As an erg rower, I have religiously been following, enjoying, and feeling the benefits of my Athletica generated training plan for as I prepare for a sub 3-hour marathon row in November. Recent changes in my training plan that have added two +2-hour Zone 2 Steady State workouts per week six months out from my event have caused me to question the A.I.’s recommendations to schedule so many of them. I understand the general physiological adaptations that extended Zone 2 workouts elicit, and have seen a lot of discussion on their use in cycling, but I’m wondering if the A.I. being a little cycling-centric in my rowing workout recommendations?
If the content of these articles and my understanding of them is accurate, my questions concerning the number and length of the A.I. recommended Zone 2 workouts are:
As rowing reportedly engages more total muscle mass than cycling, leading to higher VO₂ consumption at the same heart rate, wouldn’t shorter rowing workout durations be needed to achieve an equivalent cardiovascular load and thus provide a comparable training stimulus?
As rowing reportedly has a higher mechanical demand than cycling due to the full-body movement involving repetitive eccentric contractions (this was mentioned during a recent Athletica podcast) that can increase the rate and level of fatigue, wouldn’t rowing Steady State Zone 2 workouts be better structured using 3-5 minute Zone 1 intervals to break the Steady pieces into intervals not to exceed ~40-60 minute maximum?
@Firestop, thanks for sharing the insights and research into the differences between rowing and cycling, as well as your dedication to training with Athletica! You bring up some excellent points.
Some considerations.
You’re right that rowing engages more total muscle mass than cycling, leading to higher VO2 at a given HR. However, when structuring endurance training, the goal might not just be matching cardiovascular load in a single session but also developing long-term efficiency, fatigue resistance, and metabolic flexibility. While shorter sessions could elicit a similar cardiovascular effect (let’s roughly say accumulated VO2 consumption), longer Zone 2 rows serve a different purpose: improving your ability to sustain submaximal efforts for extended periods without excessive fatigue accumulation.
Endurance athletes (cyclists, rowers, runners, etc.) all benefit from high volumes of low-intensity work, even if the sport-specific demands differ. Your event, a sub-3-hour marathon row, requires exceptional fatigue resistance, so longer steady-state rows are critical to build that capacity. The AI likely prescribes these sessions not just for their cardiovascular benefits but also for their role in muscular endurance and energy system development.
Your point about the mechanical demands of rowing—especially the eccentric load on the posterior chain—is very valid. Unlike cycling, where fatigue is more localised to the legs, rowing engages nearly all major muscle groups, which can lead to earlier neuromuscular fatigue. Incorporating short Zone 1 breaks (3-5 minutes every 40-60 minutes) in prolonged steady-state rows could indeed help manage accumulated fatigue without compromising the aerobic adaptations.That said, the decision to break up long Zone 2 rows depends on your ability to sustain technique and efficiency over time. Some athletes handle continuous efforts well, while others benefit from structured breaks to maintain stroke quality and reduce unnecessary strain. If you find that breaking up longer rows helps you stay fresher and execute better overall, it’s worth experimenting with slight modifications while still maintaining the prescribed training load.
All-in-all I would not say that Athletica is AI-centric, even though much of our knowledge in the field of endurance sport comes from cycling, as it is one of the main exercise modalities studied in the literature.
Andrea, thank you for taking the time to review the materials and respond.
I am definitely an amateur at this, so I am learning so much from my readings in my retirement and from this platform. Your comments are helping me put into better context what the referenced articles discussed, and which left me with unanswered questions. Your reply makes sense to me.
What caused me to ask them was a change in my long, steady state, workouts that took place when my Athletica Training Plann updated after I revised my race schedule….I removed two near-half marathon “B” races to better focus on increasing my fitness before my November marathon. I now have three “B” races ( 2k, 5k, & 10k) and a half-marathon (A-race) spaced out over the rest of the year prior to my full marathon.
Prior to the change, I was seeing my plus-1-hour Steady State rowing workouts were created with 3 to 5-minute recovery intervals breaking up the Steady segments into 15 to 20-minute intervals. After the plan update, Athletica was scheduling my Steady State workouts as a solid +1 to 3-hour Steady interval inbetween my Warmup and Cool Down. I was confused about the sustantional change in the design of these workouts.
Ironically, I updated my training plan again this weekend by slightly adding more available weekly training hours after repeated warning notes to consider doing so due to my current fitness level. The irony is all of my future Steady State workouts now have the Steady segment broken into intervals by a recovery interval…..just like my original plan had designed and scheduled.
I’m not questioning the science….just a little confused .
Again Andrea, thank you for your time and sharing your knowledge…..I love learning!
