My friend Sander has updated the rowsandall.com online tools to provide the ability to analyze workouts in terms of power. Many athletes, especially cyclists, use power zone training extensively. The concept2 erg provides direct readout of power, and power can either be derived for OTW rowing or directly measured by new products coming from folks like NK.
The power zones on Rowsandall.com are based on definitions from trainingpeaks.
This defines power training zones based off of your Functional Training Power (FTP). FTP is defined as the power you can hold for a 60 minute time trial. I haven’t done a 60′ all out test for a while, so I used my recent 10K CTC result. I held an average pace of 1:51.4 for the piece. Based on Paul’s Law, I estimated that I could hold 1:54 for the full hour. (my all time best was 1:52.0 pace). This translates to a FTP of 236W.
So, my training zones based on the Coggan article are:
The power values show the upper bound of each of the levels.
I was curious how that compared to the power zones defined along with the HR bands from the Terry O’Neil Interactive plan from the indoor sport services website. These levels are defined as % of 2K power, not FTP.
So, comparing the two is a bit of a challenge. The boundaries are quite different. The upper end of endurance differs by nearly 20W (177W vs 195W). Tempo is roughly in the neighborhood of UT1, but the upper end is quite different (215W vs 228W). Threshold level from ISS goes a bit higher than the Lactate Threshold band from Coggan.
I wonder a bit if the Coggan bands are more optimized for cycling and the O’Neil bands are optimized for rowing. A quick check indicates that both rowing and cycling have a cube law relationship between speed and power, but since the cadences and muscles used are so different, I am not sure if the bands would align.
I’d welcome any thought about this.