Confused about the relationship between UT2, splits, and HR

[MPx]

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?

Ha! Yes...fairly pointless! I do think that there is some science behind training intensities and adaptation effects. The problem is, as you say, we are all different so the change points will be different. Hence for some (by pure chance) % of Max seems to work, for others % of HRR, and some (like Nick I believe) his measured threshold doesn't obey either method. I prefer HRR because it allows me to go harder. Who knows if I went slower (or harder still) I'd actually get better - we never know the counter, only the effect of what we do.

I agree that when I spent a year doing slower SS (having read up on some of the Maffetone stuff after a prompt from Rod) I just trained myself to row slower - so I stopped that! But, although I only do 50k+ a week, I can't do my SS as hard as I used to and recover from it, so now I do 2 or 3 days slow and 2 or 3 days in the grey zone and a couple of hard sessions each week. If I take a day out I drop a grey session.

Anyway interesting thoughts, slightly skewed by our tacit assumption about wanting to improve (or in my case maintain) performance. I had the impression that the OP was specifically wanting to improve Aerobic capacity - not necessarily all round performance at this stage...but I may well be wrong with that impression too.

[ShortAndStout]

Anyway interesting thoughts, slightly skewed by our tacit assumption about wanting to improve (or in my case maintain) performance. I had the impression that the OP was specifically wanting to improve Aerobic capacity - not necessarily all round performance at this stage...but I may well be wrong with that impression too.

To be honest I do want to improve my aerobic capacity, but not in isolation - I'd like to develop it as a contextual part of all round performance and at some point a lower 2k, maybe around 7:30 or lower, but that's for later.

[Dangerscouse]

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?

Ha! Yes...fairly pointless! I do think that there is some science behind training intensities and adaptation effects. The problem is, as you say, we are all different so the change points will be different. Hence for some (by pure chance) % of Max seems to work, for others % of HRR, and some (like Nick I believe) his measured threshold doesn't obey either method. I prefer HRR because it allows me to go harder. Who knows if I went slower (or harder still) I'd actually get better - we never know the counter, only the effect of what we do.

I agree that when I spent a year doing slower SS (having read up on some of the Maffetone stuff after a prompt from Rod) I just trained myself to row slower - so I stopped that! But, although I only do 50k+ a week, I can't do my SS as hard as I used to and recover from it, so now I do 2 or 3 days slow and 2 or 3 days in the grey zone and a couple of hard sessions each week. If I take a day out I drop a grey session.

Anyway interesting thoughts, slightly skewed by our tacit assumption about wanting to improve (or in my case maintain) performance. I had the impression that the OP was specifically wanting to improve Aerobic capacity - not necessarily all round performance at this stage...but I may well be wrong with that impression too.

Good point about Nick, not least because he's the only person I know who definitely knows their MHR, hence why I said 'assumed' for mine.

Like so many things in life, as long as you consistently follow something you'll know what works for you, but you make a great point about not knowing what's possible if you did disrupt the status quo and persevere with something that doesn't feel right to start with.

I also love a grey zone session, despite it being generally frowned upon. Another example of how the perceived best sessions aren't always ideal for everyone.

[Dangerscouse]

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)

Hahaha, fair comment mate

[MPx]

To be honest I do want to improve my aerobic capacity, but not in isolation - I'd like to develop it as a contextual part of all round performance and at some point a lower 2k, maybe around 7:30 or lower, but that's for later.

Ah...OK then just do as Spinal says

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

I'd suggest a PetePlan (choose from Beginner or 2k or 5k - the 5k one may be better to concentrate more on aerobic); or the Wolverine Plan; or the Interactive Plan; or any other that you can find. They all cover the ground to achieve a general improvement from where you are, and the structure helps with knowing what to do and how its working.

[MPx]

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)

Hahaha, fair comment mate

That sounds spot on physiologically...but for me when I tried to do more polarized (no grey zone) training it left too big a gap between SS pace and what I should have been able to do for 5K+ TTs. Mentally I simply didn't believe I could keep going so fast for so long and found that I slowed down... So in my case it did train me to go slower despite still doing the fast interval sessions as fast as before.

[Dangerscouse]

That sounds spot on physiologically...but for me when I tried to do more polarized (no grey zone) training it left too big a gap between SS pace and what I should have been able to do for 5K+ TTs. Mentally I simply didn't believe I could keep going so fast for so long and found that I slowed down... So in my case it did train me to go slower despite still doing the fast interval sessions as fast as before.

I do agree with the mental benefits of doing grey zone training. Keeping within touching distance of your target, whilst not destroying yourself is a good feeling. That's what I perceive the endurance intervals in the Pete Plan to be addressing, but I might be wrong.

Belief, fitness and strength, the trinity of rowing...maybe

[iain]

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)

Hahaha, fair comment mate

4th that, but doesn't address OPs issue. Re %ages, I think generally %HRR is lower than %Max for an estimate of the same zone, but "different authorities" differ on where especially UT2 is. I would also say that how my HR responds varies alot with my state of fitness. THis is particularly so when using %HRMax as this does not adjust to lower resting HR. As the latter reflects the stroke volume, the same HR will become increasingly taxing as fitness improves for the previously more sedentary. Contemplating a 1k yesterday saw my HR at 65% of maximum (around 50% HRR), so not a good indicator of lower activity levels.

[btlifter]

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)

Hahaha, fair comment mate

That sounds spot on physiologically...but for me when I tried to do more polarized (no grey zone) training it left too big a gap between SS pace and what I should have been able to do for 5K+ TTs. Mentally I simply didn't believe I could keep going so fast for so long and found that I slowed down... So in my case it did train me to go slower despite still doing the fast interval sessions as fast as before.

'fast' is relative to the event. For me, typically, fast might mean 500/1k pace. Presently, I'm focusing on my engine though, so my fast sessions are often a lot longer. For example, my next will be 3x5k at somewhere between 10k and 1 hour pace. No need to neglect doing long, tough, work within a polarized approach.

Sorry OP, I've veered twice from the topic now! I generally stay away from these contentious questions, mostly because there is no physiologically, universallly, true answer. There are several reasons for this, not the least of which being that HR is merely a proxy for effort, not a proper measurement of it.

[MPx]

Re %ages, I think generally %HRR is lower than %Max for an estimate of the same zone.

Arithmetically Iain, using %HRR will allow a higher cap than using %Max which is opposite to how I read your words, but I think you know that anyway looking at the context of the rest of your post. My UT2 cap is 131 (%HRR) but would only be 118 if I used %Max.

[iain]

Re %ages, I think generally %HRR is lower than %Max for an estimate of the same zone.

Arithmetically Iain, using %HRR will allow a higher cap than using %Max which is opposite to how I read your words, but I think you know that anyway looking at the context of the rest of your post. My UT2 cap is 131 (%HRR) but would only be 118 if I used %Max.

That is only if the same % is used! There are different %ages quoted by different people, nothing magical about 80% or 70%. I have seen as low as 65% quoted and often 75% for HRR.

[gvcormac]

There's way too much emphasis on % of max HR, whatever the number and however calculated. Use the HR as just one input to gauge your fitness.

If you can talk but not sing, you're in the zone.

You'll see cardiac drift with time. I'm not aware of any evidence you should slow down in response if you maintain constant effort.

There's a dose-response relationship between time, effort, and stimulation. Also inverse between time, effort, and recovery. You're looking for the right balance, and you won't find it in a one-dimensional interpretation of HR.

The research shows that elite athletes are better off doing volume at "low" effort, some race-pace work, and some above-race-pace work.

For regular people, this probably applies as well. The $64K question is what qualifies as "low" effort for regular people. Maffetone and friends are mind-numbingly low.

[jamesg]

The $64K question is what qualifies as "low"

Nothing, until we've learnt to row. Then anything done at rate 20 or lower but with the long, hard, but sustainable stroke we're learning to use.

[Carl Watts]

You can rate as low as you want, it just begins to kill your pace.

I have done plenty of rows at 15-16spm but its not a fluid continuous motion. The realistic minimum is at 17.0spm for what feels like a nice fluid technique for me.

You need to use the stroke counter in ErgData, the rounding in the results is simply no good to use at low ratings.

[iain]

20SPM for me with a full stroke gets me to AT HR in <15min so is definitely NOT "slow". That said, I can row with a continuous stroke at 15 SPM, so plenty of options. I tend to use 17SPM for my longer rows. upto an hour this takes my HR to around 75% HRR, so definitely UT1 territory, but as I struggle to row more than 4 days a week, this gives me enough recovery as long as I sleep well and am not too stressed with my life!