Tried zone2 for a month, something unxepected happenend

[HornetMaX]

Hi all,

last mid-December I decided to slow down my slow sessions to zone2 but since I've seen my "performance" worsen.

Context:
I'm 49yo amateur, 1m73 70Kg (that's 5'8, 154lbs). I train on the rowerg 4 times per week, and that's all (no other physical activity).
I started rowing on Sep 2021, coming from 10+ years of couch-potatoing (zero physical activity). My min/max HR is 50/183.
My profile/logbook is public (here) so you can have a look of where I stand.

Before zone 2:
Before mid-Dec 2022 my typical week was:

• Tue & Fri: "hard" work, 3x8min with 2min rest, each 8min done with a set stroke rate for each 2min like 20/24/20/24 or 28/26/24/28. Typically I did these with an overall average pace of 1:58-1:59 (my 2K PB is at 1:54).
• Wed & Sun: longer and slower. I used to do 1h sessions but thanks to the Xmas challenge I moved to half-marathons. Typically I did these at ~2:07-2:09 pace, with my HR kept let' say below 160-165.

Going zone 2:
Reading around I found a lot of advice saying "you should do your long sessions slower", so decided to give it a try. Had a quick discussion on this forum (here) and decided to do my half-marathons at a slower pace. Essentially, I tried to keep my HR at 140 max.

Unexpected result:
The 1st time I switched to a "slower" half-marathon (11th Dec 2022, here) I did and avg pace of 2:17 and my HR never (never) exceeded 140. Splits were relatively uniform, HR over the splits too: so this seemed like a pretty steady-state rowing at the time. But since then the pace I can hold in order to keep my HR at 140 max has been constantly creeping up. Examples:

• On 27th Dec I only managed a 2:21 avg pace and my HR had some spikes above 140 (here).
• Today (15th Jan 2023, here) I only managed a 2:21 and my HR didn't stay below 140 at all (I'd say it stayed below 145).

So now I'm a bit confused: should I go back to harder long sessions (that didn't seem to pose me any problem in terms of fatigue) ?

P.S.
In my previous discussion on the topic (here), Tsnor & others kind of predicted my zone 2 pace at 2:25-2:30. I kind of feel I was doing better than this before but I've drifted toward that now that I slowed down my long sessions to stay in zone 2.

P.P.S.
Bit off topic but ... really, really hating how the logbook computes the "average HR". Why ? Just Why ?
It has a plot of the HR for each interval, why not doing the right thing ?
I do understand why the PM5 does it (and even that, I'm not really convinced it should), but the logbook. Why ??

[Sakly]

You are talking about roughly 4h training per week. Go nuts as long as you want to, you shouldn't face any problems with recovery.
These long slow rows are meant to give you no problems with recovery when you are going much hours of training per week.
This week I had 6h 21min on the rower and additional 2 hard gym sessions. If I would go for hard paces all the time, I would not be able to recover well. With 4h only on the rower I would go hard as often as I want to.

PS: new ergdata gives you a proper HR average, but logbook not.

[btlifter]

A primary benefit of Z2 is that you can accumulate a whole lot of work, without destroying yourself.

As Sakly said, at just 4 sessions/week, I wouldn't be spending much time at low intensity

[jamesg]

last mid-December I decided to slow down my slow sessions to zone2 but since I've seen my "performance" worsen.

Heart rate alone is not a good way to control rowing, as your experience demonstrates. Nor is HR even necessary, since the C2 PM shows Watts and Rating directly, with no need for a proxy.

Keep your stroke good, in terms of length and force, at low rates, so that what you do can be called rowing. Long distances and times are not needed. These are best reserved for the woods and hills.

The Power level is then controlled by rating. 20-23 is usually enough for aerobic. If not, improve your stroke.

Useful indices are Watts/Rating and W/kg, since they tell us just what we are doing.

[HornetMaX]

Thx sakly & btlifter, crystal clear.

@jamesg: I'm pretty sure one can row at different watt for a fixed rating and vice versa (ok, within certain limits).
Watt/kg ? Don't see the use for that, except comparing my PB on a given distance to somebody else's. As my weight doesn't change significantly from one week/month to another, watt/kg would be equivalent to looking at watt (which is itself equivalent to looking at pace or final time for a given distance).

[Dangerscouse]

I'm a big advocate of figuring out what works for you, as I've seen lots of examples of the normal suggestions not working for people.

The acid test is that if you're regressing, you need to change what you're doing. Don't keep slavishly following a prescribed method that isn't working.

[GlennUk]

Something i would point out is that the kind of training you are doing is not expected to return big improvements in such a short timespan Mid Dec til now is only about 4 weeks (or did you mean the previous December?).

Sometimes patience is key, my training doesn't involve much Z2, mixing various HR % and i still see improvements after following the regime i do for over 3 years (although to be fair i did start form a very similar base as you).

Whether it is right for you or not i cannot say, but i do believe that you havent given enough time for your body to show the adaptions that i suspect you want.

In passing, there are many people submitting times on the rankings who have been erging for year, and years, and still submit excellent times for a range of distances (by any measure) in their particular age groups. In my view this indicates that erging)rowing requires consistent training input over years rather than months to achieve our max generally.

[HornetMaX]

@GlennUK: True. I knew from the start that this kind of training is supposed to bring results on a longer time span than just a month.
I didn't expect short term gains, but I also didn't expect short term losses.

What puzzles me is that I seem to be doing worse across the board: my slow sessions are getting slower each week (for a fixed HR limit) and my fast sessions are getting slower too (these are sort of all-out, so HR not a concern), or at least I find it really harder than before to hit the same times.
Before that I was kind of slowly improving over time (which is fine), now it seems I'm not-so-slowly worsening.

I'm inclined to go with the advice above (sakly, btlifter, dangerscouse): maybe I didn't need z2 training and I'm actually more in need of something else. Could be, as suggested, that anyway my training volume is not large enough to require z2, or maybe that at the time I should work more on raw force than endurance.

[Sakly]

Perhaps my own experience helps a bit.
I trained bodyweight stuff 3-4/week before I started rowing. This included sessions typically 1 1/2 hours warmup excluded. Very hard strength exercises, very hard intervals, very hard supersets, hardly no easy sessions at all, only when I felt completely dead. Comparable to only hard sessions on the rower 3-4/week. Recovery was no issue, progress was OK, so no reason to change something.
When started rowing I could set a 6:58 2k - a good marker for aerobic capacity and also VO2max capabilities. That shows that no need for Z2 sessions to get a good state of fitness.

Now rowing is a big part of my sports regime. For the last weeks I was on the rower for 60k/week average additionally to the 3 gym sessions which are not less harder than used to. So I definitely have to think about recovery and load/intensity during my rows to not burn out.
Doing so leads to more gains at an already very fit state, I could improve all my times significantly compared to my starting point. Talking about a year on the rower now.

[jamesg]

I'm pretty sure one can row at different watt for a fixed rating and vice versa (ok, within certain limits). Watt/kg ? Don't see the use for that,

They can both be used as training tools: we decide what to do and do it. Since rowing is a sport and can involve racing, it's important to work out just what's needed for any given result.

The C2 erg reduces this to an engineering problem by providing data: length of stroke, handle force, rating.

Afloat, we watch how far the boat goes; on erg, Work.

[mitchel674]

I had a nearly identical experience as the OP when I tried Maffetone training on the rowerg two years ago. I just kept training a slower, weaker stroke on my long rows. I gave up after two months. Clearly not enough time to see results for this type of training, but I realized that I just don't train enough (4-5 hours/week on the erg) to see results from this type of plan. I went back to using RPE for my steady state rows and am much happier with my rowing.

[GlennUk]

@GlennUK: True. I knew from the start that this kind of training is supposed to bring results on a longer time span than just a month.
I didn't expect short term gains, but I also didn't expect short term losses.

What puzzles me is that I seem to be doing worse across the board: my slow sessions are getting slower each week (for a fixed HR limit) and my fast sessions are getting slower too (these are sort of all-out, so HR not a concern), or at least I find it really harder than before to hit the same times.
Before that I was kind of slowly improving over time (which is fine), now it seems I'm not-so-slowly worsening.

I'm inclined to go with the advice above (sakly, btlifter, dangerscouse): maybe I didn't need z2 training and I'm actually more in need of something else. Could be, as suggested, that anyway my training volume is not large enough to require z2, or maybe that at the time I should work more on raw force than endurance.

As food for thought, i dont wat to re-run discussion about the merits of HR training, but its probably right to say that a big factor in determining whether it will work or not is getting good values for your HRmax/RHR too.

I know i did an exercise when i first started using HR based training based on a max value ihad seen doing a recommended test to determine my HRmax value, it was out by about 7bpm. Originally i sued a HRmax value of 176, but then observed during a CTC attempt a value of 183bpm, i found that the difference in performance benefits during training was marked for me.

Interestingly, more recently (within the past month) iu saw 184 on the PM5 so despite doing that original test a couple of years ago. im not going to adjust my values for that 1bpm, but i think the point still stands we need reasonably accurate data if HR training stands any chance of giving the benefits desired.

Whatever you do, hope it works for you in the longer term.

[btlifter]

@GlennUK: True. I knew from the start that this kind of training is supposed to bring results on a longer time span than just a month.
I didn't expect short term gains, but I also didn't expect short term losses.

What puzzles me is that I seem to be doing worse across the board: my slow sessions are getting slower each week (for a fixed HR limit) and my fast sessions are getting slower too (these are sort of all-out, so HR not a concern), or at least I find it really harder than before to hit the same times.
Before that I was kind of slowly improving over time (which is fine), now it seems I'm not-so-slowly worsening.

I'm inclined to go with the advice above (sakly, btlifter, dangerscouse): maybe I didn't need z2 training and I'm actually more in need of something else. Could be, as suggested, that anyway my training volume is not large enough to require z2, or maybe that at the time I should work more on raw force than endurance.

As food for thought, i dont wat to re-run discussion about the merits of HR training, but its probably right to say that a big factor in determining whether it will work or not is getting good values for your HRmax/RHR too.

I know i did an exercise when i first started using HR based training based on a max value ihad seen doing a recommended test to determine my HRmax value, it was out by about 7bpm. Originally i sued a HRmax value of 176, but then observed during a CTC attempt a value of 183bpm, i found that the difference in performance benefits during training was marked for me.

Interestingly, more recently (within the past month) iu saw 184 on the PM5 so despite doing that original test a couple of years ago. im not going to adjust my values for that 1bpm, but i think the point still stands we need reasonably accurate data if HR training stands any chance of giving the benefits desired.

Whatever you do, hope it works for you in the longer term.

I would argue that there's one important exception.

"zone 2" is typically viewed as being an intensity level that is beneath one's ventilatory threshold and also beneath one's first lactate turnpoint. Comveniently, without any advanced metrics or testing, hr *can* be used to determine if one is staying below that intensity threshold: drift.

Assuming a reasonably cool and well-ventilated area, in "zone 2" one's heart rate ought to remain relatively unchanged after about 10 minutes or so (at least for the first hour of exercise). If aomebody's HR is continuing to rise - irrespective of the absolute #s - they have likely surpassed that intensity threshold.

[jamesg]

If HR stays low, lactate is low. This means there will be little or no stimulus to improve lactate removal rate, old cells will die and not be replaced, and fitness will be lost. OP docet.

So there are minimum work rates and volumes needed to guarantee maintenance; if that's what we want.

As if any of this is were a problem for those with ergs. They get on and pull hard; and a bit harder next time. Just like Doggett's Thames watermen, not allowed to race amateurs.

[GlennUk]

If HR stays low, lactate is low. This means there will be little or no stimulus to improve lactate removal rate, old cells will die and not be replaced, and fitness will be lost. OP docet.

So there are minimum work rates and volumes needed to guarantee maintenance; if that's what we want.

In essence, however one determines what the right rate is (HR/RPE/whatever) it has cause the body to adapt to achieve the desired outcomes.

Whatever method you use, the expectation of improvements in ones performance must be realistic and when following particular method there must be time to see those improvements. Basically IMHO< two weeks doesn't seem particularly long to decide whether a plan has merit or not.

I cannot say I saw a reduction in performance when i started following the HR based training plan although i did see greater improvement when i adjusted the various HR values for a given % based on my higher observed value. (For info I was not using the same approach, i dont do long rows at UT2 specifically).

I have been essentially using the same plans for FM/100k training and have consistently seen improvements in performance after more than 2 years of following those plans, which are based on HR values combined with spm. I admit I came from a very low base, not having exercised previously for c.10 years in any meaningful sense of the word.

The point being that a) two weeks is a short timeframe to expect any significant changes good or bad, and b) if the rower has not using the 'right' level of exertion, then this would also explain why there was no improvement/reduction, whatever measure they used to determine the work rate.