Interactive Programme Training Bands

[old] BIKERACER · Post by **[old] BIKERACER** » February 7th, 2005, 9:05 pm

The diffculty with training bands is that the times for 2k tt and race efforts do not consider the sprint performed over the last 1-2 minutes. The bands are then, in my opinion, too fast. My solution is to use the bands for a 2k time that is 10-15 seconds slower. I've found that this process produces training bands that are more in line with my heart rate reserve training zones and with my RPE. Herb<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mel Harbour @ Feb 7 2005, 03:28 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I disagree with the interactive training programme on how hard you should be working in each training band though. My experience, based on athletes I've tested is that the paces mentioned in the interactive programme are too fast and do not correspond with the physiological markers we are trying to set training by. For instance most people that I've tested score their MLSS value (30' r20) somewhere around 70% of their 2k power (in watts). By contrast, the interactive programme gives values of around 75-77%. These are plausable values, but a bit on the high side (typically might be representative for someone directly before competition, but less likely to be true during the 'off' season). The one I think is some way off is their approximation of the pace at 2mmol/l blood lactate (UT1/UT2 borderline). This is (in my opinion) quite a bit too hard, with the IP typically coming up with values which are around 65-68% of 2k power. That's not to say that you shouldn't necessarily train at that pace - on the number of sessions per week they are talking about (6-8 at most), I believe a large portion of the training should be done at a slightly higher intensity, which would correspond more closely with the intensities being mentioned for their top end UT2/low end UT1 work, but it is most definitely UT1 work, not UT2, and to call it UT2 work rather misrepresents it. Mel </td></tr></table>

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » February 7th, 2005, 10:34 pm

Bikeracer, I too noticed that the paces that work for me would be more in line with a 2k that is about 10-15 seconds slower. I'm not exactly sure why (perhaps they think my 2k should be a little less bold), but regardless, that was the only way I could settle things.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » February 8th, 2005, 12:47 pm

Perhaps it is just my personal experience, but for me, until just recently, my inability to meet the C2 standards was (demonstrably) a result of the lack of just the things that Mel lists as the function of UT2 rowing: technique, feel, "robustness." Taken together, I think the best phrase for these things might be "easy stroking power." To develop this easy stroking power, you have to have good stroke mechanics. You need to row for a while in a way that overloads your rowing levers to develop your stroking power as far as possible, given your frame, genetic endowments, and so forth. Then you need to return to normal rowing and just do enough technically correct rowing at easy paces with a strong stoke so that your body is able to produce--automatically, instinctively--a significant pace with minimal effort for long periods. Beware. In developing this easy stroking power... General fitness and general strength is not the issue. Rowing specific fitness and rowing specific strength is the issue. Fast paces over set distances is not the issue. Efficiency/low heart rate at slow paces is the issue. Physical and Techical Efficiency is the issue: High stroking power with low effort. ranger

[old] TomR/the elder · Post by **[old] TomR/the elder** » February 8th, 2005, 4:53 pm

One problem with the Interactive Guide is the way it is presented, and as a result, the way we read it. Based on posts, I'd say it appears that we read it to say we should train at a single specific pace for each training band, based on our 2k time. In fact, the Pace Guide clearly says the paces in the table are the "top end" for each band, and one typically would train w/in the pace range offerred by the Guide. If we were to follow the explicit guidance, it turns out that we may not have to rely on paces from further down the chart. For example, look at the Guide's suggested paces for a 7-minute 2k. The target pace of UT1 is 156.0. But that's the "top end," the fastest pace at which one would train in the UT1 band. The section describing how to use the guide explains that the UT1 pace for a 7-min 2k ranges from 156.0 up to 2.01 (UT2 pace). So if one were to train at the slower end of the UT1 pace range, he or she would be training at the fast end of the UT1 range for someone who does a 7:12 2k. The fast end of the AT range is a 1.51 pace, but the slow end is 1.56. That 1.56 AT pace corresponds w/ a 7:20 2k. Said differently, the Guide doesn't prescribe a single pace for each training band, but suggests a range of paces. It's the slower end of the range that seems to work for many of us. Tom

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » February 8th, 2005, 5:05 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(TomR/the elder @ Feb 8 2005, 08:53 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>One problem with the Interactive Guide is the way it is presented, and as a result, the way we read it. Based on posts, I'd say it appears that we read it to say we should train at a single specific pace for each training band, based on our 2k time. In fact, the Pace Guide clearly says the paces in the table are the "top end" for each band, and one typically would train w/in the pace range offerred by the Guide. If we were to follow the explicit guidance, it turns out that we may not have to rely on paces from further down the chart. For example, look at the Guide's suggested paces for a 7-minute 2k. The target pace of UT1 is 156.0. But that's the "top end," the fastest pace at which one would train in the UT1 band. The section describing how to use the guide explains that the UT1 pace for a 7-min 2k ranges from 156.0 up to 2.01 (UT2 pace). So if one were to train at the slower end of the UT1 pace range, he or she would be training at the fast end of the UT1 range for someone who does a 7:12 2k. The fast end of the AT range is a 1.51 pace, but the slow end is 1.56. That 1.56 AT pace corresponds w/ a 7:20 2k. Said differently, the Guide doesn't prescribe a single pace for each training band, but suggests a range of paces. It's the slower end of the range that seems to work for many of us. Tom </td></tr></table> Well said Tom. I agree completely, and have used the guide in that manner. Rick

[old] TomR/the elder · Post by **[old] TomR/the elder** » February 8th, 2005, 8:54 pm

And you've used it w/ impressive results. Still sub-7! Good luck this weekend. Tom

[old] Almostflipped · Post by **[old] Almostflipped** » February 8th, 2005, 10:05 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Said differently, the Guide doesn't prescribe a single pace for each training band, but suggests a range of paces. It's the slower end of the range that seems to work for many of us. </td></tr></table> This is true and does change the way one would look at the guide. However in my experience these ranges are still too fast. Personal experience has shown that the time tables provided by the Canadian National Team (ie: UT2 = 6k + 16, 13 if you are elite) are more accurate (assuming you are going to use a time table rather than specific testing). As a generalization, a person at 7' for 2k should be pulling about a 1:54 for a 6k. This would put their UT2 as 2:07 - 2:10. The Canadian standard tends to be slower than the IP but has held up in Lactate and HR tests. Now, to cut you off at the pass Ranger as you have responded to this post in prior threads; yes efficiency is required. Said efficiency however is what allows an elite athlete to perform UT2 at 6k + 13 instead of +16. So yes efficiency and technical ability is absolutely necessary to continue to excel (in fact, some coaches surmise that the improvements older elite's make is purely because of efficiency) however UT2 is still a category defined by lactate measurements and still occurs at OBLA which tends to be 6k +13 to 16. Jim Barry: The reason why a 2k is a poor measure to base zones off of is that (as Bikracer stated) it includes a 1-2' of anaerobic work. This scews the VO2max upwards by a fairly significant amount and therefore creates zones higher than you would want to use. Having said all that, I would conclude with 2 items. 1) Forget time tables, do a few tests and use your HR monitor to find your own personal zones; not zones some table says you should be in. 2) I concur with Mel, if you are only doing 6-8 workouts a week then bumping up to UT1 is probably better (but understand what it is you are doing).

[old] Mel Harbour · Post by **[old] Mel Harbour** » February 23rd, 2005, 7:15 am

A slight update for this thread. I got the feedback I was after regarding the changes to the training bands. The ARA has revised their training bands slightly this year. The bottom of the UT1 band has moved down 1% to 77%, and the bottom end of UT2 has gone down as low as 70% of Gold Standard speed. The reason is apparently that they were finding that athletes weren't able to row at 78% PGS keeping lactate below 2mmol, so moved it down a touch. They moved the bottom of UT2 down a chunk to represent the fact that if you're doing UT2 work in a session after a session with some strenuous pieces in, you may need to drop the intensity in order to keep the blood lactate in the right range. To be honest, the only real answer to training at the right pace is to get some form of lactate monitoring. Mel

[old] TomR/the elder · Post by **[old] TomR/the elder** » February 23rd, 2005, 2:28 pm

Assuming one is training at high volumes, I like the paradox offered: racing faster by training slower. I'm good at going slow. Tom

[old] BIKERACER · Post by **[old] BIKERACER** » February 23rd, 2005, 4:53 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(TomR/the elder @ Feb 23 2005, 01:28 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Assuming one is training at high volumes, I like the paradox offered: racing faster by training slower. I'm good at going slow. Tom </td></tr></table> Hello Tom I thought I might add some thoughts to the training slower/volume discussion. Ceratin types of workouts are more productive at certain times of the training year. If we are 20+ weeks from a major competition, volume and relatively slow training is in order. This does not mean all training needs to be slow; a miniscule amount might be done at intended race pace (example: a 250-500 meter repeat at 2k pace after endurance work). As the race season/event approaches more intense training is useful with a corresponding decrease in training volume. Some thought must be given to the specific demands of the event we are training for. Herb

[old] TomR/the elder · Post by **[old] TomR/the elder** » February 23rd, 2005, 7:34 pm

I believe Hagerman, the physiologist who works w/ the US Rowing team, has said that competitive athletes should do race-pace training year round, especially as we get older. So I guess that while one might do more work more slowly, one must still do some work absolutely fast. Tom