Is this zone 2 ?

[Tony Cook]

You can use HR, Rating or Watts/Pace to define Zones, as you wish. Rate 20 would be borderline Zone 1/2.

But why bother, it's just using another name for Rate 20, this is rowing. What matters is not what it's called, but what you did. Which was 160W at 20 so Work 8W-min on 70kg body mass, 2.3W/kg.

Rate 20 could be done in any zone. I can rate at 20 for an hour in UT2 zone whereas my R20 for 30 mins takes to max heart rate.

[btlifter]

You can use HR, Rating or Watts/Pace to define Zones, as you wish. Rate 20 would be borderline Zone 1/2.

But why bother, it's just using another name for Rate 20, this is rowing. What matters is not what it's called, but what you did. Which was 160W at 20 so Work 8W-min on 70kg body mass, 2.3W/kg.

Rate 20 could be done in any zone. I can rate at 20 for an hour in UT2 zone whereas my R20 for 30 mins takes to max heart rate.

This^

[jamesg]

I can rate at 20 for an hour in UT2 zone whereas my R20 for 30 mins takes to max heart rate.

The 30/20m is a test done for specific reasons, seat racing or similar. Since rowing uses the legs, it's nomal for strength to be easily capable of overloading our CV capability, even at low rates.

In any case, we adopt one logic, or another, not all at the same time. I say that if I rate 20 using my basic stroke, it's borderline UT2/1. Where HR goes is irrelevant, so long as it's high. It'll drift, so I wouldn't know what number to use anyway.

If you decide to stay within any give HR band, how do you do that? What's the point?

[btlifter]

I can rate at 20 for an hour in UT2 zone whereas my R20 for 30 mins takes to max heart rate.

The 30/20m is a test done for specific reasons, seat racing or similar. Since rowing uses the legs, it's nomal for strength to be easily capable of overloading our CV capability, even at low rates.

In any case, we adopt one logic, or another, not all at the same time. I say that if I rate 20 using my basic stroke, it's borderline UT2/1. Where HR goes is irrelevant, so long as it's high. It'll drift, so I wouldn't know what number to use anyway.

If you decide to stay within any give HR band, how do you do that? What's the point?

Well, the point (for me) is to target specific energy-system adaptations. I'm not really concerned about the strength of my stroke.

[jackarabit]

The five zone HR calc that accompanied the now defunct Indoor Sports Services’ Interactive Training Plans encouraged the inference that a range of percentages of test power [typically 2K watt av.] OR a range of percentages of HR reserve + resting marked zone boundaries and were essentially interchangeable. Anyone have a problem with that?

I submit that UT2 evolved from an OTW cherry training that emphasised nuanced mechanics and discipline (self control feedback loop) in unison sweep rowing. Transitioning from UT2 to UT1 should be as natural for the body as warming engine oil to cruising temperature. Far greater hazards are encountered because accumulated time at ceiling UT1 or above feels soooo rewarding to strivers. Blessed are the lazy for they shall not tarry in AT zone but proceed posthaste to the hard stuff mentioned by Elizabeth. If AT is difficult to pin down without jabs haha, don’t flirt with it.

[MartinSH4321]

You can use HR, Rating or Watts/Pace to define Zones, as you wish. Rate 20 would be borderline Zone 1/2.

But why bother, it's just using another name for Rate 20, this is rowing. What matters is not what it's called, but what you did. Which was 160W at 20 so Work 8W-min on 70kg body mass, 2.3W/kg.

Rate 20 could be done in any zone. I can rate at 20 for an hour in UT2 zone whereas my R20 for 30 mins takes to max heart rate.

This and

I can rate at 20 for an hour in UT2 zone whereas my R20 for 30 mins takes to max heart rate.

The 30/20m is a test done for specific reasons, seat racing or similar. Since rowing uses the legs, it's nomal for strength to be easily capable of overloading our CV capability, even at low rates.

In any case, we adopt one logic, or another, not all at the same time. I say that if I rate 20 using my basic stroke, it's borderline UT2/1. Where HR goes is irrelevant, so long as it's high. It'll drift, so I wouldn't know what number to use anyway.

If you decide to stay within any give HR band, how do you do that? What's the point?

Well, the point (for me) is to target specific energy-system adaptations. I'm not really concerned about the strength of my stroke.

This

[HornetMaX]

OK, I did another HM today (damn you, Holiday Challenge; aiming for the 200K and have to do it before the 19th Dec ...).
Log here, in a nutshell: avg power / HR / pace = 135W / 137 bpm / 2:17.3

Let's say I'm willing to stick to this sort of zone for my 2 slow sessions per week: assuming there will be some, how do I monitor progress ?

Should I fix a pace (2:17 or even 2:18) and see the avg HR go down over time due to adaptation (I know it takes time, like 2 months) ?

[Tsnor]

OK, I did another HM today (damn you, Holiday Challenge; aiming for the 200K and have to do it before the 19th Dec ...).
Log here, in a nutshell: avg power / HR / pace = 135W / 137 bpm / 2:17.3

Let's say I'm willing to stick to this sort of zone for my 2 slow sessions per week: assuming there will be some, how do I monitor progress ?

Should I fix a pace (2:17 or even 2:18) and see the avg HR go down over time due to adaptation (I know it takes time, like 2 months) ?

Goals of long/low effort rows are
(1) physical adaptations that don't seem to take place at higher loads over shorter duration and
(2) ability to do more hours of work without getting overreach/overtraining symptoms.

Heart rate zones are a guide to getting to a low enough effort level. There are other guides like heart rate drift, ability to speak in sentences, etc.

Double check that (2:17 or even 2:18) / 135 watts is in the long/slow zone for you. It's pretty fast for long/slow. Your 2K is a respectable 7:36, I'd guess your zone 2 split on an hour row is 2:25 to 2:35. (this is speculation, so if you meet the other tests for zone 2 (in a 5 zone model) then use the 2:17). This was a half marathon so you have a lot of data. Compare your heart rate to wattage ratio at 30 mins to heart rate to wattage ratio 45, 60, 90 minutes in. This ratio should not be drifting up to higher heart rate for the same wattage or you are going too hard for zone 2. Talk to yourself and see if you run out of breath. It's very easy to do long/slow too fast. Sometimes this compare is obvious from the graphs -- if the split line is constant/dropping and the HR line is rising than it's not zone 2. The graphs have the advantage of reflecting all strokes, not just the last stroke in an interval.

Monitor progress by your improvements in the other pieces you do, not by improvements in your long/slow. If you start aggressively tracking splits at HR for long slow you will start playing games (breathing rates, stroke rates, stroke length, meditation) to get your HR down... and HR is a measure of stress, not the actual stress. If you trick your heart rate then you still end up with the stress that you were trying to avoid. For example, try to hold that 2:17 at 12 strokes per minute -- your heart rate will only go up a little but your legs will be sore the next day from the increased per stroke effort - definitely not a zone 2 no stress workout, same as a very short interval with a long rest period -- heart rate can't be used as a measure of stress for those either. Aside think 6-18 months for seeing long/slow adaptation. Doing HIIT gets results in 6 weeks. Doing long slow is much slower.

"Should I fix a pace (2:17 or even 2:18)..." Suggest you keep zone 2 internal effort constant (heart rate, breathing rate, etc.) and increase the external effort level (splits/wattage) as you get stronger as long as you are meeting all the criteria for long/slow. There is a lot of discussion on "how slow is too slow?" but not a lot of data (maybe someone else has seen some). Suggest you not fix the pace/split so that you can move the split around to match the internal effort level you are targeting (zone 2). If you are getting sick you need to let your split be slower. If you are well rested after a day off and good sleep the no-stress split at the same heart rate will be faster.

[HornetMaX]

Thx Tsnor, very useful.

I train 4-5 hours/week, no time for more: I'm just an amateur and can't dedicate more time to training.
That said, even when I used to do harder long sessions (e.g. 1hr at 2:07 pace, twice a week), fatigue during the week was not a problem.
But I guess I was close to, as increasing my long&slow sessions from 2x1hr @ 2:07 to 2xHM @ 2:07 I felt occasionally tired.

Double check that (2:17 or even 2:18) / 135 watts is in the long/slow zone for you. It's pretty fast for long/slow. Your 2K is a respectable 7:36, I'd guess your zone 2 split on an hour row is 2:25 to 2:35. (this is speculation, so if you meet the other tests for zone 2 (in a 5 zone model) then use the 2:17). This was a half marathon so you have a lot of data. Compare your heart rate to wattage ratio at 30 mins to heart rate to wattage ratio 45, 60, 90 minutes in. This ratio should not be drifting up to higher heart rate for the same wattage or you are going too hard for zone 2.

From the HM I did today (here) I'd say 2:18 seems to be OK: I started a bit optimistic (2:15 1st 2K split), but then drifted to a more comfy 2:18 and HR shows a tiny tiny drift over the 96 (++!!) minutes. Probably 2:20 is really flat but damn, it's becoming harder to slot these sessions in my remote working lunch break

P.S.
Thanks also for considering a 7:36 2K respectable. Much appreciated

[Tsnor]

I train 4-5 hours/week

You should be good to go at any long pace you feel like using! Nice. Ignore what I said earlier.

[Dangerscouse]

If you start aggressively tracking splits at HR for long slow you will start playing games (breathing rates, stroke rates, stroke length, meditation) to get your HR down... and HR is a measure of stress, not the actual stress. If you trick your heart rate then you still end up with the stress that you were trying to avoid.

I'm a bit conflicted with your comment. There is truth in it, but I notice that my HR can increase due to errant / stressful thoughts, if I glance at the monitor at a bad moment before the end of the split, or at the end of the session: if I realise it's almost done, it regularly jumps by 3 or 4 bpm at the end.

Clearly there is no stress in terms of physical loading, it's purely mental stress as it will drop back down if I carry on and it was linked to that moment in time.

As long as you consistently use a basis of measurement I'd suggest that it's as relevant as not using any method to control your HR, mainly due to the hormonal balance inducing eustress rather than cortisol taking over, albeit we are talking relatively minimal amounts, but they matter over the longer term.

IME, the ability to zone out has significantly improved my ability to row for longer and more regularly. I've not seen any downside to it at all, especially when general life / work stress is getting more prominent.

I'd also add that zoned out rowing gives the added, and notable benefit of being able to focus internally and notice when, amongst other things, breathing is too shallow, the stroke is shortened and shoulders are too tense. All of these things will unnecessarily leak power with no added benefit to pace or effort.

[Tsnor]

If you start aggressively tracking splits at HR for long slow you will start playing games (breathing rates, stroke rates, stroke length, meditation) to get your HR down... and HR is a measure of stress, not the actual stress. If you trick your heart rate then you still end up with the stress that you were trying to avoid.

I'm a bit conflicted with your comment. There is truth in it, but I notice that my HR can increase due to errant / stressful thoughts, if I glance at the monitor at a bad moment before the end of the split, or at the end of the session: if I realise it's almost done, it regularly jumps by 3 or 4 bpm at the end.

Clearly there is no stress in terms of physical loading, it's purely mental stress as it will drop back down if I carry on and it was linked to that moment in time.

Think that stress is stress, doesn't matter if it's caused by worrying about your job, your kids or by physical activity, lack of sleep, prior workouts, etc.

In the context of the thread titled "Is this zone 2 ?", the point above is don't intentionally use tricks to lower your heart rate to get into a "stress safe zone", "zone 2". You can lower your heart rate without really changing the actual stress your heart rate is tracking. Not a good way to stay in zone 2. You can also pick high stress workouts that have low heart rates -- those are also not low stress zone 2 workouts.

As long as you consistently use a basis of measurement I'd suggest that it's as relevant as not using any method to control your HR, mainly due to the hormonal balance inducing eustress rather than cortisol taking over, albeit we are talking relatively minimal amounts, but they matter over the longer term.

Goal is a low stress zone 2 workout, not a particular heart rate. Agree with you that if you do something to bias your heart rate then adjust your target heart rate based on the impact of your behavior then that will work.

But if you are using population averages (like "under 70% max HR is zone 2") and you do something unique to you that makes your HR lower for a given stress level than you need to adjust your HR target. Another example, if you are on beta blockers your HR will be different than typical (lower resting, lower rise under load). Don't use population average heart rate for your zone targets when on beta blockers, when you are doing breathing exercises, etc.

IME, the ability to zone out has significantly improved my ability to row for longer and more regularly. I've not seen any downside to it at all, especially when general life / work stress is getting more prominent.

Strongly agree with you here. Without zoning out to an audio book or music or just other thoughts I'd never make it through long workouts.

The point I was trying to make was about gaming your heart rate. You can do it pretty easily short term. For example just by forcing deep heavy breathes. Staying in zone by breathing games is not the same as zoning out, its almost the opposite. To game your HR you need to focus on your split/HR and take actions to control that measure. It would have been much clearer if I had left "meditation" off the list of techniques for gaming breathing.

I'd also add that zoned out rowing gives the added, and notable benefit of being able to focus internally and notice when, amongst other things, breathing is too shallow, the stroke is shortened and shoulders are too tense. All of these things will unnecessarily leak power with no added benefit to pace or effort.

I don't notice breathing or stroke length or my rowing form at all when I'm zoned out to music or a good book. I mostly count on muscle memory to keep the strokes ok. Everyone's different. Or your zoned out may be a lot different than mine.

[btlifter]

I don't notice breathing or stroke length or my rowing form at all when I'm zoned out to music or a good book. I mostly count on muscle memory to keep the strokes ok. Everyone's different. Or your zoned out may be a lot different than mine.

At risk of getting buried in semantics, I would suggest that you two are referring to notably different psychological states.

I'd probably actually language what Stu's referring to as "zoning in" (into interoception). A close cousin of a "flow" state. That would be my preferred Z2 psychological state, too. Though admittedly, more frequently I'm in a state similar to Tsnor's description. A little bit dissociated.

Either/both state can be useful, and can be part if z2!

[Dangerscouse]

I don't notice breathing or stroke length or my rowing form at all when I'm zoned out to music or a good book. I mostly count on muscle memory to keep the strokes ok. Everyone's different. Or your zoned out may be a lot different than mine.

As you say we are all different, but I never use a row to zone out so much that I don't give it any thought at all. There's quite a lot of useful information that can shepherded in the right direction for current and future sessions.

I'm regularly interrogating what's happening as muscle memory, IME, can give you a constant SPM and pace, but there's a lack of automatic control for tense shoulders and clipped breathing as an example.

[GlennUk]

I can rate at 20 for an hour in UT2 zone whereas my R20 for 30 mins takes to max heart rate.

If you decide to stay within any give HR band, how do you do that? What's the point?

Well, the point (for me) is to target specific energy-system adaptations. I'm not really concerned about the strength of my stroke.

Isn't the point that with following a training plan, whatever metric one uses RPE/HR/spm/watts that using a consistent metric (or series of metrics) that one uses those as a benchmark a) to train with, and b) to determine whether the training is having the desired effect.

What metrics to use is a matter of personal choice, one might even argue, a matter of 'faith' given that different, highly respect coaches may not agree on the individual details of a given approach, or even how to measure a particular metric, HR values being a case in point. I use absolute values/percentages which have worked for me, others use HR reserve which no doubt work for them.

I understand that for each individual the specifics will vary to achieve certain types of training effect, but as the op set out at the start, they understand that to define that in a quantifiable manner requires lab testing, and if my understanding is correct, it needs to be done regularly throughout training for it to be reliable anyway.