Concept2 Forum

Hi all, I've been learning about how people train this last year and want to hear your input. Specifically I want to address polarized training and the bulk 80% and how this portion of training is actually quantitatively measured. My goal in the long term is to reduce my HR for long form endurance work.

I know there are two metrics, HR based training (Zones) and lactate based training (UT2 / UT1 / etc). I also know in general that these things tend to get mixed up a lot, because a UT2 effort generally correlates with a Z2 or Z3 HR. <--- Maybe that point is wrong, please correct me.

Here's my beef: To me, they don't correlate. My last recorded 2K time was 7:45 and I've put in around 800k since then. I kinda have two points about that:

• If my "80%" of polarized training uses the UTx measure, I SS at UT2 around a 2:20. On average my HR goes from 145 to 170 over an hour. If instead I cap my HR to what my upper limit is for UT2 (157), my split drops down to around 2:25 or slower, although the HR is more flat over time. I'm worried my performance is being degraded because I am going either too fast or too slow for my SS, and I'm not sure which.

I like doing the 2:20 stuff, and it aligns with a 2K+25 metric, but my HR falls out of the zone and I don't know how to interpret that.

• I've made what seems like little progress during this time

Here's a link from a UT2 session I did in July (admittedly a high volume month): https://log.concept2.com/profile/1926051/log/77260987
131W average, 18 SPM, 157 HR average.

The same workout, but last week: https://log.concept2.com/profile/1926051/log/82011473
126W, 18SPM, 167 HR

One from Nov: https://log.concept2.com/profile/1926051/log/81467633
126W, 18SPM, 157HR

Obviously my training isn't very effective, and I'm trying to train for longer distances like HM and FM. I've begun incorporating speed work into my routine, but I want my SS split to drop with my HR and it's just not doing that.

ShortAndStout wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2023, 9:48 pm

I like doing the 2:20 stuff, and it aligns with a 2K+25 metric, but my HR falls out of the zone and I don't know how to interpret that.

It typically means that 2:20 is too fast at the moment. So you need to slow down a bit further, to make your HR stay in zone.

Specifically I want to address polarized training and the bulk 80% and how this portion of training is actually quantitatively measured

What type of work do you think falls into the 20%? It depends on how you define the limit between the two. I use the C2 WODs for up to 3h a week and stay aerobic at 23 or lower, so 100% slow, at 1.5W/kg, maybe 1.7 if it's short. These are mostly intervals, so HR never goes much over 120; my Watt/HRR ratio is just over 2.

To get and stay fit we don't need to go anaerobic (over 27). So there is no 20%, it's all low rate, but all big stroke to maintain some strength.

See: http://3.8.144.21/training/interactive
Even in the Level 5 plans there's only about 10% fast work in the total.

Your data looks perfectly satisfactory for height 170cm:
131W at 18 is pace 2:19, and 220 m/min, 12m/stroke; fine.
131W/66kg (considering BMI 23 and height 1.7m) = 2W/kg and 130W/18 is 7W-min stroke work; both necessary and sufficient to stay fit.

ShortAndStout wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2023, 9:48 pm

Hi all, I've been learning about how people train this last year and want to hear your input. Specifically I want to address polarized training and the bulk 80% and how this portion of training is actually quantitatively measured. My goal in the long term is to reduce my HR for long form endurance work.

I know there are two metrics, HR based training (Zones) and lactate based training (UT2 / UT1 / etc). I also know in general that these things tend to get mixed up a lot, because a UT2 effort generally correlates with a Z2 or Z3 HR. <--- Maybe that point is wrong, please correct me.

Here's my beef: To me, they don't correlate. My last recorded 2K time was 7:45 and I've put in around 800k since then. I kinda have two points about that:

• If my "80%" of polarized training uses the UTx measure, I SS at UT2 around a 2:20. On average my HR goes from 145 to 170 over an hour. If instead I cap my HR to what my upper limit is for UT2 (157), my split drops down to around 2:25 or slower, although the HR is more flat over time. I'm worried my performance is being degraded because I am going either too fast or too slow for my SS, and I'm not sure which.

I like doing the 2:20 stuff, and it aligns with a 2K+25 metric, but my HR falls out of the zone and I don't know how to interpret that.

• I've made what seems like little progress during this time

Here's a link from a UT2 session I did in July (admittedly a high volume month): https://log.concept2.com/profile/1926051/log/77260987
131W average, 18 SPM, 157 HR average.

The same workout, but last week: https://log.concept2.com/profile/1926051/log/82011473
126W, 18SPM, 167 HR

One from Nov: https://log.concept2.com/profile/1926051/log/81467633
126W, 18SPM, 157HR

Obviously my training isn't very effective, and I'm trying to train for longer distances like HM and FM. I've begun incorporating speed work into my routine, but I want my SS split to drop with my HR and it's just not doing that.

What sessions are you doing for the UT1 and AT type work? You can't just site on the erg doing low effort UT2 type work without something harder to stimulate adaptations.

When you say that you've begun to incorporate speed work, what does that look like?

I think we're thinking about this in opposite ways. I do easy work to build endurance (and technique, and mitochondria), and speed work and strength to drive adaptations that increase speed. As the speed work helps to improve my speed, I can do faster steady state at the same intensity, but this a byproduct and takes a long time. Like, a really long time. A couple of months into indoor rowing, my 2k was at a 1:49 and my steady state was at a 2:10-2:12, based on HR. Close to two years later, those numbers are 1:41 and 2:07-2:09, respectively.

My goals don't really involve pace for steady state, I just put in the meters/time, and go with where my HR places it. And then the speed work is where I try to really dial things in.

Elizabeth wrote: ↑

December 12th, 2023, 6:36 am

And then the speed work is where I try to really dial things in.

Has there ever been a better example of the misuse of the word 'try'?

You're so dialled in, they could call you Ma Bell!!!

ShortAndStout wrote: ↑

December 11th, 2023, 9:48 pm

I'm worried my performance is being degraded because I am going either too fast or too slow for my SS, and I'm not sure which.

I'm going to play devil's advocate and suggest that you maybe let HR be what it is, and follow RPE and how you honestly feel you're progressing and recovering. If either one isn't good, or deteriorating, then you just need to adjust.

I'm not entirely convinced that the advice that we all routinely follow is ideal for a recreational athlete, as the data and studies are all, or nearly all are done on elite level athletes, or at least I don't know of any 'normal' people being studied.

We all know there are massive differences between us and them, so I'm inclined to follow a different approach if the results seem to suggest it's necessary. I am however caveating this with my usual comment that I might be wrong, so don't assume I know what I'm talking about

Finally I'd also fully endorse the need to train the short, sharp stuff too. It might seem counter intuitive, but you will make faster adaptions as you force your body to handle different stresses.

I'm a long way down the capability ladder on the forum - but I found the same thing you're feeling by trying to keep my SS sessions HR capped in the "typical" zones last year.

what I have since done, is to find out the "max sustainable" Hr I can keep & tailor my longer stuff to that; for me that's 170bpm with my max of 191 (172 is my supposed Z5 threshold) - I add the caveat that I'm not training daily, and not really putting in the meters to really worry about my recovery.

https://log.concept2.com/profile/1627958/log/81998820

In this log from saturday I had almost no cardiac drift - it felt relaxed and "easy" in terms of breathing/sweat accumulation. Not easy easy, but manageable and I never felt that I couldn't keep going; if there was some-one in the room I could have had a conversation albeit a little stilted for a few breathing pauses. (short blip was to open the windows and then re-seat myself) The first 20mins were at my HM pace as an FYI, and I backed it off a touch to hold my hr.

I still find that higher rate lower pressure suits my body a little better than the lower rate higher pressure in terms of cardiac load - eg I can hold a HM pace at a rate above 20 with a lower HR; all the r20 work I've done this year, has dropped that from around r27/28 to r23/24.

I just see it that my engine is more like a high revving petrol and things work a bit higher up the rev range than for others...

Elizabeth wrote: ↑

December 12th, 2023, 6:36 am

When you say that you've begun to incorporate speed work, what does that look like?

I think we're thinking about this in opposite ways. I do easy work to build endurance (and technique, and mitochondria), and speed work and strength to drive adaptations that increase speed. As the speed work helps to improve my speed, I can do faster steady state at the same intensity, but this a byproduct and takes a long time. Like, a really long time. A couple of months into indoor rowing, my 2k was at a 1:49 and my steady state was at a 2:10-2:12, based on HR. Close to two years later, those numbers are 1:41 and 2:07-2:09, respectively.

Two things here, first my speed work I'm doing AT workouts, so I throw in a 3x7"/4"r at a 2:06 once a week or so, as of about a month ago. I don't do any UT1 work since I get all of my aerobic work done with UT2, though I don't know if that's a good idea or not. I don't do any TR or very sharp intervals, like an 8x500.

Secondly, I definitely do think we're thinking opposite! Thinking of my SS as a byproduct of becoming faster through other means is hard for me to understand, because the same isn't really true with running in my experience, and that's sorta what I've been comparing this to. I've been trying to drop my SS split by just doing longer sessions that are slightly faster over time... ex. earlier in the year even though my UT2 SS pace is around 2:20, I tried to be consistent with 2:17. I'm not sure if that type of thinking drives a stimulus or not, it makes sense that it would, but then obviously HR becomes something I can't rely on at all. I guess that's the big takeaway for me - I assume my long steady stuff can drop my times like in running, but that's not really the case.

Here's a question then - as a HWT, is it reasonable for me to follow a reduced metric? As in, a UT2 band for the "average rower", generally described as taller and lighter than me - is X, but as a short HWT automatically all of my measurements should b X+3

Dangerscouse wrote: ↑

December 12th, 2023, 7:06 am

Elizabeth wrote: ↑

December 12th, 2023, 6:36 am

And then the speed work is where I try to really dial things in.

Has there ever been a better example of the misuse of the word 'try'?

You're so dialled in, they could call you Ma Bell!!!

As Rick Blaine so eloquently put it in Casablanca, "We all try; you succeed."

We have similar numbers. My anecdotal experience with HR capped training just left me with a weaker stroke and no appreciable change in HR. I still measure my HR during my long steady state pieces, but I am now much more focused on RPE. Steady state for me is 2:20 right now. It had drifted down to 2:25 when controlling for HR. This just left me bored with a weaker stroke. I'm much happier now. YMMV

Yankeerunner wrote: ↑

December 12th, 2023, 10:16 am

As Rick Blaine so eloquently put it in Casablanca, "We all try; you succeed."

Hahaha

With both rowing and running, there will be some speed that you will gain as you gain technical efficiencies and conditioning for that specific medium. My steady state speed will be super slow but come back quickly if I am coming back from something (childbirth, broken bone), but other than that my experience has been fairly consistent running steady state paces over years as well, more affected by factors like weather than anything.

You may see more improvements by incorporating a wider variety of speed work, working on improving multiple angles.

Elizabeth wrote: ↑

December 12th, 2023, 6:40 pm

With both rowing and running, there will be some speed that you will gain as you gain technical efficiencies and conditioning for that specific medium. My steady state speed will be super slow but come back quickly if I am coming back from something (childbirth, broken bone), but other than that my experience has been fairly consistent running steady state paces over years as well, more affected by factors like weather than anything.

You may see more improvements by incorporating a wider variety of speed work, working on improving multiple angles.

I did a long piece today at about 52% of my 2K W and interestingly, the difference between an 18 SPM piece and a 16 SPM piece at the same distance / pace was staggering, gone from a 145-170 to a 140-158. Maybe a low stroke rate works better for my heart, no idea.

I know I asked you this in a PM but I'll frame a similar question - In another thread (viewtopic.php?f=3&t=207709&p=574959#p574959) Sakly mentioned how their speed stuff is usually AT, and I kinda took that to mean that AT workouts were good enough, especially for someone like myself who doesn't train for 2K times. Is AT fast enough that you'd consider it speed / sprint work? Right now I'm doing a 3x7"/4r at 75% 2KW, so around 172W for me. It's enough that I feel gassed at the end. Obviously I'm not heaving like I might in a TR workout, but it's still pretty tough.

Dangerscouse wrote: ↑

December 12th, 2023, 7:15 am

I'm going to play devil's advocate and suggest that you maybe let HR be what it is, and follow RPE and how you honestly feel you're progressing and recovering.

I was going to suggest the same thing - don't worry about HR, let it be whatever your body needs it to be, and use what you think is the appropriate RPE to determine whether or not you can meet your pace and distance goals for a given workout. After a while you'll know what you can achieve, and HR is whatever. For several years I couldn't find my Garmin HRM, so I just rowed without it. No big deal.