the desired percentage.
The second way is max HR - resting HR = HR variability. HR variability divided by 100 and then multiplied by the desired percentage. Then add this to the resting HR
For the first 6x2k I used the second method and the piece felt as UT2 should, as in easy but working, and sustainable for an extended period of time. However when looking in my Polar beat app at the end of the session my HR was shown as being in the 70-80% zone which the app called the steady state zone, not the 60-70% I had been in. This was because the Polar app used the max HR divided by 100 multiplied by the desired zone. This provides zones with lower HR compared to the other method but doing UT2 at this HR felt much more as it should. Most rowing forums and sites seem to advise the first more complex method but this doesn’t feel right for UT2 at least.
In my eyes steady state and UT2 are the same thing, both working on the basic aerobic base which improves overall fitness and ability to work harder for longer through a variety of intensities. I could be completely wrong please fill me in if I’m way off the ball. However the Polar app seemed to say the steady state zone was the 70-80 and the zone comparable to UT2 was 60-70. From feel this steady state zone is about the same effort and split as the 65% HR from the second more complex method. However the first method in the 60-70 zone feels much more like UT2 which you’d use for long endurance sessions.
Any thoughts on what to go off?
Thanks, Charlie
My first piece (2x6k) was at a 152 hr and a 2.13 split. Repeating the workout the week after at a 154 required my splits to drop by 10 seconds to a 2.03 to reach the new HR derived from a change in my max HR. This was probably my own error or I may have been ill or some non ideal conditions for my first piece which is fairly plausible. However when my max HR rose again my UT2 hr (65%) became 158. From what I’ve been told UT2 is supposed to feel easy but working up a sweat gradually and you should be able to hold a conversation. The second set of 2x6k was a bit harder and while my breathing was controlled it wasn’t quite at the level to hold a conversation. Then doing a supposedly UT2 workout at the 158 was definitely not conversation level and could only manage a couple of words between deep but controlled breaths.
I’ve seen two ways of calculating HR zones. One from the Polar beat app which divides the max HR by 100 and multiplied it by the desired percentage.
The second way is max HR - resting HR = HR variability. HR variability divided by 100 and then multiplied by the desired percentage. Then add this to the resting HR
For the first 6x2k I used the second method and the piece felt as UT2 should, as in easy but working, and sustainable for an extended period of time. However when looking in my Polar beat app at the end of the session my HR was shown as being in the 70-80% zone which the app called the steady state zone, not the 60-70% I had been in. This was because the Polar app used the max HR divided by 100 multiplied by the desired zone. This provides zones with lower HR compared to the other method but doing UT2 at this HR felt much more as it should. Most rowing forums and sites seem to advise the first more complex method but this doesn’t feel right for UT2 at least.
In my eyes steady state and UT2 are the same thing, both working on the basic aerobic base which improves overall fitness and ability to work harder for longer through a variety of intensities. I could be completely wrong please fill me in if I’m way off the ball. However the Polar app seemed to say the steady state zone was the 70-80 and the zone comparable to UT2 was 60-70. From feel this steady state zone is about the same effort and split as the 65% HR from the second more complex method. However the first method in the 60-70 zone feels much more like UT2 which you’d use for long endurance sessions.
Any thoughts on what to go off?
Thanks, Charlie