Will the real Zone 2 please stand up!

[JaapvanE]

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.

Here the same, although I am strictly land based. But sometimes stress or other stuff can get in the way indeed.

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.

I row about 66K to 85K a week, so not a huge volume. But I walk 25K a week with my wife, cycle about 20K a week and do Judo about 3 hours a week. So there is some base load there that tends to interfere with training.

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

I agree, although I tried their way. I typically had to step down every four months or so due to overloading my knees or elbows due to the cumulative load. And one way to kill progress are frequent injuries like that.

At an advice of a friend, who is a rower, teaches the subject at university and has written books about indoor rowing as an amateur sport, I switched to this regime. So far, I've been without injury for over 6 months and I'm easily improving PB's on distances I work on. So it definitively is working for me.

[p_b82]

Another of my 2p, but I think that a lot of us non-pro's settle into a "what works for us" quite easily - which is no bad thing - but we don't therefore vary from that without prompting etc; and so we might not know what would work "better" as it's not being tried/examined.

It's also all down to the individual and their recovery - I know that if I were to try to do 125k a week "easy rowing" I'd really struggle even without any hard sessions & my rowing ability is reflected by that by being in the bottom third of my age range percentile vs at the top. My day job would also suffer - as that is what enables me to have a roof over my head, that's what is my priority ultimately.

I know that load/fatigue/injury would be significantly increased if I were to do the sessions I currently do 5 days a week - I already have a slightly niggle in my right elbow I'm monitoring as it is, and so it would be a requirement for me that if I were to do 5 in a row, I'd need to have 4 easier, vs 1 harder - I predict.
What my rate of progress would be on that schedule vs current I've no idea, but as my body got conditioned to it, the sessions would probably evolve as well. maybe it's improve, maybe it wouldn't - for now it's unlikely that I'll find out.

Again it comes back down to individual monitoring and regular testing - and the optimal for the individual will appear; whether that's Ut2, zone2, %watts, 3/10 RPE etc that's just "noise" to help us define things to find what does work or what doesn't.

[Dangerscouse]

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

100%. There's always some resistance when you change your training regime, but progression is quite often just on the other side of a little bit of discomfort, and your head convincing you it's detrimental. One step back to take two steps forward is a favourite adage of mine, because it's all too often very true.

A good example is drag factor. When you settle into, say 100, putting it up to 130 will feel instinctively bad, but give it about four or five sessions and you can maybe settle into it and it then feels far more comfortable.

[JaapvanE]

my rowing ability is reflected by that by being in the bottom third of my age range percentile vs at the top.

But does that really matter, apart from our ego? Some here row races, I can imagine you don't want to be last and you hope to win them. But for most, how would my life be better if my 2K time was much faster than 90% of my age group?

Just to clarify: my life is much better because of frequent rowing, as it helps me deal with work stress (which quite effectively can be transformed into PB's I've noticed) and a much better physical condition. But that value wouldn't depend on being the best or worst rower on this planet.

My day job would also suffer - as that is what enables me to have a roof over my head, that's what is my priority ultimately.

And the ability to do fun things with family and friends. Rowing is fun, even addictive, but in the end I train to be able to do things I find more important. And being tired or having fatigued jounts too often because of rowing, might not fit that agenda.

I know that load/fatigue/injury would be significantly increased if I were to do the sessions I currently do 5 days a week - I already have a slightly niggle in my right elbow I'm monitoring as it is, and so it would be a requirement for me that if I were to do 5 in a row, I'd need to have 4 easier, vs 1 harder - I predict.

That is my current approach and it works pretty well at the moment

Again it comes back down to individual monitoring and regular testing - and the optimal for the individual will appear; whether that's Ut2, zone2, %watts, 3/10 RPE etc that's just "noise" to help us define things to find what does work or what doesn't.

Agreed. Although I must note that I have issues to keep my ego under control (and I suspect many others do to), so an easy session tends to end up being too intense in the long run. Hence my need to objective/artificial boundaries to keep myself in check.

[btlifter]

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.

"It is common" is specifically referring to the use of aerobic/anaerobic terminology.

There is nothing "random" about the upward threshold of Z2 (in a 5 zone model, or z1 in a 2 or 3 zone model). Granted, attaching a predetermined HR% to that zone might be somewhat adbitrary. But, the underlying physiological differences between that zone and anything of higher intensity is significant. And, having a better understanding of that is quite useful for many athletes and coaches.

[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.

"It is common" is specifically referring to the use of aerobic/anaerobic terminology.

There is nothing "random" about the upward threshold of Z2 (in a 5 zone model, or z1 in a 2 or 3 zone model). Granted, attaching a predetermined HR% to that zone might be somewhat adbitrary. But, the underlying physiological differences between that zone and anything of higher intensity is significant. And, having a better understanding of that is quite useful for many athletes and coaches.

I do agree that training at a level without lactate buildup is different than above that threshold (and I think this is the threshold we are talking about).
If the knowledge of this threshold is useful, mainly depends on the training regime followed by the athlete. As soon as it gets serious, someone wants to reach some specific goals, typically training volume increases, gets more structured and yes, then it gets more important.

[Elizabeth]

I am confused by the responses justifying why their personal volume or circumstances or holding a job mean that they don't need to work at a level where there is minimal lactate buildup. The original poster was asking why there is so much disagreement between models and how to know where to train if one does want to acquire volume at this specific physiological point. Not whether he should be training in this zone.

And the answer to that is, I don't know. The different models seem to be good fodder for engaging social media posts and videos and talk at the bar over beers, since rowers don't seem able to talk about much besides rowing. (Myself included.) If you are trying to figure out a good level for you, I would still recommend figuring out the pace and intensity where you basically don't see drift over longer sessions. Boom. Done. Although that isn't as fun to argue about I guess.

[nick rockliff]

This is what I see when doing a lactate profile step test. This was based on a 2k of 6.20 at the time and 4min intervals with 1 min rest between where they take a finger blood sample. You are also hooked up to a gas analyser via a face mask and because this is sport specific it's done on a C2 erg. Before you even start you have a blood sample which gives resting lactate and then a warm up and another sample which gives a warmed up level then you start.

210W - 1.81 mmol
240W - 1.23 mmol
270W - 1 55 mmol
300W - 2.89 mmol
330W - 4.11 mmol
360W - 5.25 mmol
410W - 7.59 mmol this was the last all out interval to get VO2MAX

You can see the obvious deflection point where there is a build up of lactate above base line. The HR at the 2 mmol point in the graph is used as the cap for UT2 and the HR at the accepted AT 4 mmol is used as the AT. These are now known as LT1 and LT2.

This is all qualified by the gas readings too.

To give some numbers. For UT2 my HR cap was 154 and AT 165. I chose a cap of 161 (3 mmol) for UT1 work. MHR at VO2MAX was 173.

For recovery work UT3 I took the HR from the second interval which was 139.

This is based on my physiology and the next person in could be totally different.

[hikeplusrow]

This is what I see when doing a lactate profile step test. This was based on a 2k of 6.20 at the time and 4min intervals with 1 min rest between where they take a finger blood sample. You are also hooked up to a gas analyser via a face mask and because this is sport specific it's done on a C2 erg. Before you even start you have a blood sample which gives resting lactate and then a warm up and another sample which gives a warmed up level then you start.

210W - 1.81 mmol
240W - 1.23 mmol
270W - 1 55 mmol
300W - 2.89 mmol
330W - 4.11 mmol
360W - 5.25 mmol
410W - 7.59 mmol this was the last all out interval to get VO2MAX

You can see the obvious deflection point where there is a build up of lactate above base line. The HR at the 2 mmol point in the graph is used as the cap for UT2 and the HR at the accepted AT 4 mmol is used as the AT. These are now known as LT1 and LT2.

This is all qualified by the gas readings too.

To give some numbers. For UT2 my HR cap was 154 and AT 165. I chose a cap of 161 (3 mmol) for UT1 work. MHR at VO2MAX was 173.

For recovery work UT3 I took the HR from the second interval which was 139.

This is based on my physiology and the next person in could be totally different.

What's immediately obvious is how close together the various HR caps are. Quite surprising, but you can't argue with science.

[jcross485]

This is what I see when doing a lactate profile step test. This was based on a 2k of 6.20 at the time and 4min intervals with 1 min rest between where they take a finger blood sample. You are also hooked up to a gas analyser via a face mask and because this is sport specific it's done on a C2 erg. Before you even start you have a blood sample which gives resting lactate and then a warm up and another sample which gives a warmed up level then you start.

210W - 1.81 mmol
240W - 1.23 mmol
270W - 1 55 mmol
300W - 2.89 mmol
330W - 4.11 mmol
360W - 5.25 mmol
410W - 7.59 mmol this was the last all out interval to get VO2MAX

You can see the obvious deflection point where there is a build up of lactate above base line. The HR at the 2 mmol point in the graph is used as the cap for UT2 and the HR at the accepted AT 4 mmol is used as the AT. These are now known as LT1 and LT2.

This is all qualified by the gas readings too.

To give some numbers. For UT2 my HR cap was 154 and AT 165. I chose a cap of 161 (3 mmol) for UT1 work. MHR at VO2MAX was 173.

For recovery work UT3 I took the HR from the second interval which was 139.

This is based on my physiology and the next person in could be totally different.

This is amazing!

What this tells me is that investing in lactate testing, while not exactly cheap, might be one of the best ways to personalize training. It could be a way to establish baselines, check in from time to time, and re-measure after a training program of a certain duration.

Now to convince my wife to add another gadget to this silly fitness journey.

[nick rockliff]

This is what I see when doing a lactate profile step test. This was based on a 2k of 6.20 at the time and 4min intervals with 1 min rest between where they take a finger blood sample. You are also hooked up to a gas analyser via a face mask and because this is sport specific it's done on a C2 erg. Before you even start you have a blood sample which gives resting lactate and then a warm up and another sample which gives a warmed up level then you start.

210W - 1.81 mmol
240W - 1.23 mmol
270W - 1 55 mmol
300W - 2.89 mmol
330W - 4.11 mmol
360W - 5.25 mmol
410W - 7.59 mmol this was the last all out interval to get VO2MAX

You can see the obvious deflection point where there is a build up of lactate above base line. The HR at the 2 mmol point in the graph is used as the cap for UT2 and the HR at the accepted AT 4 mmol is used as the AT. These are now known as LT1 and LT2.

This is all qualified by the gas readings too.

To give some numbers. For UT2 my HR cap was 154 and AT 165. I chose a cap of 161 (3 mmol) for UT1 work. MHR at VO2MAX was 173.

For recovery work UT3 I took the HR from the second interval which was 139.

This is based on my physiology and the next person in could be totally different.

This is amazing!

What this tells me is that investing in lactate testing, while not exactly cheap, might be one of the best ways to personalize training. It could be a way to establish baselines, check in from time to time, and re-measure after a training program of a certain duration.

Now to convince my wife to add another gadget to this silly fitness journey.

Mine were always done at a sports science department at a local university. The lactate profile and VO2max testing was only part of the session. It also included Hemoglobin and Hematocrit levels, lung function, hand grip and lower back strength, body fat content with calipers and flexibility testing. The results all compared to elite rowers scores.

I have considered having it done again but not doing enough metres right now to justify it right now.

[turkington]

Wow, thanks for all the replies folks!

I did not know how big a technical rabbit hole I was venturing into... and how this would essentially come full circle to a reasonable answer. In reading all the posts and way too much viewing on Youtube I think I have found my answer, best summed up in https://youtu.be/BEYpXopPxKE

For now, I row long pieces ~60 min (hard conversational level) almost every weekday and add in a few intervals (balls to the wall) at the end for 30 min to give me some zone 4-5 time. I'm focusing less on HR and more on percieved effort and more importantly getting my rowing technique & breathing nailed. This is much harder than it seems and is likely the root of my abysmal energy output of ~90W steady state for a "zone 2" day.

I'll plod along with this as well as strength training big hikes, mounting biking in the summer turning into snowboarding in the winter and see how my measured HR / Watts change over time.

Jeff

[ShortAndStout]

I'll throw in my 2c because I've spent probably at least a hundred hours diving into this exact topic trying to understand exactly what is what. Firs thing is that UTX is a blood lactate measurement and ZoneX is a Hr measurement, as has been stated in this thread already HR isn't a universal thing and not a great measurement in general. Here's a video talking about why Z2 is less effective for a majority of rowers than Z3 unless you're doing absurd amounts of volume and are otherwise overtraining your aerobic system (very unlikely) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXSIfSocmQc&t=919s. I'd say most of my UT2 work is Z3 and even a good amount in Z4 because of my drift.

Here's a video talking about why HR training also isn't a super great metric compared to RPE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35kjwW1HAAw

The tl;dr of these videos is that HR is too variable for beginner athletes whose bodies are not accustomed to the load yet, and that rowing is primarily a power-endurance sport (unlike running or cycling) so your goal should be to both maintain a certain blood lactate over time (see: UT2 / UT1 paces based on your 2K time) ie between 1.5-2mmol, as well as develop a powerful stroke. You can't do the former if you go into Z2 because it's probably too light of work unless you're older or very young, your lactate won't be where it needs to be to develop this adaptation. You can't do the latter if you do Z2 for the same reason. Personally it wasn't until like last month after my first 1M meters that my HR aligned to what it says on the Free Spirits HR band calculator - prior to that I have consistently been 20bpm higher, on average.

And finally a video about what UT2 and UT1 should "feel" like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaZudbfGjmQ

I like this video because it paints a good picture of what both should feel like. He uses the metaphor of a bucket with a hole in the bottom - UT2 should feel like a faucet has been turned on and that water is very easily going out of the hole, no buildup. No feeling of burn at all. UT1 is where the flowing faucet fills up the bucket at the same rate the water flows out of the hole, so right on the threshold of feeling a burn, but still primarily an aerobic workout so if you DO feel a burn, back off a bit.

If you're not already tracking, you can define each pace as a % of your best 2K Watts, which you can estimate if you haven't done one yet through various means. I've made a simple program to take your time and display it based on your 2K split pace, so for example my last tested time was about 7:45 (1:55/500m) which gave me the following:

[hikeplusrow]

I'll throw in my 2c because I've spent probably at least a hundred hours diving into this exact topic trying to understand exactly what is what. Firs thing is that UTX is a blood lactate measurement and ZoneX is a Hr measurement, as has been stated in this thread already HR isn't a universal thing and not a great measurement in general. Here's a video talking about why Z2 is less effective for a majority of rowers than Z3 unless you're doing absurd amounts of volume and are otherwise overtraining your aerobic system (very unlikely) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QXSIfSocmQc&t=919s. I'd say most of my UT2 work is Z3 and even a good amount in Z4 because of my drift.

Here's a video talking about why HR training also isn't a super great metric compared to RPE: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35kjwW1HAAw

The tl;dr of these videos is that HR is too variable for beginner athletes whose bodies are not accustomed to the load yet, and that rowing is primarily a power-endurance sport (unlike running or cycling) so your goal should be to both maintain a certain blood lactate over time (see: UT2 / UT1 paces based on your 2K time) ie between 1.5-2mmol, as well as develop a powerful stroke. You can't do the former if you go into Z2 because it's probably too light of work unless you're older or very young, your lactate won't be where it needs to be to develop this adaptation. You can't do the latter if you do Z2 for the same reason. Personally it wasn't until like last month after my first 1M meters that my HR aligned to what it says on the Free Spirits HR band calculator - prior to that I have consistently been 20bpm higher, on average.

And finally a video about what UT2 and UT1 should "feel" like https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gaZudbfGjmQ

I like this video because it paints a good picture of what both should feel like. He uses the metaphor of a bucket with a hole in the bottom - UT2 should feel like a faucet has been turned on and that water is very easily going out of the hole, no buildup. No feeling of burn at all. UT1 is where the flowing faucet fills up the bucket at the same rate the water flows out of the hole, so right on the threshold of feeling a burn, but still primarily an aerobic workout so if you DO feel a burn, back off a bit.

If you're not already tracking, you can define each pace as a % of your best 2K Watts, which you can estimate if you haven't done one yet through various means. I've made a simple program to take your time and display it based on your 2K split pace, so for example my last tested time was about 7:45 (1:55/500m) which gave me the following:

I like the idea of ascribing % 2k watts to other race distances, but the watts range percentages given don't really work for me:

Marathon - Never done one, but I could probably just about achieve the lower end of the watts range (with training!).

Half Marathon - Not bad, I fall in the middle of the watts range.

5k and 10k - Watts range is vastly understated.

Others may have different results.

[ShortAndStout]

I like the idea of ascribing % 2k watts to other race distances, but the watts range percentages given don't really work for me:

Marathon - Never done one, but I could probably just about achieve the lower end of the watts range (with training!).

Half Marathon - Not bad, I fall in the middle of the watts range.

5k and 10k - Watts range is vastly understated.

Others may have different results.

I agree actually - I'm using the last set from the Marathon Fletcher Plan which uses these definitions, I myself would definitely not be able to maintain the prescribed Marathon Pace, for example. I haven't done a timed 5K or 10K myself so I don't know what ranges might look like for that, I'd be happy to hear feedback though.