Will the real Zone 2 please stand up!

[Dangerscouse]

FWIW, I think that there's an issue with research being skewed towards the elites, so the subsequent results aren't always applicable to the general population, but there's such a thirst for data, what works / what doesn't work, what you should do etc that it all gets lost in the mix.

HR is a great case in point due to the conflicting advice and occasionally the subsequent hardening of tolerances. In my humble opinion, the human body is far too robust to be corralled in to specific boxes that are good or bad. There's a massive amount of grey rather than the black & white that is mistakenly assumed, and this grey zone will change on a daily basis.

Just to confirm, I think that is what is being said above, so I'm not saying that anyone is wrong, but it's also important to call out the issue as it could become a fool's errand trying to attain the holy grail of zones, only to achieve training regression. I think that has happened to me previously on certain occasions.

Trust your instincts and intuition, it's very often right as long as it's interrogated properly to weed out any mental weakness for just not wanting to endure.

Just my two cents worth

[chrisl]

Peter Attia has an hour long video Q&A on Zone 2 (including a rower Q) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txLrNhv8GW0

And here is a simple approach which is about right – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoB2AMUq8Wg

[hikeplusrow]

Peter Attia has an hour long video Q&A on Zone 2 (including a rower Q) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txLrNhv8GW0

And here is a simple approach which is about right – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoB2AMUq8Wg

I've watched the first video, but not the second one. So UT2 should be easy work - it is, after all, used for recovery as well as base building and the improvement of endurance capability.

[fancyoats]

Just clarifying - ut2 and zone 2 are not necessarily referring to the same thing, is that correct? My understanding is that the bottom end of ut2 may have some overlap with zone 2 but also may go over the upper boundary sometimes into zone 3ish. Please correct me if I don’t have that right.

[hikeplusrow]

Just clarifying - ut2 and zone 2 are not necessarily referring to the same thing, is that correct? My understanding is that the bottom end of ut2 may have some overlap with zone 2 but also may go over the upper boundary sometimes into zone 3ish. Please correct me if I don’t have that right.

In cycling and running, our UT2 is known as Zone 2, and our UT1 is known as Zone 3.

[nick rockliff]

Peter Attia has an hour long video Q&A on Zone 2 (including a rower Q) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txLrNhv8GW0

And here is a simple approach which is about right – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoB2AMUq8Wg

I've watched the first video, but not the second one. So UT2 should be easy work - it is, after all, used for recovery as well as base building and the improvement of endurance capability.

UT3 is for recovery, UT2 done correctly is not "easy"

[hikeplusrow]

Peter Attia has an hour long video Q&A on Zone 2 (including a rower Q) – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=txLrNhv8GW0

And here is a simple approach which is about right – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AoB2AMUq8Wg

I've watched the first video, but not the second one. So UT2 should be easy work - it is, after all, used for recovery as well as base building and the improvement of endurance capability.

UT3 is for recovery, UT2 done correctly is not "easy"

Perhaps I should have said "relatively easy" - I think that's a reasonable term for a workout conducted at a conversational pace. Personally, I'd feel pretty uncomfortable having a chat during a UT2 session. The only time I use UT3 is for cooling down - and even then I'll pretty quickly slip into UT2. I'd find UT3 impossibly slow to maintain over an extended period - in fact, I think I'd struggle to maintain decent form at such a low intensity.

[nick rockliff]

I've watched the first video, but not the second one. So UT2 should be easy work - it is, after all, used for recovery as well as base building and the improvement of endurance capability.

UT3 is for recovery, UT2 done correctly is not "easy"

Perhaps I should have said "relatively easy" - I think that's a reasonable term for a workout conducted at a conversational pace. Personally, I'd feel pretty uncomfortable having a chat during a UT2 session. The only time I use UT3 is for cooling down - and even then I'll pretty quickly slip into UT2. I'd find UT3 impossibly slow to maintain over an extended period - in fact, I think I'd struggle to maintain decent form at such a low intensity.

I was the same, I would never have been able to hold a conversation during a 60min UT2 session. I could probably shout go away or leave me alone if somebody tried to interrupt me

[Sakly]

I would never have been able to hold a conversation during a 60min UT2 session. I could probably shout go away or leave me alone if somebody tried to interrupt me

This ^^

[hikeplusrow]

UT3 is for recovery, UT2 done correctly is not "easy"

Perhaps I should have said "relatively easy" - I think that's a reasonable term for a workout conducted at a conversational pace. Personally, I'd feel pretty uncomfortable having a chat during a UT2 session. The only time I use UT3 is for cooling down - and even then I'll pretty quickly slip into UT2. I'd find UT3 impossibly slow to maintain over an extended period - in fact, I think I'd struggle to maintain decent form at such a low intensity.

I was the same, I would never have been able to hold a conversation during a 60min UT2 session. I could probably shout go away or leave me alone if somebody tried to interrupt me

Also, I think with UT2 it can be the duration that makes it tougher rather than the intensity per se. 60-120 minutes is never going to be a piece of cake at any pace.

[jcross485]

I think the one thing that a lot of people miss when it comes to HR based training, HR zones, etc. is that it was really developed / perfected by looking at elite athletes doing absurd volumes. I'm willing to bet most of us here aren't all that close to that. While we may be older and have impacted recovery abilities, when you're not doing 10+ hours a week on the rower, I think most would benefit by working more from power and RPE like Sakly said.

I think HR is a good indicator of how hard you're working and I track mine but at the same time, there is no reason to be married to it. I don't purposely speed up or slow down based on what it's saying - I would rather develop a strong and consistent stroke than try to alter technique to stay in a HR zone.

One person posted that getting to 130 for a minute means their HR will continue to climb as opposed to staying at 130 or less, all with a max HR of 192. There is no disrespect meant but training at that low of a HR, unless doing an absurd amount of volume, would likely not be as productive as pushing a bit harder. If I rowed and kept HR under 130 for all of my "Zone 2 / UT2" work, I certainly would not be where I am, even as modest as it is.

Here's one thing to add to make things even more confusing. I've noticed that I can achieve a bit higher Max HR running (191) than while rowing (187). I also find that when it comes to the talk test, I can maintain short sentences at a much higher HR while running than rowing. I've had my wife call me when running and be able to speak in short sentences at 150+ bpm; on the rower, 140 bpm and I struggle much more.

[hikeplusrow]

Heart rate is simply the physiological response to work, not the work itself. Watts, on the other hand, represent the work you're actually doing. Also, MHR is sport specific, and will be higher in endurance sports that are weight bearing (eg running) given a comparable level of conditioning. It also declines with age.

[Elizabeth]

Just clarifying - ut2 and zone 2 are not necessarily referring to the same thing, is that correct? My understanding is that the bottom end of ut2 may have some overlap with zone 2 but also may go over the upper boundary sometimes into zone 3ish. Please correct me if I don’t have that right.

In cycling and running, our UT2 is known as Zone 2, and our UT1 is known as Zone 3.

I don't see how they can possibly be the same thing with different names, given that they're both HR-based and the numbers seem so different. I do see both terms (UT2, Z2) used synonymously for steady state, for better or worse.

All of this is imprecise. There's a HR that I can sit at for like 2+ hours with minimal drift, and that's where I do my "steady state". HR, breathing, etc. is steady. Sometimes I misjudge, especially when the weather swings, and then I will slow down or speed up mid-piece.

I don't feel like I am doing absurd volumes, but because context matters, I've been at about 125k/week (plus two lifting sessions) for a while now, with some step back weeks.

Several people are saying that they would not be where they are with a different approach. There's really no way to know this.

[btlifter]

I'm more than a bit confused about how to determine my Zone 2 heart rate for long rows 60 - 120 min

...accept that people want to distinguish between aerobic and anaerobic training. Then the OP's question becomes "How do I distinguish the two", and potentially even "How do you actively manage a session to stay in the desired zone?".

Really?
OP asks for one of the weird zone 2 of different zone models and you break it down to working with our without oxygen?
Not sure if this matches the question.

Anyway, I agree to the power approach and using RPE in parallel as not each day is the same.

The terms aerobic/anaerobic are misused to the point of being nearly meaningless to me. But, it is common to use "aerobic" as proxy to refer to the intensity level below the first ventilatory threshold... which is precisely what "zone 2" (in a 5 zone system) is referring to. So, I'd say h
the response is relevant to the question.

[Sakly]

The terms aerobic/anaerobic are misused to the point of being nearly meaningless to me. But, it is common to use "aerobic" as proxy to refer to the intensity level below the first ventilatory threshold...

"it is common" is the same way of definition as the different zones "are common" to be defined at some random HR percentages. So what's the use of such definitions?
In that case you can bend all "common definitions" in ways you want, based on different questions asked. That does not make sense to me at all.

If I don't want to measure, I need to try out. If I want to row for 2 hours, I have to do it and estimate a sufficient pace I probably can hold for that time. After it's done, I need to reassess if it was to hard or not, how my recovery goes.