Thanks Travis. This has come up a lot in our training group at GARAGEATHLETE (for SkiErg as well). The bulk of our "steady state" efforts are right in that 70-80% MHR sweet spot as we aren't putting in more than 8-10 hours of volume. One thing I have found beneficial is completing a lot of my SS session at a higher stroke rate (say 26-28) rather than 18-22, as one of the limiting factors I found when it came to time trials was the ability to sustain higher cadences. Combined with typical speed/power work throughout the week, along with the occasional hard, low rate tempo session, my power/stroke hasn't been compromised, and I have set some PB's at shorter distances (1min, 500m, 1k) as well as 30min and 10k. Appreciate these videos, will be sure to follow in the future.
Thanks for the comment and support Justin. I've actually been following and enjoying your content on Instagram for awhile now. Good to know where you are on TH-cam as well and will definitely subscribe. It's interesting to hear you talk about high rate steady state facilitating the same higher cadences for testing/race efforts. I wonder if that is because of the conditioning benefit or because it helped to develop the technical skills necessary to race higher. A lot of on-the-water rowers (especially heavyweights) will struggle getting the rates up on the erg compared to similar efforts on the water. I've always approached this from a technical perspective in my coaching. Have you tried returning to a focus on the lower cadences after you had success training/trialing at the higher rates?
Travis Gardner tough to say. I think I incorporate enough of a mix of stimuli now that I’m not sure what’s helping what 😂 when I was stuck in low stroke rate SS + lower rate power work, my distance suffered. I couldn’t rate up without blowing up, so to your point about technical proficiency at higher rates, that makes sense. I also think because I do enough work with a focus on stroke power or speed training, the “lighter pressure” of high rate SS pieces doesn’t impact my overall stroke profile. Does that make sense? The more I pull 10km at r26+ and ~80% of max HR, the more confident I feel holding those rates regardless of the distance or effort.
These comments are nuts. Travis is giving good advice on how to improve as a COMPETITIVE ROWER. These kooks in the comments keep citing Peter Attia, a physician, focused on helping middle-aged and elderly people live longer. THESE ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGs.
And you know what is really crazy? Peter states that he doesn’t like anchoring on HR for his Z2 training, and that his Z2 training HR floats between 78-81% of his true MHR. Which is all to say that he is literally in what is commonly called a Z3 by the ubiquitous HR zone charts. In other words, Travis and Peter would both be in total agreement. I can hold conversations, breath through nose, etc. at 70-80% HR on C2 for and hour. If I were at 60-70% I would feel like I’m doing nothing at all. My ‘feel’ is about in that upper 70% range for myself. I hope to monkey with some lactate testing just to see if there are any trends in that area.
Jibcutter, thanks for those comments. I’m the same as you, don’t feel like I’m doing enough work in Z2. In a 30-40 min session my HR will gradually gravitate up to my anaerobic threshold and then flatten out. It takes at least 20 mins to get to that point. The other comment to make is that I’m 73yo and still racing competitively on water so obviously my max HR is a lot lower than most who are younger than me (about 165), except in the last 200m of a 1000m race (170+) Having said all that, I actually did a lactate threshold test yesterday and planning to work with a specialised exercise physiologist to improve strength without raising SR.
I have an endurance based background in swimming, cycling and running and began indoor rowing in 2018. During 2019 I produced some of my best times for the 5K and 10K. At this time my training efforts were what would be considered zone 3 and above, comprising of perhaps 3 or 4 sessions per week, totalling 5 to 6 hours. Having an interest in training methods I read a lot about zone 2 training and the 80/20 principles and experimented using them over a three year period. As a result my training volume increased (rowing , cycling, running and skierg) but to compensate, and enable recovery between sessions, intensity was reduced. Although I was able to row in excess of an hour or ride for 3 hours, because of the reduction in intensity and therefore power per stroke, TT efforts were a disaster. I continued to experiment with the zone 2 work in conjunction with some harder efforts on the bike. Rowing wise, it was largely ineffective. There is no getting away from the fact that training has to be tailored to the specific discipline. For me the zone 2 stuff really was a complete waste of my time. It just did not work. I just got more efficient at going slow. I've recently reverted back to 4 harder, shorter sessions per week and added strength work. It's been hard work but the improvement in my fitness within just one month has been significant. I had previously seen this video during the time I was experimenting with the various training methods, but wanted to test it for myself. I can conclude that in my experience, all you have mentioned in your video is correct. So for anyone else with the same mind set as I, just listen to the man.
so are you saying you ditched your zone 3+ training to only perform zone 2 training? Wouldn't you perform better if you injected some zone 2 and kept your standard training? Zone 2 training forces your body to replace the mitochondria via mitophagy which is where the benefit comes from, or so what i've read.
@@edaciousx For me and the time I am willing to invest, the traditional zone 2 steady state exercise at around 70% of maximum HR, does not provide enough stress on my body to cause further adaptation. Perhaps if I was willing to invest 15 to 20 hours per week at the same effort , then the increase in volume at the same effort may cause sufficient stress for further adaptation.
I'd recommend a listen to a recent podcast by Dr. Peter Attia and Inigo San Millan (PhD Exercise Physiologist and endurance coach for Tadej Pogacar) "Deep Dive Back Into Zone 2". They'd disagree with much of what you said. Yes you're going to take a power hit if you train solely in Zone 2, but no one recommends that. 80%-90% in Zone 2 for most of the season and then a ramp up on power based and VO2 based training as you get closer to competitions. Also, they'd define zone two for most people as 70%-80% of MHR and would encourage one to rely on RPE (relative perceived exertion) to really hone in on zone 2. Aerobic base takes years to improve (so it's not surprising that your personal experiment with zone 2 wasn't successful), but you can make significant VO2 max gains and power gains (or re-gains) in a matter of months. The problem is that your performance peaks won't reach their full potential if you only work on the power and vo2 systems. Which is higher, a 40 foot tree growing at the bottom of a mountain or a 20 foot tall tree growing at the top of a mountain? If your metabolic/aerobic base isn't built and established, no amount of power or vo2 max will let you outperform someone who has a solid metabolic/cardio base that has also polished his strength and vo2 max as he nears competition. It also takes less time to do this than you've suggested. It's been very well demonstrated that 3-4 1 hour zone 2 sessions a week is a good volume to produce significant metabolic fitness results if done consistently, and zone 2 is much easier to remain consistent at over the long term than higher intensities (I know this from personal experience). It's also not an apples to apples comparison as far as benefits reaped from different types of training. Zone 2 work stimulates different energy pathways (cellular level ATP utilization) that are minimally affected or not affected while you're working at higher intensity training states. In summary, this isn't an either/or proposition, it's a matter of building a cardio and metabolic fitness base (that can only really effectively be done with zone 2), while working a day or two a week of strength and power work and then changing that ratio as you close in on competitions to include more power and strength work (systems that can rapidly improve) tailored to the specific distance you're working towards.
Am I reading this right? Peter and Inigo have a podcast emphasizing the importance of zone 2, which isn't really zone 2 because they've "redefined" it to align with what I and any basic internet search would identify as zone 3 (i.e. 70-80% mHR). And then they go on to emphasize the importance of the 70-80% mHR range when developing the aerobic system, which is exactly what I did in this video? Did I miss something?
@@TravisGardner "Any basic internet search" is all over the board on the heart rate definition of zone 2. 60%-70%. 60-75%. 65%-75%. 70-80%. All pop up repeatedly. Call me crazy, but I tend to lean toward the definition proposed by two of the leading exercise physiologists (MD and PhD) conducting and publishing funded research on the subject.
I just recently listened to that podcast and Peter doesn’t like using HR to define his Z2. And he goes on to state that his Z2 is 78-81% of his True MHR (which is completely inline with what this video presents). This vid doesn’t at all conflict and is bang on advice (at least for my ‘Z2’ training on a C2 rower).
I worried what you were saying but agree with definition of Z2.. a lot of volume training is defined as UT2, which in my mind takes us up to 75%. But overall in my training, 10hrs a week as a serious ‘recreational ‘ rower I try to do lots of my sessions at 70-75% HRmax each session 75-100min.
This is so true. Spent the summer doing zone 2 and my power per stroke has gotten so poor, I fatigue so easily muscle wise. My aerobic capacity has improved a lot but its absolutely not manifested in my 2k. In fact its worse now..
but ur aerobic capacity has improved right? muscle --> weights room 2k time --> high intensity along with what ur doing. Can't expect to improve a 2k with just zone 2. And y u doing zone 2 in the summer lol
I'm fairly new to rowing so far (started last month) and did all of my training in zone 3-5 my first month. I found it very difficult to do more than about 40-50k meters per week at that intensity and found myself getting pretty sore. I recently started trying some zone 1 and 2 training just to see what it was like and was able to jump up to 150k per week rowing 2 1 hour sessions every day without needing to take any days off for rest breaks. So while you may be right that more volume is needed to get similar benefits in zone 1 or 2, more volume at that intensity is easy. If losing weight is your goal, you'll probably also be burning more calories rowing 2 hours a day at zone 2 compared to maybe half of that in zone 3-5. If you can do 2 hours a day at zone 3, great, but I can't. So far I've seen significant performance gains with both methods, but while I sometimes found myself too sore to do my full zone 3-5 workout even with rest days where I didn't row at all, that's never the case with zone 2 even with zero rest days. I suspect some combination of both styles might be "best" but I haven't really seen anything definitive on what the best proportion is.
If you're new to rowing then I suspect everything you do will yield improvement. Low effort training will certainly improve your aerobic endurance, but it will not translate as well to competitive performance without some very specific strategies (which just mean even more training time). Also, very few people have the time to log the volume you are quoting, and the competitive benefit of higher effort aerobic miles will generally always trump low effort miles at volumes under 10-12 hours/week of training.
If I understand this correctly, I can do 1.5 hours of zone 2 rowing every day if I’m strictly doing this type of exercise for fat burning/aerobic improvement? I’ve been using cycling for this reason, but stumbled across rowing and enjoyed that it’s a full body, low impact cardio exercise as opposed to running and cycling. I’m not looking at the rowing machine to get into rowing competitions.
@@jonathonbarrios3199 I've been doing low intensity rowing twice a week, unsure of my actual rowing heart rate because I don't monitor it, just doing it to help it as cross training to my running. Slowly & slowly I've been getting better at rowing!
Thanks for the video, Travis. I've been curious about this myself. I'm a recreational Concept 2 rower for 2 years (never rowed on water), but I got really into it. Never used heart rate training until recently. All my PBs came from doing no 'steady state'. I stopped for about 6 months and did other sports, then came back and wanted to beat my times, but couldn't come close. I tried doing 40 min SS sessions for about a month, a few days a week. Based on my max HR (183bmp) ever seen on the rower, I was trying to stick to ~135 bpm. I stopped doing any AT work and my times just couldn't get close to PBs across the board. I agree with what you say about power - I had the cardio, but couldn't pull the wattage for my 2km/5km attempts. So I think I'll try return to some training and give more focus to intensity. I have noticed recently my max HR on the machine reaches 173 on max efforts, and I can't go higher (2km, 5km, 10km max efforts). I used a Polar h10 strap... I'm like 10bpm lower than last year and it's frustrating because it affects what my HR zones will be. I am running more and getting better at that, but my times aren't that much worse on the rower (not 10bmp/perceived effort different). Have you had any experience as a coach with your athletes significantly lowering their max HRs, other than getting older? Appreciate all your videos! M, 26, 183cm, 82kg.
You're welcome, glad the videos are helping! The most basic guidance I can give is don't use heart rate to dictate your training paces right now. It is an invaluable evaluation tool when used properly but you need AT LEAST several months of data before you're going to be able to draw value from that data. It does not surprise me that your PBs came from doing no steady state' especially if the steady state you used was limited to zone 2 heart rate. The power you were developing with anaerobic intervals will translate better to max efforts than zone 2 training absent the same. Plus, you're getting an aerobic stimulus during the anaerobic work, it's just not as much as you would doing the steady state. That being said, steady state done properly is without a doubt the single most effective way to train for any distance over 500 meters. But we're talking firm pressure at rates in the high teens. I recommend ditching the HR monitor for a couple months, go back to those 40 min sessions (split into 4x10 min or 2x20 min if needed) and start working at a pace that is challenging but sustainable (and at 16-20 spm). Check out my video about UT2 training for details on pacing. You also want to sprinkle in a little anaerobic work, but we're talking maybe 1 UT1 session every other week and 1 each of AT and Transport per month. If you want to leave another comment with how much and how often you'd be doing your steady state I can give more details on what exactly to do with each of those workouts. As as 26 year old I would say it is highly unlikely that your HR zones have changed in a year (mine are essentially the same at 39 years old as they were at 24 years old). If you've taken time away from training then your HR will rise quicker and settle higher than it would if you were deep into a training cycle. Perhaps this is what you are seeing.
@@TravisGardner I appreciate the detailed reply! I had great success loosely following the Pete Plan towards the end of 2018. At the time, I think I was doing 40mins at ~1:58-2:02 pace for my SS sessions at the time. But I would push the last 2mins or so and get the HR up at the end. I was doing about 23-24SPM and before starting it, had a 2k of 7:52. after 3 weeks of loose Pete Plan, I got my PB of 6:43. Now I do about ~2:08 SS for 40min straight, 3 times a week. I keep my HR at 70-75% max HR). I also stick to 20SPM instead of 23 or so. Now, at the same 2k effort, I get about 6:57 and have entirely cut out weights + the once a week 8x500m with 3.30r and 2k +1s pace. I was only doing steady state for my rowing and a 85% effort 5km or 2km once a week. I did do a lot more running since all my rowing PBs. Your video resonated with me a lot when you talk about the value for your time. I work a lot and do other sports and simply don't have the time or motivation to put in 90min SS a day. However, I like to set personal goals for 2Ks etc and it'd be nice to break some older PBs. I'll let you know how my results change as I reintroduce the higher intensity work.
Thanks for providing great information. Quick question… what are your thoughts on zone 2 work for biking as a supplementary training for roving, or would you also recommend more of a zone 3 based approach for this as well?
I love it. Cycling in zone 2 was my favorite way to cross train when I was a high performance rower. Cycling is tailor-made for true long slow distance. On that note, you need a lot more volume than a rowing workout. I generally suggest 2-3 times your normal rowing steady state volume (but make darn sure you are spinning high and light). I liked cadences in the 85-95 range and a gear light enough that I could talk and eat no problem while riding. Not your question, but running is also great cross training for rowing as it is load bearing and rowing is not (and running is also what we evolved to do). For running you can do zone 2 or 3 though I personally prefer zone 3. Running and rowing have very similar training profiles actually.
Been erging for 3 weeks total after being unfit and doing nothing for years but previously was competitive footballer(semi pro level). Doing lots of “research” as the internet calls it and followed Cam (GB rower) advice on steady state. These are probably noob gains but my 10k went from like 57 to 47m but it’s encouraging. Really enjoy the convenience of the erg vs walking/cycling/gym. My 2k best so far is 8.27 and that was at the end of my best 10k. This was late in evening and im a night owl so wondering if this had an impact on why I felt so good and able to push. Do you think breaking a 7 minute 2k is a realistic goal? I like steady state due to low injury chance and general ease. I did 200m in 30s so have reasonable power. Heavyweight M 32 btw.
Welcome to the sport! I'd guess that sub 6:30 is well within your ability based on your age and athletic experience. My advice is make technique your priority and find good on-the-water rowing coaches in your area to work with in this regard. The fitness will come with the miles but if you get injured along the way or are only applying 60% of your fitness due to bad technique, you'll never reach your potential.
To get the training effects from zone 2 training it is 180 min/week and at least 45 min in zone 2 per session. Also zone 2 is optimal zone to increase mitochondria density and efficiency, which will ultimately dictate your performance in higher zones. Also the idea of rowing being a power aerobic sport because of the relative low SPM compared to the cadence of say a biker or runner is false. Would a successful rower squat more weight than a runner probably, but if they are both perfomring their sport for 30 min of maximum effort they will be using the same energy systems
Energy systems are not the only factor in producing impulse. If you train with the slow drive speed necessary to maintain zone 2 when rowing, then you will not perform as well at race speed compared to someone that is training high pressure, low rate for their aerobic efforts.
Resistance training and plyometrics cannot compensate for the absence of a high effort drive phase executed ~500-2000 times a day. It is certainly better than nothing as you noted, but that can be said for most physical activities.
@@TravisGardner I guess we will just have to disagree. Experienced coaches and researchers in and out of rowing across the board say that 80% of training volume should be zone 2. Again just because rowing is performed at a much lower cadence than running or cycling doesn’t mean that you have train daily at high effort drive. Zone 2 for a runner or cyclist would be the same effort compared to race pace as for a rower and therefore you can’t claim that zone 2 works for other sports, but not rowing. Also if you are using terms like “high effort drive” or “pulse” resistance training and plyometrics would benefit a rower much more than doing steady state work in zone 3 and 4 at 10-15 splits slower than 2k pace.
Find me a rowing coaching with 15+ years experience producing fast rowers (which weren't already fast when they got them) that does 80% of their training minutes under 70% mHR and I'll get them on Rowing Resource to discuss training methodology. Furthermore, 10-15 splits slower than 2k pace isn't anywhere near zone 3 unless you are an aerobic freak or a completely dogging your 2k. Lastly, I'm not saying zone 2 doesn't work. I'm saying its is not optimal. Anything that gets you off your butt and rowing will make you better than if you didn't. Restricting all of your aerobic training to 60-70% is simply an inefficient use of your time.
Travis, awesome channel and I am really enjoying your videos. I was on a novice 8 crew team in college and fell in love with the sport, but never had very serious coaching or training. In the last year, (now 20 years later) I bought a Concept 2 for my house started rowing on it 6 days a week. I am seeing nice gains and actually besting my college times, but I want to keep improving. I do dedicate two days to long 60-90 min rows at a lower steady state pace mostly as aerobic fitness and recovery after my days of tougher high intensity power interval training on the erg. I do wonder though how much time I should be spending to develop my power on squats, and weights that target the legs to build the power versus zones on the erg? Hopefully making sense. I am 45 and 160LBs/LW. I feel i have the aerobic capacity but when I really put down power to boost split times, I crash early which is what I think you are talking about here.
hi J B, thanks for the questions. I outline the distribution of energy zones in this video, th-cam.com/video/qkpcIKrczus/w-d-xo.html Sounds like you're spending far more time on the anaerobic side of threshold than appropriate. Also, 60-90 minutes steady state is not a recovery day, not if you are approaching it properly that is. For strength training, it would depend on where you are in your annual cycle with regard to what you should be doing and how much time would be appropriate to devote to it. Answering that would require more than a TH-cam comment. I will say that weights will augment performance in certain situations, but if you need weights to get good power, there is something wrong with the rest of your training. If you want to dive in a bit more, check out the consulting options at gtsrowing.com. That could help answer any questions the video above does not.
Male 51 here , with corona and gym reopened this week, more time working from home I'd like to tweak my goals. Up until March I'd focused on 2,000 mtr Concept as it's a proxy for VO2 max and figured that was a decent heart health goal along with usual strength training and being a commuter cyclist, summer leisure cyclist 2hr-5hr with hills. I decided I'd give the 5K concept a try but keep to zone 2 ,my guess being 140bpm and see if my time drops over time. Would some hybrid work better, alternate a zone 2 session with zone 2 but include five 250Mtr near max effort sprints at the 750m mark? later in the summer I'll get back to my 2k nemesis ;-)
I'm not clear on your question(s) but it seems like you are saying that you are rowing 5000 meter workouts at Zone 2? If that is the case you will not get any benefit beyond the first month or so. Zone 2 requires very large training volumes (i.e. 90 minutes or more at a time to be most effective). If you are only rowing 5000 meters at a time I would suggest a very high effort (after a patient warm up of course) at a strict low rate (16-19). Adding in the max effort sprints as you describe would not be helpful.
@@TravisGardner thanks, I've used zone 2 as a guide when cycling as it seemed to be the best way to get though longer distance cycling especially hill climbing but I see now that the rower is a different beast.
Transferring training principles between sports is tricky. Because rowing uses training/racing cadences between 1/4 to 1/3 of what you would use in cycling, the impulse generated per stroke is much much higher and those are best maintained in steady state at higher effort levels than in cycling.
training on a rower to spend time IN your aerobic system for health/longevity etc by doing a low effort high volume zone 2 routine is good idea right? You are saying you shouldn’t do it if you only want to be a competitive yes?
Definitely. Any low effort high volume work will train the aerobic system. In the case of rowing though it is not the idea approach for competitive performance.
Hello Travis. I am a very new recreational rower, mostly interested in gaining muscle tone and cutting body fat. My metrics are 5’8” 160lbs 27 years old male. Basically I row 4 or 5 times a week mainly doing a 5k row each workout with a time between 20:30 and 21:30. I have noticed that my average heart rate on these sessions is 185 bpm and my highest peak heart rate has been 205 bpm. I am worried that this may be too much stress on my heart and would love your input.
Hi Cory, my guess is that you simply have a HR that operates in a high range. I definitely wouldn't worry about it being "too much stress". The foundation of training should be low rate (16-18 spm), firm pressure (enough that you can say a few sentences with ease, but sustained speech of more than a paragraph would disrupt your breathing). I would encourage you to also alternate longer days with shorter ones. Adding in 8-10k every second or third day. In general I don't recommend the same distance every day. Alternating 15 minute days and 30 minute days would be better than 20 minute days all the time. Bouncing between 20 and 40 minute days better than daily 30 minutes, etc. Good luck and have fun! Oh, and check out www.gtsrowing.com if you're interested in remote coaching :)
I dont agree with your Zone 2 theory, to build endurance, speed and muscle you need to be in the zone 2 70-80% of your training. If you are an elite athlete, you can probably cut that to 40%. Mitochondria increases through zone 2, and it also teaches your muscles to use lactate for energy when you go into zone 3-4. You dont train a majority of your time in zone 3, you need aerobic training but 25-30% is sufficient
If you are using it to cross-train, just do the same that you would do for your running miles. If you want to compete as a rower, then apply Lydiard's guidelines for MASS to rowing and complete your long rows at a cadence under 19 spm.
What range of percentage of LT1 power would UT2 be at? Or is it a specific range of blood lactate concentrations as a percentage of LT1 or just constant numbers (say 2.0 mmol)?
That will vary widely by individual but for 99.9% of athletes, you don't need to be that specific anyway. If you're trying to win Worlds or the Olympics...well, you probably shouldn't be getting your training guidance from TH-cam. :) A well structured training session (volume, intensity, spm, drag factor, etc.) will ensure you are hitting those zones.
Another thing making z2 more confusing is that people use many different definitions. I've heard the one you use here but also lactate around 1,5-2 ish which could be closer to 70-80% of max heart rate dependant on the individual. One man's z2 is another man's z3.
I think the best argument is not the similar training effect, but trying to negate the volume. Hi Volume can cause injuries. However, Zone 2 is important for improving mitochondria development.
There is a missunderstanding of Zone 2! Some Articles write Zone 2 is 60-70% of HFMAX Some Articles write 70-80% of HFMAX The real Zone 2 that trains your arobic base at best is at 1,7-2 mml lactate or(fat max) or (the pace u can hold a conversation but uncomfortable) is the "real" Zone 2. And that is at 70-80% HFMAX.
Google "Zone 2 Heart Rate Training Zone". You will not see anything defining it at 70-80% HFMAX. If you want to redefine zone 2, you will need to cast a far larger net than this comment section.
@@TravisGardner i know. I had the same Problem to find the "true" Zone 2. Ist is at 70-80% HFMAX and at 60-70% HFreserve. And most Articles mix the two because they think HFreserve=HFmax.
Yeah, I would rather listen to Olympic rowers and the majority of literature and sports science... You can train 60 mins and still have very significant effects in aerobic base. Did you say you need to do 10 strokes per minute to be in UT2 ? What are you talking about? You can row at 20spm being at 60-70% maximum. Pretty much everything you said in the video is wrong.
You keep editing your comment...hard to keep up. My original reply is below, as to your newly edited response. I said you would need to be around 10 spm to be in Zone 2 while still maintaining the kind of power per stroke needed to translate into a race or testing effort. Zone 2 training is not UT2. UT2 as a training zone used in rowing and is defined by more than HR. The simplest criteria I one could use to define it would be based on the concentration of lactate in the blood and stroke rates in the 16-22 range (under 20 for most non-elite athletes). Original response from before you edited the comment claimed I was saying 60 minutes was insufficient to induce an aerobic training stimulus: As I said in the video, 60 minute training sessions work (and are what I've used personally and professionally for the vase majority of my career), you're just not going to get the same benefit with 60 minutes of zone 2 that you would with zone 3. This is especially true if zone 2 is all that you are using for your aerobic stimulus and it is not appropriately supplemented with training designed to develop your power per stroke. And all the principles discussed here are drawn from training literature and sports science. Spracklen, Grinko, Grobler, Teti...these guys aren't telling their rowers to drop their pressure because their HRs are too high lol
@@TravisGardner I did not change anything. I added. Zone 2 is 60-70 max heart rate. Which is within UT3 and low UT2 bounds. You claim that to train in zone 2 while rowing you need to train with 10spm. Which is nonsense. While training in this zone how much power you generate is irrelevant. What is required is that you keep this effort for at least an hour, 90mins best. You say this is not relevant for people who want to train 6 hours per week. What you neglect, is that if you are doing 6 hours zone 3 per week, you need at least 15 mins warm up and another 10 mins cool down. Given that at zone 2 five minutes of warmup is enough, and don't need any cool down, one is better off to devote 90mins in truly improving their aerobic base than spend 90 mins with a third of it being warm up and cold down and not get the same benefit. Plus, as you said, you get the benefit of less injury risk, better recover and overall well being, as well as increasing fat loss, as 70% of the fuel in zone 2 is through far oxidation. So I am struggling to understand why if someone who does rowing recreationally, wants to improve aerobic base and has 90 minutes available time would choose zone 3 over zone 2.
Hi @@jaytorr6701, we're talking around each other here. You can train Zone 2 at any stroke rate you'd like. You could do so at 30 spm, would simply require an incredibly low power per stroke. What I am saying is that to get the high power per stroke needed to get those most benefit as a competitive rower, you would need to drop your spm down to 8-12 to get that power per stroke while ALSO remaining in Zone 2. You claim that how much power you generate is irrelevant, which is simply not true. Visit Carlos Dinares' channel if you want to explore this further. He does a very good job discussing it. Per your second paragram, 1) warm up and warm down are supplementary training and I would not count them in the 6 hours, they would be part of that 40%. If you're warm up was simply a matter of starting easy on your aerobic session and settling into base pace over time, without taking a break in between, then I would count that as part of the core volume. 2) You're making broad assumptions about warm up and warm down. Need and duration for both vary greatly across age and experience levels. I would still consider it as part of the supplementary training. 3) If you have 90 minutes to train, you should never forfeit time to warm up and warm down to maximize your time at pace. If you need 30 minutes to warm up and warm down, and have 90 minutes available, then you have 60 minutes to spend at pace. 4) I did not say anything about lessened risk of injury, overall well being, or increased fat loss. 6) You recover better because it places less training stimulus on the body. 7) For the most part, if you want to lost fat, change your diet, not your training zone. If you're still struggling to understand, then you just need to dive deeper into the subject through other sources or stick with what you believe and move on.
@@TravisGardner indeed, I am struggling to understand why one would do zone 2 training with 10 spm in order to generate power. Zone 2 training is for developing aerobic base. And that comes when your heart works for 60-70% for around 60mins. This is usually done at 18-20spm. Power comes with periodisation of training, ie weights and using TR and AT sessions. Why would one try to combine both and do aerobic base training with such power to require 10spm is beyond any prevalent training protocol. If you are advocating some alternative training protocol, then good on you. But I think the science of training protocols and periodisation is pretty much set. Might be ignorant but never have I trained or seen any high level rower train consistently with a zone 2 at 10 spm. Might be a fun session to throw in once in a blue moon, but for the life of me have never seen rowers consistently train at this pace.
hi @@jaytorr6701, you've fixated on this 10 spm comment which is distracting from the point of the video. If you do want to explore that comment further, here is a thought experiment which you're welcome to replicate on an RP3. First, find your average joules during a race piece on the erg - 1000m, 2000m, doesn't matter, just pick the distance that is your personal competitive focus. Now, row at 18 spm producing the same joules. That is going to be [approximately] your UT2 pace and you'll find that your will average HR will fall in Zone 3 if you did this for a full aerobic training session. Now, in a new session, keep the same joules and lower your spm until you find yourself producing an average HR in Zone 2. I suspect that this spm will be in the 8-12 spm range. We just fundamentally disagree on when and how to train power for our sport, so I'll leave that subject rest. I'm not talking about an alternative training protocol. Zone 2 training is NOT the standard in our sport, it is the "trendy new idea" that people keep promoting with insufficient data and context (thus my motivation for this video). If you know of any rowing literature that covers prevalent training methodology for our sport and that advocates for Zone 2 aerobic training for the majority of your training minutes, let me know and I'll check it out. Next, don't row at a 10 spm. It's not a training session practice I recommend. I said this in the video. Finally, the science of training protocols and periodization is not set. That is a ludicrous statement. We are always learning and advancing the dominant paradigm. If it was set, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because everyone would know exactly what they needed to do to achieve peak performance.
Not as I understand it. The phosphate system only supplies energy for a very short period (5-8 seconds). Think 100 meter sprints. Also, weight lifting is going to be limited by your muscular capacity, not your energy systems. For the most part, I would not consider weight lifting to be effective for training either the anaerobic or aerobic capacity. Maybe, and it's a big maybe, you could use a very specific kind of muscular endurance lift to develop anaerobic capacity. I'm imagining a lift structure and cadence that would mimic something a long sprinter would complete for a training session. That's pretty heavy into the theoretical realm though.
@@TravisGardner the 3-5 rep range does train the phospocreatine energy system exclusively it seems, but going to around 10 and over should be glycolytic already.
@@dial_up_romance I believe you are mistaken. A 1 rep max lift would "train" the ATP-CP system, maybe 2 reps, but 3-5 is going to rely on other energy systems while being limited primarily by the neuromuscular system. If you can direct me to any literature that supports your assertion though please do, I am curious.
@@TravisGardnerThat is interesting. Is that saying that developing the power to row the best 2k/5k times comes generally from only properly structured rowing training plans? And weight lifting to develop strong muscles in the legs, glutes and back are not necessary, and even counterproductive, to improving these rowing times? A thing I like about rowing is that it is good cardio but also a power, nearly full body workout. Just wondering on your perspective. I would have figured a good strength, weightlifting program would be beneficial, undoubtedly, at least until enough strength is developed.
![UNDERSTANDING UT1 STEADY STATE [FOR ROWING] and How to Execute a UT1 Training Session](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gaZudbfGjmQ/mqdefault.jpg)
![🔴 ฟุตบอลแชมป์กีฬา 7HD แชมเปียน คัพ 2024 [รอบรองชนะเลิศ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/zPm8ClLVhoE/mqdefault.jpg)
Thanks Travis. This has come up a lot in our training group at GARAGEATHLETE (for SkiErg as well). The bulk of our "steady state" efforts are right in that 70-80% MHR sweet spot as we aren't putting in more than 8-10 hours of volume.
One thing I have found beneficial is completing a lot of my SS session at a higher stroke rate (say 26-28) rather than 18-22, as one of the limiting factors I found when it came to time trials was the ability to sustain higher cadences. Combined with typical speed/power work throughout the week, along with the occasional hard, low rate tempo session, my power/stroke hasn't been compromised, and I have set some PB's at shorter distances (1min, 500m, 1k) as well as 30min and 10k.
Appreciate these videos, will be sure to follow in the future.
Thanks for the comment and support Justin. I've actually been following and enjoying your content on Instagram for awhile now. Good to know where you are on TH-cam as well and will definitely subscribe. It's interesting to hear you talk about high rate steady state facilitating the same higher cadences for testing/race efforts. I wonder if that is because of the conditioning benefit or because it helped to develop the technical skills necessary to race higher. A lot of on-the-water rowers (especially heavyweights) will struggle getting the rates up on the erg compared to similar efforts on the water. I've always approached this from a technical perspective in my coaching. Have you tried returning to a focus on the lower cadences after you had success training/trialing at the higher rates?
Travis Gardner tough to say. I think I incorporate enough of a mix of stimuli now that I’m not sure what’s helping what 😂 when I was stuck in low stroke rate SS + lower rate power work, my distance suffered. I couldn’t rate up without blowing up, so to your point about technical proficiency at higher rates, that makes sense. I also think because I do enough work with a focus on stroke power or speed training, the “lighter pressure” of high rate SS pieces doesn’t impact my overall stroke profile. Does that make sense? The more I pull 10km at r26+ and ~80% of max HR, the more confident I feel holding those rates regardless of the distance or effort.
These comments are nuts. Travis is giving good advice on how to improve as a COMPETITIVE ROWER. These kooks in the comments keep citing Peter Attia, a physician, focused on helping middle-aged and elderly people live longer. THESE ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGs.
And you know what is really crazy? Peter states that he doesn’t like anchoring on HR for his Z2 training, and that his Z2 training HR floats between 78-81% of his true MHR.
Which is all to say that he is literally in what is commonly called a Z3 by the ubiquitous HR zone charts.
In other words, Travis and Peter would both be in total agreement.
I can hold conversations, breath through nose, etc. at 70-80% HR on C2 for and hour. If I were at 60-70% I would feel like I’m doing nothing at all. My ‘feel’ is about in that upper 70% range for myself. I hope to monkey with some lactate testing just to see if there are any trends in that area.
Jibcutter, thanks for those comments. I’m the same as you, don’t feel like I’m doing enough work in Z2. In a 30-40 min session my HR will gradually gravitate up to my anaerobic threshold and then flatten out. It takes at least 20 mins to get to that point.
The other comment to make is that I’m 73yo and still racing competitively on water so obviously my max HR is a lot lower than most who are younger than me (about 165), except in the last 200m of a 1000m race (170+)
Having said all that, I actually did a lactate threshold test yesterday and planning to work with a specialised exercise physiologist to improve strength without raising SR.
I have an endurance based background in swimming, cycling and running and began indoor rowing in 2018. During 2019 I produced some of my best times for the 5K and 10K. At this time my training efforts were what would be considered zone 3 and above, comprising of perhaps 3 or 4 sessions per week, totalling 5 to 6 hours. Having an interest in training methods I read a lot about zone 2 training and the 80/20 principles and experimented using them over a three year period. As a result my training volume increased (rowing , cycling, running and skierg) but to compensate, and enable recovery between sessions, intensity was reduced. Although I was able to row in excess of an hour or ride for 3 hours, because of the reduction in intensity and therefore power per stroke, TT efforts were a disaster. I continued to experiment with the zone 2 work in conjunction with some harder efforts on the bike. Rowing wise, it was largely ineffective. There is no getting away from the fact that training has to be tailored to the specific discipline. For me the zone 2 stuff really was a complete waste of my time. It just did not work. I just got more efficient at going slow.
I've recently reverted back to 4 harder, shorter sessions per week and added strength work. It's been hard work but the improvement in my fitness within just one month has been significant.
I had previously seen this video during the time I was experimenting with the various training methods, but wanted to test it for myself.
I can conclude that in my experience, all you have mentioned in your video is correct. So for anyone else with the same mind set as I, just listen to the man.
so are you saying you ditched your zone 3+ training to only perform zone 2 training? Wouldn't you perform better if you injected some zone 2 and kept your standard training? Zone 2 training forces your body to replace the mitochondria via mitophagy which is where the benefit comes from, or so what i've read.
@@edaciousx For me and the time I am willing to invest, the traditional zone 2 steady state exercise at around 70% of maximum HR, does not provide enough stress on my body to cause further adaptation. Perhaps if I was willing to invest 15 to 20 hours per week at the same effort , then the increase in volume at the same effort may cause sufficient stress for further adaptation.
I'd recommend a listen to a recent podcast by Dr. Peter Attia and Inigo San Millan (PhD Exercise Physiologist and endurance coach for Tadej Pogacar) "Deep Dive Back Into Zone 2". They'd disagree with much of what you said. Yes you're going to take a power hit if you train solely in Zone 2, but no one recommends that. 80%-90% in Zone 2 for most of the season and then a ramp up on power based and VO2 based training as you get closer to competitions. Also, they'd define zone two for most people as 70%-80% of MHR and would encourage one to rely on RPE (relative perceived exertion) to really hone in on zone 2.
Aerobic base takes years to improve (so it's not surprising that your personal experiment with zone 2 wasn't successful), but you can make significant VO2 max gains and power gains (or re-gains) in a matter of months. The problem is that your performance peaks won't reach their full potential if you only work on the power and vo2 systems. Which is higher, a 40 foot tree growing at the bottom of a mountain or a 20 foot tall tree growing at the top of a mountain? If your metabolic/aerobic base isn't built and established, no amount of power or vo2 max will let you outperform someone who has a solid metabolic/cardio base that has also polished his strength and vo2 max as he nears competition.
It also takes less time to do this than you've suggested. It's been very well demonstrated that 3-4 1 hour zone 2 sessions a week is a good volume to produce significant metabolic fitness results if done consistently, and zone 2 is much easier to remain consistent at over the long term than higher intensities (I know this from personal experience).
It's also not an apples to apples comparison as far as benefits reaped from different types of training. Zone 2 work stimulates different energy pathways (cellular level ATP utilization) that are minimally affected or not affected while you're working at higher intensity training states.
In summary, this isn't an either/or proposition, it's a matter of building a cardio and metabolic fitness base (that can only really effectively be done with zone 2), while working a day or two a week of strength and power work and then changing that ratio as you close in on competitions to include more power and strength work (systems that can rapidly improve) tailored to the specific distance you're working towards.
Am I reading this right? Peter and Inigo have a podcast emphasizing the importance of zone 2, which isn't really zone 2 because they've "redefined" it to align with what I and any basic internet search would identify as zone 3 (i.e. 70-80% mHR). And then they go on to emphasize the importance of the 70-80% mHR range when developing the aerobic system, which is exactly what I did in this video? Did I miss something?
@@TravisGardner "Any basic internet search" is all over the board on the heart rate definition of zone 2. 60%-70%. 60-75%. 65%-75%. 70-80%. All pop up repeatedly. Call me crazy, but I tend to lean toward the definition proposed by two of the leading exercise physiologists (MD and PhD) conducting and publishing funded research on the subject.
You're crazy.
I just recently listened to that podcast and Peter doesn’t like using HR to define his Z2. And he goes on to state that his Z2 is 78-81% of his True MHR (which is completely inline with what this video presents).
This vid doesn’t at all conflict and is bang on advice (at least for my ‘Z2’ training on a C2 rower).
I worried what you were saying but agree with definition of Z2.. a lot of volume training is defined as UT2, which in my mind takes us up to 75%. But overall in my training, 10hrs a week as a serious ‘recreational ‘ rower I try to do lots of my sessions at 70-75% HRmax each session 75-100min.
This is so true. Spent the summer doing zone 2 and my power per stroke has gotten so poor, I fatigue so easily muscle wise. My aerobic capacity has improved a lot but its absolutely not manifested in my 2k. In fact its worse now..
but ur aerobic capacity has improved right? muscle --> weights room 2k time --> high intensity along with what ur doing. Can't expect to improve a 2k with just zone 2. And y u doing zone 2 in the summer lol
I'm fairly new to rowing so far (started last month) and did all of my training in zone 3-5 my first month. I found it very difficult to do more than about 40-50k meters per week at that intensity and found myself getting pretty sore. I recently started trying some zone 1 and 2 training just to see what it was like and was able to jump up to 150k per week rowing 2 1 hour sessions every day without needing to take any days off for rest breaks. So while you may be right that more volume is needed to get similar benefits in zone 1 or 2, more volume at that intensity is easy. If losing weight is your goal, you'll probably also be burning more calories rowing 2 hours a day at zone 2 compared to maybe half of that in zone 3-5. If you can do 2 hours a day at zone 3, great, but I can't. So far I've seen significant performance gains with both methods, but while I sometimes found myself too sore to do my full zone 3-5 workout even with rest days where I didn't row at all, that's never the case with zone 2 even with zero rest days. I suspect some combination of both styles might be "best" but I haven't really seen anything definitive on what the best proportion is.
If you're new to rowing then I suspect everything you do will yield improvement. Low effort training will certainly improve your aerobic endurance, but it will not translate as well to competitive performance without some very specific strategies (which just mean even more training time). Also, very few people have the time to log the volume you are quoting, and the competitive benefit of higher effort aerobic miles will generally always trump low effort miles at volumes under 10-12 hours/week of training.
If I understand this correctly, I can do 1.5 hours of zone 2 rowing every day if I’m strictly doing this type of exercise for fat burning/aerobic improvement? I’ve been using cycling for this reason, but stumbled across rowing and enjoyed that it’s a full body, low impact cardio exercise as opposed to running and cycling. I’m not looking at the rowing machine to get into rowing competitions.
@@jonathonbarrios3199 I've been doing low intensity rowing twice a week, unsure of my actual rowing heart rate because I don't monitor it, just doing it to help it as cross training to my running. Slowly & slowly I've been getting better at rowing!
Thanks for the video, Travis. I've been curious about this myself. I'm a recreational Concept 2 rower for 2 years (never rowed on water), but I got really into it. Never used heart rate training until recently.
All my PBs came from doing no 'steady state'. I stopped for about 6 months and did other sports, then came back and wanted to beat my times, but couldn't come close. I tried doing 40 min SS sessions for about a month, a few days a week. Based on my max HR (183bmp) ever seen on the rower, I was trying to stick to ~135 bpm. I stopped doing any AT work and my times just couldn't get close to PBs across the board.
I agree with what you say about power - I had the cardio, but couldn't pull the wattage for my 2km/5km attempts. So I think I'll try return to some training and give more focus to intensity. I have noticed recently my max HR on the machine reaches 173 on max efforts, and I can't go higher (2km, 5km, 10km max efforts). I used a Polar h10 strap... I'm like 10bpm lower than last year and it's frustrating because it affects what my HR zones will be. I am running more and getting better at that, but my times aren't that much worse on the rower (not 10bmp/perceived effort different). Have you had any experience as a coach with your athletes significantly lowering their max HRs, other than getting older?
Appreciate all your videos!
M, 26, 183cm, 82kg.
You're welcome, glad the videos are helping! The most basic guidance I can give is don't use heart rate to dictate your training paces right now. It is an invaluable evaluation tool when used properly but you need AT LEAST several months of data before you're going to be able to draw value from that data.
It does not surprise me that your PBs came from doing no steady state' especially if the steady state you used was limited to zone 2 heart rate. The power you were developing with anaerobic intervals will translate better to max efforts than zone 2 training absent the same. Plus, you're getting an aerobic stimulus during the anaerobic work, it's just not as much as you would doing the steady state. That being said, steady state done properly is without a doubt the single most effective way to train for any distance over 500 meters. But we're talking firm pressure at rates in the high teens. I recommend ditching the HR monitor for a couple months, go back to those 40 min sessions (split into 4x10 min or 2x20 min if needed) and start working at a pace that is challenging but sustainable (and at 16-20 spm). Check out my video about UT2 training for details on pacing. You also want to sprinkle in a little anaerobic work, but we're talking maybe 1 UT1 session every other week and 1 each of AT and Transport per month. If you want to leave another comment with how much and how often you'd be doing your steady state I can give more details on what exactly to do with each of those workouts.
As as 26 year old I would say it is highly unlikely that your HR zones have changed in a year (mine are essentially the same at 39 years old as they were at 24 years old). If you've taken time away from training then your HR will rise quicker and settle higher than it would if you were deep into a training cycle. Perhaps this is what you are seeing.
@@TravisGardner I appreciate the detailed reply!
I had great success loosely following the Pete Plan towards the end of 2018. At the time, I think I was doing 40mins at ~1:58-2:02 pace for my SS sessions at the time. But I would push the last 2mins or so and get the HR up at the end. I was doing about 23-24SPM and before starting it, had a 2k of 7:52. after 3 weeks of loose Pete Plan, I got my PB of 6:43.
Now I do about ~2:08 SS for 40min straight, 3 times a week. I keep my HR at 70-75% max HR). I also stick to 20SPM instead of 23 or so. Now, at the same 2k effort, I get about 6:57 and have entirely cut out weights + the once a week 8x500m with 3.30r and 2k +1s pace. I was only doing steady state for my rowing and a 85% effort 5km or 2km once a week. I did do a lot more running since all my rowing PBs.
Your video resonated with me a lot when you talk about the value for your time. I work a lot and do other sports and simply don't have the time or motivation to put in 90min SS a day. However, I like to set personal goals for 2Ks etc and it'd be nice to break some older PBs. I'll let you know how my results change as I reintroduce the higher intensity work.
Useful stuff. Now subscribed 🙏
Thanks for providing great information. Quick question… what are your thoughts on zone 2 work for biking as a supplementary training for roving, or would you also recommend more of a zone 3 based approach for this as well?
I love it. Cycling in zone 2 was my favorite way to cross train when I was a high performance rower. Cycling is tailor-made for true long slow distance. On that note, you need a lot more volume than a rowing workout. I generally suggest 2-3 times your normal rowing steady state volume (but make darn sure you are spinning high and light). I liked cadences in the 85-95 range and a gear light enough that I could talk and eat no problem while riding.
Not your question, but running is also great cross training for rowing as it is load bearing and rowing is not (and running is also what we evolved to do). For running you can do zone 2 or 3 though I personally prefer zone 3. Running and rowing have very similar training profiles actually.
@@TravisGardner Thank you very much for the very elaporate answer, it is very helpful😀👍
Been erging for 3 weeks total after being unfit and doing nothing for years but previously was competitive footballer(semi pro level). Doing lots of “research” as the internet calls it and followed Cam (GB rower) advice on steady state. These are probably noob gains but my 10k went from like 57 to 47m but it’s encouraging. Really enjoy the convenience of the erg vs walking/cycling/gym.
My 2k best so far is 8.27 and that was at the end of my best 10k. This was late in evening and im a night owl so wondering if this had an impact on why I felt so good and able to push. Do you think breaking a 7 minute 2k is a realistic goal? I like steady state due to low injury chance and general ease. I did 200m in 30s so have reasonable power.
Heavyweight M 32 btw.
Welcome to the sport! I'd guess that sub 6:30 is well within your ability based on your age and athletic experience. My advice is make technique your priority and find good on-the-water rowing coaches in your area to work with in this regard. The fitness will come with the miles but if you get injured along the way or are only applying 60% of your fitness due to bad technique, you'll never reach your potential.
To get the training effects from zone 2 training it is 180 min/week and at least 45 min in zone 2 per session. Also zone 2 is optimal zone to increase mitochondria density and efficiency, which will ultimately dictate your performance in higher zones. Also the idea of rowing being a power aerobic sport because of the relative low SPM compared to the cadence of say a biker or runner is false. Would a successful rower squat more weight than a runner probably, but if they are both perfomring their sport for 30 min of maximum effort they will be using the same energy systems
Energy systems are not the only factor in producing impulse. If you train with the slow drive speed necessary to maintain zone 2 when rowing, then you will not perform as well at race speed compared to someone that is training high pressure, low rate for their aerobic efforts.
@@TravisGardner only if your training is exclusively in zone 2 and doesn’t include zone 5 training as well as resistance training and plyometrics.
Resistance training and plyometrics cannot compensate for the absence of a high effort drive phase executed ~500-2000 times a day. It is certainly better than nothing as you noted, but that can be said for most physical activities.
@@TravisGardner I guess we will just have to disagree. Experienced coaches and researchers in and out of rowing across the board say that 80% of training volume should be zone 2. Again just because rowing is performed at a much lower cadence than running or cycling doesn’t mean that you have train daily at high effort drive. Zone 2 for a runner or cyclist would be the same effort compared to race pace as for a rower and therefore you can’t claim that zone 2 works for other sports, but not rowing. Also if you are using terms like “high effort drive” or “pulse” resistance training and plyometrics would benefit a rower much more than doing steady state work in zone 3 and 4 at 10-15 splits slower than 2k pace.
Find me a rowing coaching with 15+ years experience producing fast rowers (which weren't already fast when they got them) that does 80% of their training minutes under 70% mHR and I'll get them on Rowing Resource to discuss training methodology.
Furthermore, 10-15 splits slower than 2k pace isn't anywhere near zone 3 unless you are an aerobic freak or a completely dogging your 2k.
Lastly, I'm not saying zone 2 doesn't work. I'm saying its is not optimal. Anything that gets you off your butt and rowing will make you better than if you didn't. Restricting all of your aerobic training to 60-70% is simply an inefficient use of your time.
Travis, awesome channel and I am really enjoying your videos. I was on a novice 8 crew team in college and fell in love with the sport, but never had very serious coaching or training. In the last year, (now 20 years later) I bought a Concept 2 for my house started rowing on it 6 days a week. I am seeing nice gains and actually besting my college times, but I want to keep improving. I do dedicate two days to long 60-90 min rows at a lower steady state pace mostly as aerobic fitness and recovery after my days of tougher high intensity power interval training on the erg. I do wonder though how much time I should be spending to develop my power on squats, and weights that target the legs to build the power versus zones on the erg? Hopefully making sense. I am 45 and 160LBs/LW. I feel i have the aerobic capacity but when I really put down power to boost split times, I crash early which is what I think you are talking about here.
hi J B, thanks for the questions. I outline the distribution of energy zones in this video, th-cam.com/video/qkpcIKrczus/w-d-xo.html Sounds like you're spending far more time on the anaerobic side of threshold than appropriate. Also, 60-90 minutes steady state is not a recovery day, not if you are approaching it properly that is. For strength training, it would depend on where you are in your annual cycle with regard to what you should be doing and how much time would be appropriate to devote to it. Answering that would require more than a TH-cam comment. I will say that weights will augment performance in certain situations, but if you need weights to get good power, there is something wrong with the rest of your training. If you want to dive in a bit more, check out the consulting options at gtsrowing.com. That could help answer any questions the video above does not.
Male 51 here , with corona and gym reopened this week, more time working from home I'd like to tweak my goals. Up until March I'd focused on 2,000 mtr Concept as it's a proxy for VO2 max and figured that was a decent heart health goal along with usual strength training and being a commuter cyclist, summer leisure cyclist 2hr-5hr with hills. I decided I'd give the 5K concept a try but keep to zone 2 ,my guess being 140bpm and see if my time drops over time.
Would some hybrid work better, alternate a zone 2 session with zone 2 but include five 250Mtr near max effort sprints at the 750m mark? later in the summer I'll get back to my 2k nemesis ;-)
I'm not clear on your question(s) but it seems like you are saying that you are rowing 5000 meter workouts at Zone 2? If that is the case you will not get any benefit beyond the first month or so. Zone 2 requires very large training volumes (i.e. 90 minutes or more at a time to be most effective). If you are only rowing 5000 meters at a time I would suggest a very high effort (after a patient warm up of course) at a strict low rate (16-19). Adding in the max effort sprints as you describe would not be helpful.
@@TravisGardner thanks, I've used zone 2 as a guide when cycling as it seemed to be the best way to get though longer distance cycling especially hill climbing but I see now that the rower is a different beast.
Transferring training principles between sports is tricky. Because rowing uses training/racing cadences between 1/4 to 1/3 of what you would use in cycling, the impulse generated per stroke is much much higher and those are best maintained in steady state at higher effort levels than in cycling.
training on a rower to spend time IN your aerobic system for health/longevity etc by doing a low effort high volume zone 2 routine is good idea right? You are saying you shouldn’t do it if you only want to be a competitive yes?
Definitely. Any low effort high volume work will train the aerobic system. In the case of rowing though it is not the idea approach for competitive performance.
Hello Travis. I am a very new recreational rower, mostly interested in gaining muscle tone and cutting body fat. My metrics are 5’8” 160lbs 27 years old male. Basically I row 4 or 5 times a week mainly doing a 5k row each workout with a time between 20:30 and 21:30. I have noticed that my average heart rate on these sessions is 185 bpm and my highest peak heart rate has been 205 bpm. I am worried that this may be too much stress on my heart and would love your input.
Hi Cory, my guess is that you simply have a HR that operates in a high range. I definitely wouldn't worry about it being "too much stress". The foundation of training should be low rate (16-18 spm), firm pressure (enough that you can say a few sentences with ease, but sustained speech of more than a paragraph would disrupt your breathing). I would encourage you to also alternate longer days with shorter ones. Adding in 8-10k every second or third day. In general I don't recommend the same distance every day. Alternating 15 minute days and 30 minute days would be better than 20 minute days all the time. Bouncing between 20 and 40 minute days better than daily 30 minutes, etc. Good luck and have fun! Oh, and check out www.gtsrowing.com if you're interested in remote coaching :)
I dont agree with your Zone 2 theory, to build endurance, speed and muscle you need to be in the zone 2 70-80% of your training. If you are an elite athlete, you can probably cut that to 40%. Mitochondria increases through zone 2, and it also teaches your muscles to use lactate for energy when you go into zone 3-4. You dont train a majority of your time in zone 3, you need aerobic training but 25-30% is sufficient
Do you have experience coaching high performance rowers in which you've had success with this approach?
I'm a runner, should I do zone 2 or zone 3 on the rower?
If you are using it to cross-train, just do the same that you would do for your running miles. If you want to compete as a rower, then apply Lydiard's guidelines for MASS to rowing and complete your long rows at a cadence under 19 spm.
@@TravisGardner Thank you.
What range of percentage of LT1 power would UT2 be at? Or is it a specific range of blood lactate concentrations as a percentage of LT1 or just constant numbers (say 2.0 mmol)?
That will vary widely by individual but for 99.9% of athletes, you don't need to be that specific anyway. If you're trying to win Worlds or the Olympics...well, you probably shouldn't be getting your training guidance from TH-cam. :)
A well structured training session (volume, intensity, spm, drag factor, etc.) will ensure you are hitting those zones.
Spend 80% of yourtraining in T2 zone,75-82% of you max heart rate. That's where you will get the most benefit.
Another thing making z2 more confusing is that people use many different definitions. I've heard the one you use here but also lactate around 1,5-2 ish which could be closer to 70-80% of max heart rate dependant on the individual.
One man's z2 is another man's z3.
Google "Zone 2 Heart Rate Training Zone" The results are unambiguous.
I think the best argument is not the similar training effect, but trying to negate the volume. Hi Volume can cause injuries. However, Zone 2 is important for improving mitochondria development.
There is a missunderstanding of Zone 2!
Some Articles write Zone 2 is 60-70% of HFMAX
Some Articles write 70-80% of HFMAX
The real Zone 2 that trains your arobic base at best is at 1,7-2 mml lactate or(fat max) or (the pace u can hold a conversation but uncomfortable) is the "real" Zone 2. And that is at 70-80% HFMAX.
Google "Zone 2 Heart Rate Training Zone". You will not see anything defining it at 70-80% HFMAX. If you want to redefine zone 2, you will need to cast a far larger net than this comment section.
@@TravisGardner i know. I had the same Problem to find the "true" Zone 2. Ist is at 70-80% HFMAX and at 60-70% HFreserve. And most Articles mix the two because they think HFreserve=HFmax.
Algo coment
Yeah, I would rather listen to Olympic rowers and the majority of literature and sports science... You can train 60 mins and still have very significant effects in aerobic base. Did you say you need to do 10 strokes per minute to be in UT2 ? What are you talking about? You can row at 20spm being at 60-70% maximum. Pretty much everything you said in the video is wrong.
You keep editing your comment...hard to keep up. My original reply is below, as to your newly edited response. I said you would need to be around 10 spm to be in Zone 2 while still maintaining the kind of power per stroke needed to translate into a race or testing effort. Zone 2 training is not UT2. UT2 as a training zone used in rowing and is defined by more than HR. The simplest criteria I one could use to define it would be based on the concentration of lactate in the blood and stroke rates in the 16-22 range (under 20 for most non-elite athletes).
Original response from before you edited the comment claimed I was saying 60 minutes was insufficient to induce an aerobic training stimulus:
As I said in the video, 60 minute training sessions work (and are what I've used personally and professionally for the vase majority of my career), you're just not going to get the same benefit with 60 minutes of zone 2 that you would with zone 3. This is especially true if zone 2 is all that you are using for your aerobic stimulus and it is not appropriately supplemented with training designed to develop your power per stroke.
And all the principles discussed here are drawn from training literature and sports science. Spracklen, Grinko, Grobler, Teti...these guys aren't telling their rowers to drop their pressure because their HRs are too high lol
@@TravisGardner I did not change anything. I added.
Zone 2 is 60-70 max heart rate. Which is within UT3 and low UT2 bounds. You claim that to train in zone 2 while rowing you need to train with 10spm. Which is nonsense. While training in this zone how much power you generate is irrelevant. What is required is that you keep this effort for at least an hour, 90mins best.
You say this is not relevant for people who want to train 6 hours per week. What you neglect, is that if you are doing 6 hours zone 3 per week, you need at least 15 mins warm up and another 10 mins cool down. Given that at zone 2 five minutes of warmup is enough, and don't need any cool down, one is better off to devote 90mins in truly improving their aerobic base than spend 90 mins with a third of it being warm up and cold down and not get the same benefit. Plus, as you said, you get the benefit of less injury risk, better recover and overall well being, as well as increasing fat loss, as 70% of the fuel in zone 2 is through far oxidation.
So I am struggling to understand why if someone who does rowing recreationally, wants to improve aerobic base and has 90 minutes available time would choose zone 3 over zone 2.
Hi @@jaytorr6701, we're talking around each other here. You can train Zone 2 at any stroke rate you'd like. You could do so at 30 spm, would simply require an incredibly low power per stroke. What I am saying is that to get the high power per stroke needed to get those most benefit as a competitive rower, you would need to drop your spm down to 8-12 to get that power per stroke while ALSO remaining in Zone 2.
You claim that how much power you generate is irrelevant, which is simply not true. Visit Carlos Dinares' channel if you want to explore this further. He does a very good job discussing it.
Per your second paragram, 1) warm up and warm down are supplementary training and I would not count them in the 6 hours, they would be part of that 40%. If you're warm up was simply a matter of starting easy on your aerobic session and settling into base pace over time, without taking a break in between, then I would count that as part of the core volume. 2) You're making broad assumptions about warm up and warm down. Need and duration for both vary greatly across age and experience levels. I would still consider it as part of the supplementary training. 3) If you have 90 minutes to train, you should never forfeit time to warm up and warm down to maximize your time at pace. If you need 30 minutes to warm up and warm down, and have 90 minutes available, then you have 60 minutes to spend at pace. 4) I did not say anything about lessened risk of injury, overall well being, or increased fat loss. 6) You recover better because it places less training stimulus on the body. 7) For the most part, if you want to lost fat, change your diet, not your training zone.
If you're still struggling to understand, then you just need to dive deeper into the subject through other sources or stick with what you believe and move on.
@@TravisGardner indeed, I am struggling to understand why one would do zone 2 training with 10 spm in order to generate power. Zone 2 training is for developing aerobic base. And that comes when your heart works for 60-70% for around 60mins. This is usually done at 18-20spm.
Power comes with periodisation of training, ie weights and using TR and AT sessions. Why would one try to combine both and do aerobic base training with such power to require 10spm is beyond any prevalent training protocol.
If you are advocating some alternative training protocol, then good on you.
But I think the science of training protocols and periodisation is pretty much set. Might be ignorant but never have I trained or seen any high level rower train consistently with a zone 2 at 10 spm. Might be a fun session to throw in once in a blue moon, but for the life of me have never seen rowers consistently train at this pace.
hi @@jaytorr6701, you've fixated on this 10 spm comment which is distracting from the point of the video. If you do want to explore that comment further, here is a thought experiment which you're welcome to replicate on an RP3. First, find your average joules during a race piece on the erg - 1000m, 2000m, doesn't matter, just pick the distance that is your personal competitive focus. Now, row at 18 spm producing the same joules. That is going to be [approximately] your UT2 pace and you'll find that your will average HR will fall in Zone 3 if you did this for a full aerobic training session. Now, in a new session, keep the same joules and lower your spm until you find yourself producing an average HR in Zone 2. I suspect that this spm will be in the 8-12 spm range.
We just fundamentally disagree on when and how to train power for our sport, so I'll leave that subject rest.
I'm not talking about an alternative training protocol. Zone 2 training is NOT the standard in our sport, it is the "trendy new idea" that people keep promoting with insufficient data and context (thus my motivation for this video). If you know of any rowing literature that covers prevalent training methodology for our sport and that advocates for Zone 2 aerobic training for the majority of your training minutes, let me know and I'll check it out.
Next, don't row at a 10 spm. It's not a training session practice I recommend. I said this in the video.
Finally, the science of training protocols and periodization is not set. That is a ludicrous statement. We are always learning and advancing the dominant paradigm. If it was set, we wouldn't be having this discussion, because everyone would know exactly what they needed to do to achieve peak performance.
I'll take actual science and countless studies over this bro science
3mins in and I'm done with you. Zero knowledge
Yes I'd like to see studies to back up this claim.
couldn't one yield the anaerobic / phospho-creatine power-aspect by combining zone2-rowing and weight-lifting?
Not as I understand it. The phosphate system only supplies energy for a very short period (5-8 seconds). Think 100 meter sprints. Also, weight lifting is going to be limited by your muscular capacity, not your energy systems. For the most part, I would not consider weight lifting to be effective for training either the anaerobic or aerobic capacity. Maybe, and it's a big maybe, you could use a very specific kind of muscular endurance lift to develop anaerobic capacity. I'm imagining a lift structure and cadence that would mimic something a long sprinter would complete for a training session. That's pretty heavy into the theoretical realm though.
@@TravisGardner the 3-5 rep range does train the phospocreatine energy system exclusively it seems, but going to around 10 and over should be glycolytic already.
@@dial_up_romance I believe you are mistaken. A 1 rep max lift would "train" the ATP-CP system, maybe 2 reps, but 3-5 is going to rely on other energy systems while being limited primarily by the neuromuscular system. If you can direct me to any literature that supports your assertion though please do, I am curious.
@@TravisGardnerThat is interesting. Is that saying that developing the power to row the best 2k/5k times comes generally from only properly structured rowing training plans? And weight lifting to develop strong muscles in the legs, glutes and back are not necessary, and even counterproductive, to improving these rowing times?
A thing I like about rowing is that it is good cardio but also a power, nearly full body workout. Just wondering on your perspective. I would have figured a good strength, weightlifting program would be beneficial, undoubtedly, at least until enough strength is developed.
i think there's a lot of misconception here about zone 2
Outline them. Let's break 'em down.