Heart Rate Zones

[Dangerscouse]

I read an interesting post on Instagram from a Sports Scientist, commenting about how a given HR range may be good for some, but not everyone.

What he said was it might feel mentally 'easy', but you're not maintaining sufficient oxygen saturation to be fully recovering so you're relying too much on glycolysis and slowly (and subtly) zapping your recovery. He doesn't give any remedies, but I have inferred that it's more about learning what feels instinctively correct for you.

FWIW, what has demonstrably worked for me was working at circa 70-75% of MHR, but this has instinctively felt correct, and been proven to be true by my ability to not fail as many sessions and not get ill. If I followed the advice given, this should have been more about doing 75-80% sessions, but it's just not quite ideal for me: I'd make gains from it, but it would be slowly diminishing returns.

I also don't think that there is a downside in backing off when a HR cap is reached. Admittedly this may happen because of a slightly spurious cause, but if you back off because it also instinctively feels too much, the body will adapt accordingly, and over time your ability to reach that HR will probably be at a faster pace. I strongly suspect if you keep thrashing yourself you're just dipping into your reserves too much, and that's not a sustainable plan.

[GlennUk]

FWIW, what has demonstrably worked for me was working at circa 70-75% of MHR, but this has instinctively felt correct, and been proven to be true by my ability to not fail as many sessions and not get ill. If I followed the advice given, this should have been more about doing 75-80% sessions, but it's just not quite ideal for me: I'd make gains from it, but it would be slowly diminishing returns.

Id agree that if following a HR range for training that the RPE is important too, and dependant on the duraiont of the particular exercise/rep, could be the determining factor in success or failure, irrespective of the actual HR.

I also don't think that there is a downside in backing off when a HR cap is reached. Admittedly this may happen because of a slightly spurious cause, but if you back off because it also instinctively feels too much, the body will adapt accordingly, and over time your ability to reach that HR will probably be at a faster pace. I strongly suspect if you keep thrashing yourself you're just dipping into your reserves too much, and that's not a sustainable plan.

I agree entirely, since following the training regime i am based on HR/spm/pace in combination, from an endurance perspective it works very well for me.

Prior to adopting this approach, my work 'as hard and as fast as i can' every sessions, reached a plateau which tailed off and meant i was not reaching a similar performance for a given distance over a short period of time, when if anything, I would have expected improvements as opposed to a decline.

[Mortie31]

In one of Stielers presentations on HR training he discusses elite cross country skiers that on UT2 days will even walk up hills to keep their HR in the target Zone. Training at the lower zones is about volume at a HR and not pace. Regarding HR drift, this is closely linked to fitness levels, the higher ones fitness the less drift, but as in all things HR, it varies considerably with general health, humidity, temp, virtually everything, so these things need to be factored in. To the OP if your sitting at the top end of UT2 and drifting up into UT1 how long is this taking? As there is a world of difference between a 5bpm increase over 30mins and over a 90min session. One main question is, is it truely HR drift or fatigue due to lack of fitness?

[KeithT]

The more I use my HRM, the more I agree with Stu that it is a very fickle metric. I still use it but am depending more & more on low tech RPE.

Same here.

[max_ratcliffe]

Low hr stuff didn't work for me, but I didn't give it a fair go as I reduced volume at the same time (because of a new job and longer commute, not intentionally).

I got slower and slower and it reduced my enjoyment of the erg. Hypothesis: my LT was moving to the left from detraining. No doubt it would have worked eventually but I needed to do more volume and put up with the slower times for a few months until I built back up again. Or perhaps done a lot of walking and cycling to get that ut2 volume.

On the skierg, I am limited my more by the smaller upper body muscles and less by my heart and lungs. I should dig out my hrm and see if I'm at a lower hr there than on the rower.

One question that I don't think has been answered is whether someone training 3 times a week should bother with any ut2. If you're training 10 sessions a week, you don't have any choice as burnout would be inevitable without easy sessions. Three times a week? Probably plenty of recovery there, so is ut2 intense enough?

On a side note, I find myself paying attention when Seiler is referenced, but switching off when Maffetone is. Perhaps it's just the Web marketing but it reminds me of "eat yourself thin in just 3' a day" guff.

[Dangerscouse]

One question that I don't think has been answered is whether someone training 3 times a week should bother with any ut2. If you're training 10 sessions a week, you don't have any choice as burnout would be inevitable without easy sessions. Three times a week? Probably plenty of recovery there, so is ut2 intense enough?

I'm well placed to answer this, although it is caveated by it possibly only being relevant to me. Years ago, when I didn't have a clue, I used to only row three times a week, and it was always 10k as hard as possible. I made no progress at all, but I didn't really decline either.

I'd assume, and it is just an assumption, that what could be beneficial is doing the UT2 as more of a grey zone pace. As you say, there should be plenty of room for recovery, but you need to challenge the body in different ways, and possibly a short UT2 session would be a waste of time: if it was a 60 mins + session may be not.

I wonder if the overall time on the rower is critical to understanding the benefits, as 3 x 30 mins is a world of difference compared to 3 x 90 mins

[max_ratcliffe]

One question that I don't think has been answered is whether someone training 3 times a week should bother with any ut2. If you're training 10 sessions a week, you don't have any choice as burnout would be inevitable without easy sessions. Three times a week? Probably plenty of recovery there, so is ut2 intense enough?

<>

I'd assume, and it is just an assumption, that what could be beneficial is doing the UT2 as more of a grey zone pace. As you say, there should be plenty of room for recovery, but you need to challenge the body in different ways, and possibly a short UT2 session would be a waste of time: if it was a 60 mins + session may be not.

I wonder if the overall time on the rower is critical to understanding the benefits, as 3 x 30 mins is a world of difference compared to 3 x 90 mins

Hmm yes, that's a very good point. If someone increased the distance of even a once-per-week UT2 session by 500m a week, then I think it's difficult to see how they wouldn't benefit. Someone who's currently doing 8k as steady state would be doing a weekly HM after six months. No need to worry about increasing intensity with that sort of steady increase in volume.

[hjs]

Low hr stuff didn't work for me, but I didn't give it a fair go as I reduced volume at the same time (because of a new job and longer commute, not intentionally).

I got slower and slower and it reduced my enjoyment of the erg. Hypothesis: my LT was moving to the left from detraining. No doubt it would have worked eventually but I needed to do more volume and put up with the slower times for a few months until I built back up again. Or perhaps done a lot of walking and cycling to get that ut2 volume.

On the skierg, I am limited my more by the smaller upper body muscles and less by my heart and lungs. I should dig out my hrm and see if I'm at a lower hr there than on the rower.

One question that I don't think has been answered is whether someone training 3 times a week should bother with any ut2. If you're training 10 sessions a week, you don't have any choice as burnout would be inevitable without easy sessions. Three times a week? Probably plenty of recovery there, so is ut2 intense enough?

On a side note, I find myself paying attention when Seiler is referenced, but switching off when Maffetone is. Perhaps it's just the Web marketing but it reminds me of "eat yourself thin in just 3' a day" guff.

For only 3 sessions a week, ut2, certainly when those sessions are short, ut2 would do not very much. If rowing is only a part of your training I think its something else. Type of training and volume are ofcourse inverse related. The faster, the shorter and vice versa. Doing a 20 min ut2 session is only usefull for real beginners or athletes who it just to keep some fitness. For a more serious athlete a 20 min ut2 session does not excist, it would be a warm up.

[iain]

I don't do less than 90' when doing UT2. If the recommendation is to drop UT2, then my distance would drop a lot as I rarely do >60min in UT1 sessions. It also depends upon the staggering of the sessions, I quite often end up doing 2 of the 3 on successive days due to a busy work week, so I need the UT2 if I am to go hard in the first session. Personally I agree re Maffetone as any HR training that does not adjust for different HR max of the users doesn't make sense to me.

[Mortie31]

One question that I don't think has been answered is whether someone training 3 times a week should bother with any ut2. If you're training 10 sessions a week, you don't have any choice as burnout would be inevitable without easy sessions. Three times a week? Probably plenty of recovery there, so is ut2 intense enough?

The answer to this is,it would depend primarily on what you were training to achieve, 3 UT2 sessions of 75 - 100 minutes would certainly improve your aerobic capacity and allow for technique adaptation as well if required. Whereas 3 UT2 sessions of 30 mins wouldn’t improve aerobic anywhere near as much, and obviously this also needs to fit in with the larger training cycle plans.

[jamesg]

One question that I don't think has been answered is whether someone training 3 times a week should bother with any ut2.

From what happens to me I see that erging every other day (so 3-4 days a week) maintains fitness if I do at least a 5k at 19-21, using my basic stroke, which these days is 6 W-min, or slightly higher. Currently this equates to about 1.6 W/kg using BMI=23 and 1.4 at 85kg belly and all.

For anyone younger than sixty I'd say 2W/kg at least is needed in any work. The essential is to get the endorphines to kick in, otherwise it's a pain and probably a waste of time since no lactate to clear.

The other days I walk hills, saw timber and bike. No feedback there, except that I can still do them all easily, no doubt thanks to the ergwork.

[iain]

One question that I don't think has been answered is whether someone training 3 times a week should bother with any ut2.

From what happens to me I see that erging every other day (so 3-4 days a week) maintains fitness if I do at least a 5k at 19-21, using my basic stroke, which these days is 6 W-min, or slightly higher. Currently this equates to about 1.6 W/kg using BMI=23 and 1.4 at 85kg belly and all.

For anyone younger than sixty I'd say 2W/kg at least is needed in any work. The essential is to get the endorphines to kick in, otherwise it's a pain and probably a waste of time since no lactate to clear.

The other days I walk hills, saw timber and bike. No feedback there, except that I can still do them all easily, no doubt thanks to the ergwork.

As I understand it base building is more about building mitochondria and capilliaries than clearing lactate. I did the modified UT2 session, 75' averaging 2:21 at 15SPM with Avg HR 76% of max, but peak 82%. This was only 1.6-1.8W/kg (although I am carrying an extra 7% to 8 months ago current BMI of about 23), but was over 500J/stroke, some 6% higher than faster ratings.

[Dangerscouse]

As I understand it base building is more about building mitochondria and capilliaries than clearing lactate.

That is what I have always thought it was too.

[flatbread]

As I understand it base building is more about building mitochondria and capilliaries than clearing lactate.

That is what I have always thought it was too.

Increasing mitochondrial density is a principal benefit of doing more volume at lower intensities, but so is clearing lactate. Working for two hours at low UT2 for a rower, or a long 5-6 hour ride for a cyclist, both help improve removal and re-uptake through the Krebs cycle more efficient. There's not much lactate to clear, and no need to convert it quickly into ATP, but there is still *some* lactate production, so the cells are getting a lot of low-demand "practice" at clearing, which pays off down the road (months, years).

Inigo San Millan would be your guy to look up on the need to lots of steady aerobic work to improve lactate clearance, and about how all intensity levels play a role in developing this. Also Jan Olbrecht. Different sports for them, but they both emphasized that the ability to clear lactate, and the ability to generate a lot of it quickly, are foundational for endurance performance (so a lot of slow stuff, and some maximal stuff under a minute (say just :30-:40) during the base periods, and you're working on those.

[HowardF]

As I understand it base building is more about building mitochondria and capilliaries than clearing lactate.

That is what I have always thought it was too.

Increasing mitochondrial density is a principal benefit of doing more volume at lower intensities, but so is clearing lactate. Working for two hours at low UT2 for a rower, or a long 5-6 hour ride for a cyclist, both help improve removal and re-uptake through the Krebs cycle more efficient. There's not much lactate to clear, and no need to convert it quickly into ATP, but there is still *some* lactate production, so the cells are getting a lot of low-demand "practice" at clearing, which pays off down the road (months, years).

Inigo San Millan would be your guy to look up on the need to lots of steady aerobic work to improve lactate clearance, and about how all intensity levels play a role in developing this. Also Jan Olbrecht. Different sports for them, but they both emphasized that the ability to clear lactate, and the ability to generate a lot of it quickly, are foundational for endurance performance (so a lot of slow stuff, and some maximal stuff under a minute (say just :30-:40) during the base periods, and you're working on those.

Thanks for this information. This is what Gramin told me to do yesterday for running.
First 15 min base running, then 3x0:15 sprints-R3 two times and then 10 min base.