Will the real Zone 2 please stand up!

[hikeplusrow]

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.

As a general point, I think it's important to calculate your power/watts zones based on your most recent 2k test (which won't necessarily be your best ever test). This is what cyclists do when calculating power zones based on Functional Threshold Power (FTP), the idea being to test regularly, so the zone numbers can be updated (up or down) based on your current fitness.

[ShortAndStout]

As a general point, I think it's important to calculate your power/watts zones based on your most recent 2k test (which won't necessarily be your best ever test). This is what cyclists do when calculating power zones based on Functional Threshold Power (FTP), the idea being to test regularly, so the zone numbers can be updated (up or down) based on your current fitness.

The funny thing is that this time (1:55) was calculated in June, and I started in April/March-ish, I've since put about 800k meters in since then so my times are actually probably much faster, I just havent done a 2K test since June. So my inability to do even my last time's version of MP pace for a marathon.

[cherwenka]

My confusion is that C2/Polar/Whoop to name a few seem to use a % of Max HR alone and some others use a % of HR Reserve + resting calculation... Am I missing something obvious here?

Glad you posted this. Was wondering if I was the only confused one.

FWIW I put far more stock in C2's range calculations (https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/ ... _NEALw_wcB) than anything based off a % of max. It makes more sense to me to calculate based on the entire range, from resting to max.

The best measure is a VO2 max test. Next best is probably some FTP equivalent to cycling. 3rd best is the HRR.

[MudSweatAndYears]

I echo the above posts promoting the specification of the various zones based on the most recent 2k race power. Most folks who are serious about their RowErg training are likely to have access to a recent 2k (race/test) result. Basing the zones on such a result takes out any guesswork. Also important is that PM5 power measurements (unlike heart-rate measurements) are robust and accurate and not hampered by any lag, and are therefore much easier to interpret.

In line with the ranges specified in various posts above, I do all my aerobic base (zone 2) training at 52-53% of my 2k power. My anaerobic threshold training happens at 77-80% of my 2k power. HIIT training at and above planned race power for the upcoming race. It's that simple folks...

[hikeplusrow]

I echo the above posts promoting the specification of the various zones based on the most recent 2k race power. Most folks who are serious about their RowErg training are likely to have access to a recent 2k (race/test) result. Basing the zones on such a result takes out any guesswork. Also important is that PM5 power measurements (unlike heart-rate measurements) are robust and accurate and not hampered by any lag, and are therefore much easier to interpret.

In line with the ranges specified in various posts above, I do all my aerobic base (zone 2) training at 52-53% of my 2k power. My anaerobic threshold training happens at 77-80% of my 2k power. HIIT training at and above planned race power for the upcoming race. It's that simple folks...

Sadly, we're very much in the minority.

[turkington]

My confusion is that C2/Polar/Whoop to name a few seem to use a % of Max HR alone and some others use a % of HR Reserve + resting calculation... Am I missing something obvious here?

Glad you posted this. Was wondering if I was the only confused one.

FWIW I put far more stock in C2's range calculations (https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/ ... _NEALw_wcB) than anything based off a % of max. It makes more sense to me to calculate based on the entire range, from resting to max.

The best measure is a VO2 max test. Next best is probably some FTP equivalent to cycling. 3rd best is the HRR.

Unfortunately, C2 doesn't follow their own advise for the ErgData app, it's 5x zones are based on % of HR Max and not HRR...

-Jeff

[Dangerscouse]

Unfortunately, C2 doesn't follow their own advise for the ErgData app, it's 5x zones are based on % of HR Max and not HRR...

If you use the Ergzone app you can set that to HRR zones. I always use Ergzone instead of Ergdata

[crumbdrakey]

They're only guides the formulas anyway - if you don't actually know the max (not sure if you do, as you said using 165 vs using highest observed etc), then anything you do plug in a little more than a guess anyway - further making the values less meaningful.

[crumbdrakey]

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.
whatsapp mod
watch tv series

[MPx]

I am confused by the responses ...
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.

Welcome to the camp fire. Not really any more confusion than is inevitable. Whenever this topic comes up it becomes obvious very quickly that all of the methods are different peoples differing views of training effects based on approximations of values that are guesstimates that very few ever get measured. Some stuff has more basis in science than others, some better suported by results than others, but in the end there is no universally accepted right answer to the question of exactly how to define the zones let alone the merits or otherwise of training within them. Once that's been covered...then the inevitable thread creep takes over with people chipping in with what works for them and why - hoping it might inform the OP to select one of the models to go forward with in the light of their goals.

[crumbdrakey]

The best measure is a VO2 max test. Next best is probably some FTP equivalent to cycling. 3rd best is the HRR.
indigocard activate
roblox exploit

[gvcormac]

The best measure is a VO2 max test. Next best is probably some FTP equivalent to cycling. 3rd best is the HRR.
indigocard activate
roblox exploit

That's the best measure of VO2 max. But then applying some arbitrary percentage is nothing more than a rule of thumb, but which many follow to the point of obsession.

Even if you measure lactate (see Peter Attia) there's still scant evidence that training at a particular lactate level is best, for some definition of "best."

It is clear that elite athletes who train tens of hours a week are best served by polarized training: volume at low levels, coupled with a minority of training at intense levels. This training regimen is limited by recovery and seeks to maximize performance at a particular event. Non-elite athletes and non-athletes may be interested in optimizing different things, like general fitness for the minimum time. For these, it is not obvious that hours and hours of really low effort training is optimal.

And even when you decide what you want to optimize, there's scant evidence that setting HR at some percentage of Max HR (real or imagined) or HRR or setting lactate at some level in fact does to.

[gvcormac]

I really wish the PM reported total energy. It reports Calories, but these are inflated by 300 Cal/Hr just for being alive. So you need to do a calculation to figure out actual net energy produced. It reports Watts and average Watts, which you need to multiply by time to get Joules (or Calories). You can do either of the calculations in your head, or after the fact if you download the raw data. But I wish it were displayed. If not on the PM, at least on the Concept 2 log.

After 30 years of rowing using pace/500m I'm experimenting with looking at watts while I erg. I do find it pretty interesting, and probably more informative than pace.

[Sakly]

After 30 years of rowing using pace/500m I'm experimenting with looking at watts while I erg. I do find it pretty interesting, and probably more informative than pace.

Ergdata screen is set to watts as default screen for me, as the resolution is better than the full digit pace of the PM5. So I use both, as using ergdata gives you two displays

[jcross485]

For true Zone 2 type efforts, I do think lactate measurements are the gold standard with HR, RPE, and “talk test” all being valuable and able to provide some insight.

When it comes to looking at output (pace / power), the more I get down the training rabbit hole in rowing and other endurance sports, I do believe watts are superior to /500m pace in rowing. The difference in watts between 2:00/500 and 2:10/500 seem to be more reflective of the effort needed as opposed to the mere :20 per K. Running 4:00 Ks does not seem to require the same increase in effort over running 4:20 Ks that rowing does, but that is personal observation.

For my future programming, my steady state work will be generally HR or RPE prescribed with an eye on watts to see how progress is being made over time. My quality work though will be watts / power prescribed with an eye on HR or RPE.