Heart rate confusion!

[Elizabeth]

No worry, any heart rate will do. However if a beginner, to get it up you need to learn how rowing is done.

You possibly missed my post just a couple up - I'm new to the HR monitor, not to rowing

And whilst I'm appreciative of all the advice, I'm still none the wiser on what the definition of UT2 is.

There seems to be 2 definitions (detailed above) - but both can't be right.

So putting aside any advice on how I should be doing my training, can anyone advise what the official definition / calculation of 'UT2' is?

I typically see UT2 stated in the context of heart rate reserve, and Z2 (zone 2) in the context of a 5-zone system based on max HR. You will also hear the term steady state, which may refer to these or may refer to something else. Clear as mud.

You said no training advice, but I'd recommend getting an observed "max" HR, choosing a system, and then reevaluating the system if at some point you feel like your recovery is struggling or you feel like you're not able to hit your hard stuff adequately hard. The exact details probably matter less than that last part.

[btlifter]

No worry, any heart rate will do. However if a beginner, to get it up you need to learn how rowing is done.

You possibly missed my post just a couple up - I'm new to the HR monitor, not to rowing

And whilst I'm appreciative of all the advice, I'm still none the wiser on what the definition of UT2 is.

There seems to be 2 definitions (detailed above) - but both can't be right.

So putting aside any advice on how I should be doing my training, can anyone advise what the official definition / calculation of 'UT2' is?

I typically see UT2 stated in the context of heart rate reserve, and Z2 (zone 2) in the context of a 5-zone system based on max HR. You will also hear the term steady state, which may refer to these or may refer to something else. Clear as mud.

You said no training advice, but I'd recommend getting an observed "max" HR, choosing a system, and then reevaluating the system if at some point you feel like your recovery is struggling or you feel like you're not able to hit your hard stuff adequately hard. The exact details probably matter less than that last part.

There is confusion because... "UT2" is a make believe zone with no actual basis in physiology. Defining the zone is as futile as defining what an ocean is. Interpret it as you please and have a nice time.

[jamesg]

You possibly missed my post just a couple up - I'm new to the HR monitor, not to rowing

Yes, sorry. If an old hand you'll know that rowing involves pulling long hard strokes. You won't need a chest belt to know what happens to us when doing that. To limit the effects (all of them, not just HR) keep the rating down: 20 for UT2, 23 for UT1.

NB chest belts measure electric pulses, not heart beats. My watch occasionally locked up at 240, not much help when the doc told me to stay below 120. So I just keep the rate down.

[Rowan McSheen]

Since rating was mentioned ...

In his guidance to the full-fat Pete Plan, the man himself writes of the longer pieces: "I recommend a minimum of 22spm, and for general “steady” distance work a maximum of 25spm."

That to me equals UT1, generally 22-24 spm, and the pace guidance throughout the Beginner Pete Plan indicates the same here as well. Beginner in this context means someone who is new to erging but pretty fit already from other activities (imho, from observation).

UT2 is generally 18-20 spm and effort level 5-6/10, conversational pace. If you were to row a couple of 30-45 minute sessions at this perceived level I reckon the average hr at the end would be 1/2 to 3/4 the way up your UT2 band. Eg, when I do UT2 (which I do by hr) I usually end up with an average of around 110-115. My band, based on what I think is an accurate max reading, is 100-120 bpm.

[Elizabeth]

Honestly I feel like talking about rating is distracting from the question of "how is UT2 defined". I have literally seen heart rates ranging from 110 to 190 at rate 20. That does not make all of those UT2. However, when I am trying to hit a Z2/UT2/steady state/green effort, I usually aim for a stroke rate between 16 and 20. But the intensity is what defines it, even if the definition is a bit nebulous.

I would tell Cam to go read Jacobellis vs Ohio, but he would respond that I don't even know what an ocean is. And I don't have an argument there.

[btlifter]

Honestly I feel like talking about rating is distracting from the question of "how is UT2 defined". I have literally seen heart rates ranging from 110 to 190 at rate 20. That does not make all of those UT2. However, when I am trying to hit a Z2/UT2/steady state/green effort, I usually aim for a stroke rate between 16 and 20. But the intensity is what defines it, even if the definition is a bit nebulous.

I would tell Cam to go read Jacobellis vs Ohio, but he would respond that I don't even know what an ocean is. And I don't have an argument there.

I would argue that 'utilizing' UT2 as a training tool is more obscene than most pornography.

[Dangerscouse]

Honestly I feel like talking about rating is distracting from the question of "how is UT2 defined". I have literally seen heart rates ranging from 110 to 190 at rate 20. That does not make all of those UT2. However, when I am trying to hit a Z2/UT2/steady state/green effort, I usually aim for a stroke rate between 16 and 20. But the intensity is what defines it, even if the definition is a bit nebulous.

+1

Stroke rate is a means to an end, rather than an end in and of itself. I need to do a 30r20 this month, and I can guarantee that it will be no way near UT2.

IIRC, Iain mentioned that Pete's suggestion of r22+ is, at least partly, subjective due to his height (i think he's 5'10", so he will benefit from a higher stroke rate, at least theoretically).

I'm not convinced that there's a strong rationale to adhere to this for any type of session. I've tried it, and I didn't notice any benefit, specifically relating to stroke rate, and I'm far more inclined to pick a stroke rate that feels natural/ comfortable on any given day. As Elizabeth says, I'm far more concerned about intensity.

[nick rockliff]

Honestly I feel like talking about rating is distracting from the question of "how is UT2 defined". I have literally seen heart rates ranging from 110 to 190 at rate 20. That does not make all of those UT2. However, when I am trying to hit a Z2/UT2/steady state/green effort, I usually aim for a stroke rate between 16 and 20. But the intensity is what defines it, even if the definition is a bit nebulous.

+1

Stroke rate is a means to an end, rather than an end in and of itself. I need to do a 30r20 this month, and I can guarantee that it will be no way near UT2.

IIRC, Iain mentioned that Pete's suggestion of r22+ is, at least partly, subjective due to his height (i think he's 5'10", so he will benefit from a higher stroke rate, at least theoretically).

I'm not convinced that there's a strong rationale to adhere to this for any type of session. I've tried it, and I didn't notice any benefit, specifically relating to stroke rate, and I'm far more inclined to pick a stroke rate that feels natural/ comfortable on any given day. As Elizabeth says, I'm far more concerned about intensit

UT2 as a training zone was explained to me by the staff of the sports science department at Sheffield Hallam University when used in conjunction with blood lactate profile step test and vo2max step test. Was all pretty simple to understand. Can't remember discussing oceans though.

[MPx]

So putting aside any advice on how I should be doing my training, can anyone advise what the official definition / calculation of 'UT2' is?

You're asking the impossible I'm afraid Michael. If you choose to research further there are loads of papers published as Science that use versions of the terms and claim to offer useful insights through their measurement. What you quickly realise is that there's no access to some universal truth, and many of the theories are put forward on the basis of an asserted equivalence. eg there are measurably typically 2 lactate inflection points in most people, which in most people is equivalent to about 2 mM/L and 4mM/L. Its asserted that training below the first inflection point (LT1) is aerobic, between is a mix , and above LT2 purely anaerobic (and short lived!) - is that fact or convenient assumption? Then there's other complications about which energy systems are in use at different points and so on.

If you're prepared to believe that then the Lactate Threshold (LT1) is the critical point and needs measuring as we're all different. But because we don't all live near a supportive sports science universty other methods of equivalence have been asserted based on HR. The LT1 inflection point is believed to be at around 80% of MaxHR. Getting a true MaxHR is difficult and to an extent painful so again there are all sorts of formulae that purport to being near enough. They aren't! Anyway Below LT1 is defined as the utilisation zone. That utilisation zone has been further boken down into (at least) 3 sub-zones UT1/2/3 with UT3 being the lowest HR level and sometimes called the fat burning zone (which is again hotly refuted by some!). UT1 is the 10% nearest to the LT1 inflection point so most likely to not be accurate in terms of definitely staying aerobic, so UT2 is the safer place to train "aerobically" as its intense enough to have a reasonable effect, but not too close to LT1 so not likely to miss the point. So now we're at the point of knowing that we don't actually know the correct base numbers and all of the calculations based on them are akin to random number generators. In the end you just pick the one that suits you, but keep in mind its really about trying to work aerobically vs not. The Maffetone people see no benefit in getting close to the threshold, so advocate lower HRs for steady state - but some of us (like me) prefer to try for as high a rate as I think I can sustain which means the HRR based calculation. So UT2 is a guess about a guessed heart rate range that may be equivalent to the point before your lactate threshold which may mean you're training purely aerobically which may have some benefits - but of course none of that is proven fact.

For most goals (but not all) you also need to train above LT1 and even LT2 occasionally. That's easier to define - its stuff you cant keep doing for so long.

HTH

[iain]

So putting aside any advice on how I should be doing my training, can anyone advise what the official definition / calculation of 'UT2' is?

You're asking the impossible I'm afraid Michael. If you choose to research further there are loads of papers published as Science that use versions of the terms and claim to offer useful insights through their measurement. What you quickly realise is that there's no access to some universal truth, and many of the theories are put forward on the basis of an asserted equivalence. eg there are measurably typically 2 lactate inflection points in most people, which in most people is equivalent to about 2 mM/L and 4mM/L. Its asserted that training below the first inflection point (LT1) is aerobic, between is a mix , and above LT2 purely anaerobic (and short lived!) - is that fact or convenient assumption? Then there's other complications about which energy systems are in use at different points and so on.

If you're prepared to believe that then the Lactate Threshold (LT1) is the critical point and needs measuring as we're all different. But because we don't all live near a supportive sports science universty other methods of equivalence have been asserted based on HR. The LT1 inflection point is believed to be at around 80% of MaxHR. Getting a true MaxHR is difficult and to an extent painful so again there are all sorts of formulae that purport to being near enough. They aren't! Anyway Below LT1 is defined as the utilisation zone. That utilisation zone has been further boken down into (at least) 3 sub-zones UT1/2/3 with UT3 being the lowest HR level and sometimes called the fat burning zone (which is again hotly refuted by some!). UT1 is the 10% nearest to the LT1 inflection point so most likely to not be accurate in terms of definitely staying aerobic, so UT2 is the safer place to train "aerobically" as its intense enough to have a reasonable effect, but not too close to LT1 so not likely to miss the point. So now we're at the point of knowing that we don't actually know the correct base numbers and all of the calculations based on them are akin to random number generators. In the end you just pick the one that suits you, but keep in mind its really about trying to work aerobically vs not. The Maffetone people see no benefit in getting close to the threshold, so advocate lower HRs for steady state - but some of us (like me) prefer to try for as high a rate as I think I can sustain which means the HRR based calculation. So UT2 is a guess about a guessed heart rate range that may be equivalent to the point before your lactate threshold which may mean you're training purely aerobically which may have some benefits - but of course none of that is proven fact.

For most goals (but not all) you also need to train above LT1 and even LT2 occasionally. That's easier to define - its stuff you cant keep doing for so long.

HTH

Brilliant!

[iain]

IIRC, Iain mentioned that Pete's suggestion of r22+ is, at least partly, subjective due to his height (i think he's 5'10", so he will benefit from a higher stroke rate, at least theoretically).

Not only height! Pete tried R20 training and concluded that for him it only increased pace at R20, he is more comfortable at higher rates. You must also remember that Pete was a very fit early 30 year old when devising his plans. I for one believe that for the less fit UT2 is not a helpful concept as the pace required to exercise for >45min while recovering in 24 hours is too slow to be interesting and many beginners (still true for me now) don't maintain a good stroke when distracted with music / videos etc. I believe the >45min is when slow muscle fibres tire enough that the faster fibres start to be utilised at lower intensities. Pete was limiting training to 60 min sessions including warm up and cool down, so he could fully recover at high UT1 workloads. BPP is even shorter at the beginning than the 10k assumed for the basic PP. Hence the UT1 prescription.

Personally when I start back from a sizable break I allow my HR to drift well above UT1 on SS as I do not push the interval sessions, so I settle into similar intensity sessions. As fitness returns, I try and stay within UT1 by the end of SS and time intervals to after rest days so don't need to fully recover in 24 hours. Overall I agree with Stu, the most important thing for pacing SS is that you should not go any faster than you can fully recover from for your next hard sessions, the rest is marginal.