Confused about the relationship between UT2, splits, and HR

[ShortAndStout]

I'm a: 24M 5'7 HR:60-190 200lb, been rowing a few weeks now. 2K pace around 8min, normal workout is 75min UT2, usually go about 15k 4-5x per week. Physique is generally muscular, I'd consider myself reasonably fit.

Alright so here's the issue - my comfortable SS pace is probably 2:25 for a 60+ minute session, maybe a little faster. However, my UT2 band (140ish HR) dictates that I row around 10 seconds slower, like a 2:35, which near the end of a workout needs to drop to 2:45 to keep the same heart rate. That seems very slow when compared to most people I see (even beginners), saying that their split for that heart rate zone is closer to 2:10. Comparison is the thief of joy and all that, I just want to make sure I'm progressing effectively because my times seem way off.

Travis Gardner, in a comment in one of his videos, suggested that a high school beginner female rower should be pulling around a 2:20 steady state if she's really terrible (can't find the exact comment, sorry!). Not gonna lie that one was an ego hit but I'm not really concerned haha.

So what's the problem? I'm not out of shape, so am I really 25 seconds slower than a 14 year old?

Here are a few observations:

• My SPM is usually 22-24 for SS, which apparently is high. Until now I've been doing medium power / medium SPM, not really being explosive.
• My 500m split is 1:45
• 75min sessions are around 2:30 avg split / 148 HR avg, and I often get impatient and go into UT1 at the end
• Cardiac drift gets me bad and about halfway through a session I'll usually need to drop by 5-10s
• According to freespiritsrowing.com, my UT2 band is 132-151 average 142

I don't think my form is to blame since I've been paying special attention to it, but what's the deal with the heartrate? I can hold a conversation to be sure, I just wonder why my conversational split is almost a minute behind what seems to be a pretty average pace around here.

[Citroen]

Those numbers you've created for UT2, UT1, etc. are a guideline they aren't hard & fast, they will change as you get fitter.

So you've a few choices.

• Carry on doing what you're doing.
• Recalculate the numbers.
• Ignore the numbers.
• Stick rigidly to the numbers.

My choice would be #1 with #2 in a few weeks time.

[mitchel674]

Your numbers sound eerily like mine.

I abandoned strict heart rate training after a failed attempt to do my long steady state pieces strictly in the UT2 zone. After two months, I realized I was merely training a weaker stroke. I also do not do enough volume to really benefit from this type of training since I typically row 40k per week. Cardiac drift gets me bad too. I can keep my HR low for the first third of a 12k, but my HR drifts up and stays higher for the rest of the piece despite little change in rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and steady pace. I now row these just to my RPE and pace. While I do track my HR, it's merely for my own interest. YMMV.

[Dangerscouse]

From what I have seen HR is quite a broad issue. It's easy to compartmentalise it and think that there are strict boundaries for everyone, and if you don't fit in, something is wrong.

I generally have a low HR, and I don't suffer from cardiac drift but I know of others who are really good rowers who have the opposite.

As you're quite muscular maybe dropping down to r18-20 might be beneficial as it's possible your aerobic fitness isn't sufficiently developed yet, and youll be better served relying on strength atm. Rowing fitness and general fitness quite often aren't aligned, which can be an issue for the ego as it's difficult to become a beginner when you're used to being generally active, or maybe very good at something else.

I agree with Mitchel and using RPE can sometimes be a better gauge of effort. If it feels too fast / hard then it probably is, but don't always believe that HR is the only measure of effort.

If you're still able to

[ShortAndStout]

Your numbers sound eerily like mine.

I abandoned strict heart rate training after a failed attempt to do my long steady state pieces strictly in the UT2 zone. After two months, I realized I was merely training a weaker stroke. I also do not do enough volume to really benefit from this type of training since I typically row 40k per week. Cardiac drift gets me bad too. I can keep my HR low for the first third of a 12k, but my HR drifts up and stays higher for the rest of the piece despite little change in rate of perceived exertion (RPE) and steady pace. I now row these just to my RPE and pace. While I do track my HR, it's merely for my own interest. YMMV.

What RPE are you going at? I think I'll start ignoring HR for now and see how that feels. Some people say RPE 7 but for a long session 5 or even 4 seems more appropriate

[MPx]

At 200pounds, you're a relatively big guy in a relatively short frame. Your 8min 2k shows that you have some power available and the fact that you can sustain an hour shows that there is some fitness there. The HR stuff is suggesting that your aerobic fitness is lower than you think - but so much of that is dependent on how confident you are about your HR numbers particularly MaxHR. Unless its an observed max from a test, I'd suggest the number you currently use as max is wrong. The rule of thumb for appropriate SS pace is 2k + 20 to 25 - but we are all different. Nevertheless you say you're confortable for an hour in line with this guide.

My only other point is as Mitchel said - do you do enough to worry about it? Probably not at 4 sessions a week, although 15k is a significant outing.
Much of the reason SS is prescribed at low pace/HR is so that you can easily recover from the session leaving you fresh enough to go for it in your hard sessions. If you're either not doing hard sessions or only do them sufficiently infrequently that you're recovered anyway, then ignore the mantra and just let rip.

[ShortAndStout]

...If you're either not doing hard sessions or only do them sufficiently infrequently that you're recovered anyway, then ignore the mantra and just let rip.

First of all: yes my aerobic base is garbage! Running is very hard for me, and has been for my whole life. So that's definitely something I want to target.
And: Today I did a better test and got my HR up to 201, so that's my new max.

A lot of what I'm seeing seems to suggest that the heartrate way of doing things is not really a great measure of performance. Today I did a 47 minute SS at 2:13 (10.6k) at what I'd consider an RPE 7, so sweaty and capable of speaking a sentence or two here and there. I also brought my stroke rate down significantly, like 16-17 range instead of 23-24.

HR today was an average of 178 though so I'm worried about whether that's training my aerobic base or not. My aerobic base is what's suffering I think, so I'd like to target that and bring my HR down which I can't do if I'm at almost 180, right? Even if I can have a shorter conversation at that pace.

[Carl Watts]

This is what I used like a Bible when I first started.

https://www.freespiritsrowing.com/forum ... calculator

All the information you will ever need.

[MPx]

HR today was an average of 178 though so I'm worried about whether that's training my aerobic base or not. My aerobic base is what's suffering I think, so I'd like to target that and bring my HR down which I can't do if I'm at almost 180, right? Even if I can have a shorter conversation at that pace.

You're very probably right. Its certainly true that above a certain threshold the muscles use different fuel sources. Aerobic fitness is developed at the lowest levels of performance and these are often referred to as Utility 2 and 1. Its important when training specific zones not to stray outside otherwise the changes occur and you don't get the training effect that you were after. The difficulty is knowing where your zones are. HR zones are a good guess - but doing blood tests while exercising is the only way of knowing for you as an individual. So if its really important to you, then get along to a sport university and get them to measure your zones. If you're happy to go along with the HR stuff then you should aim to stay below your UT1 cap. Some calc that as a straight 80% of max, while others use 80% of your Heart Rate Range (Max minus Resting) added to RestingHR. Since everyone knows its a guess, to make it more likely that you stay within the zone people often use 75% as a cap....while others (particularly the strong Maffetone advocates) say there's no aerobic benefit in going close to threshold, so just keep well within UT2 - ie less than 70% so you can be sure that you're doing aerobic training.

As you've seen, aerobic only training means very long very slow sessions and you have to do them over many months (even years) to get real significant change. That's not always a lot of fun and wont do your ego any good. I suggest still mixing in at least one (but no more than 2) hard interval sessions per week so that you have something to try to get better at more quickly while playing the long game on aerobic fitness.

Oh and edited to add that you should look at the Max HR number as the significant one of the piece not the avg - avg is fairly meaningless. Once you stray over a cap the changes will have started and you'll no longer be training the way you were.

[p_b82]

When I first started HR drift was very similar to you, I'd start a piece and then have to massively drop the pace to keep below my target.

While I don't do enough rowing to worry about over-load, I found that working 80-90% MHHR for long periods has significantly helped my HR drift on the slower pieces & with experience I've been able to gauge much better a pace I can hold at a desired HR +-5 bpm.

Like a few others, I realised that I was just training myself to row slowly by trying to keep my HR down - so now I push myself to 80-95% on almost all my sessions regardless of the distance I'm doing, and as a result my pace is coming down for the same observed physical responses and RPE. Might not be the "best" approach, but it works for me and my schedule.

Also pushing myself harder for longer via HR, taught me that I was able to sustain much higher HR levels than I anticipated, which helped me set higher paces on the TT's; I did a 14k session at 90-95% MHR and it only felt like a 70% effort. The mental game in rowing is a big part of it.

[iain]

HR is a marmite topic, so you won't get any consensus. I a yet to see any evidence that aerobic fitness improves quicker from the slow sessions (although it may well be the case that these help to increase the proportion of fat burned, unless you are doing ultra-marathons, burning through glycogen reserves in exercise means that the fat is still burned, just during the rest of the day's activities!). As a result, I use HR to compare slower sessions and to help me to recover before/after demanding sessions. Also I think it is better not to slow down during a session, but to start at a pace you can maintain or improve. I try to do SS at a pace that I will top out at around 85% HRmax, but don't worry if I exceed this, just slow the next session.

Having said this there are many would consider this seriously wrong, I am yet to receive a convincing study to prove there point (training 5 times a week needn't be proportional to those training 13 times and probably needs to be someone a bit closer to my age / fitness level than most).

Most of all, do what you will continue with and best of luck in your journey.

[Dangerscouse]

Oh and edited to add that you should look at the Max HR number as the significant one of the piece not the avg - avg is fairly meaningless. Once you stray over a cap the changes will have started and you'll no longer be training the way you were.

Just out of curiosity, do you not think that it's fairly pointless? As an example, if I rowed at 80% of (assumed) max HR, it would be 141, but if I rowed using HRR and 80%, it would be 149. The difference is even bigger at 70% in my case (123 compared to 136).

Surely, there has to be only one version of the truth, rather than whatever your preferred method of calculation is, as they both can't be right? The difference in my 70% ranges was why I stopped using HRR. 136 as 70% is too high for me from my experience.

I'm of the opinion that these rules are far too strict for the vagaries of the human body. Every day we feel different, i.e., energetic, tired, stronger or weaker, and surely evolution will have smoothed out the tipping points in this type of issue? I can't see that there's any benefit to a 'cliff edge' change, and nature very rarely does things without a solid reason. Just my thoughts and YMMV.

[Dangerscouse]

HR is a marmite topic, so you won't get any consensus. I a yet to see any evidence that aerobic fitness improves quicker from the slow sessions (although it may well be the case that these help to increase the proportion of fat burned, unless you are doing ultra-marathons, burning through glycogen reserves in exercise means that the fat is still burned, just during the rest of the day's activities!). As a result, I use HR to compare slower sessions and to help me to recover before/after demanding sessions. Also I think it is better not to slow down during a session, but to start at a pace you can maintain or improve. I try to do SS at a pace that I will top out at around 85% HRmax, but don't worry if I exceed this, just slow the next session.

Having said this there are many would consider this seriously wrong, I am yet to receive a convincing study to prove there point (training 5 times a week needn't be proportional to those training 13 times and probably needs to be someone a bit closer to my age / fitness level than most).

Most of all, do what you will continue with and best of luck in your journey.

Agreed. I did the vast majority of my training post Covid at low 70%s, and that was for about 10-11 months, but it didn't have any demonstrable benefits when I started to increase the intensity. As mentioned by others, I was just better at rowing slower.

I'm very open minded in all things, but especially in my rowing training, and I always conclude there is only what's right for you for virtually everything. Try it for 6-8 weeks, analyse, assess, and adjust, and don't be afraid to try something that isn't prescribed as being the right way of doing things.

[Spinal]

Follow a properly structured training program, train consistently and improve the numbers on the monitor and your HR will look after itself.

[btlifter]

HR is a marmite topic, so you won't get any consensus. I a yet to see any evidence that aerobic fitness improves quicker from the slow sessions (although it may well be the case that these help to increase the proportion of fat burned, unless you are doing ultra-marathons, burning through glycogen reserves in exercise means that the fat is still burned, just during the rest of the day's activities!). As a result, I use HR to compare slower sessions and to help me to recover before/after demanding sessions. Also I think it is better not to slow down during a session, but to start at a pace you can maintain or improve. I try to do SS at a pace that I will top out at around 85% HRmax, but don't worry if I exceed this, just slow the next session.

Having said this there are many would consider this seriously wrong, I am yet to receive a convincing study to prove there point (training 5 times a week needn't be proportional to those training 13 times and probably needs to be someone a bit closer to my age / fitness level than most).

Most of all, do what you will continue with and best of luck in your journey.

Agreed. I did the vast majority of my training post Covid at low 70%s, and that was for about 10-11 months, but it didn't have any demonstrable benefits when I started to increase the intensity. As mentioned by others, I was just better at rowing slower.

I'm very open minded in all things, but especially in my rowing training, and I always conclude there is only what's right for you for virtually everything. Try it for 6-8 weeks, analyse, assess, and adjust, and don't be afraid to try something that isn't prescribed as being the right way of doing things.

Training slowly will not make you faster. Training slowly will also not make you slower.

Training slowly but neglecting to also train faster will make you slower though. And training slowly, and also training fastly, will make you fastlyer than training fastly alone.

(I guess these are not universal truths, but they're pretty dang close)