Training Bands And Consistent Spi

[old] toonraider · Post by **[old] toonraider** » March 9th, 2006, 6:16 am

<div align="left">Hi everybody I started using the C2 interactive training program a couple of months ago. The program dictates the min/max paces you have to use, when training in a specific band (UT1, UT2, AT etc.), and each band also has a SPM interval (e.g. UT1: 22-24, AT: SPM 26-28). The pace you have to row in a specific band, is based on your latest 2K test. My last 2K test was around 7.13, and therefor my UT1 pace (max) is 2.00, and my AT pace (max) is 1.54. My problem is this: I would think that it is the purpose of the program, and a good idea in general, to keep you SPI consistent, and use SPM to change the pace. But after my last 2K test I am left with the problem, that if I keep my UT1 and AT SPI consistent, and have to conform to the SPM inteval for the AT band, then I end up rowing way to fast - and wouldnt be able to stay at that pace for the entire AT session. What should I do now: Ignore the SPM-interval guidelines for each band, or use a different SPI for each interval, any recommandations? Thanks in advance Best regards Michael</div>

[old] jjpisano · Post by **[old] jjpisano** » March 9th, 2006, 8:02 am

Michael: I think you should keep your SPI stable, including work at AT. The problem may be that you may not be able to stay at AT for long periods of time. I think if you are well trained you could or on rare time-trial like pieces you could; but for frequent long distance rows at AT, it is difficult and physically stressful. I had the same problem. I have limited time and I know that I'm not extremely well trained, so I generally restrict my AT work to long intervals. Occasional 5k and 6K time trials are at or around AT but my distance work is at another level lower. There are some nice AT interval workouts listed on the web site. I generally and recently rarely do 750m to 2000m intervals at AT. My bread and butter work though is LSD at my desired 2K SPI. Jim Pisano 40 y.o. lightweight 6:52 2k @ CRASH-B 2006

[old] toonraider · Post by **[old] toonraider** » March 9th, 2006, 8:24 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(jjpisano @ Mar 9 2006, 01:02 PM) </div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Michael: I think you should keep your SPI stable, including work at AT. The problem may be that you may not be able to stay at AT for long periods of time. I think if you are well trained you could or on rare time-trial like pieces you could; but for frequent long distance rows at AT, it is difficult and physically stressful. I had the same problem. I have limited time and I know that I'm not extremely well trained, so I generally restrict my AT work to long intervals. Occasional 5k and 6K time trials are at or around AT but my distance work is at another level lower. There are some nice AT interval workouts listed on the web site. I generally and recently rarely do 750m to 2000m intervals at AT. My bread and butter work though is LSD at my desired 2K SPI. Jim Pisano 40 y.o. lightweight 6:52 2k @ CRASH-B 2006 </td></tr></table> Hi Jim. Thanks for the advice. I am (painfully) aware that I am not what people on this forum would call well-trained

But I´m working on that! My problem though, isnt that I cant stay in the AT interval for long rows, which I am not trying to do. What the training program dictates is exactly the intervals in AT band you mention, for instance 2x8min AT work or so. My problem is that if I keep the SPI stable in all bands, I cant seem to stay within the confinements of the program, i.e. SPM and Pace, for the duration of the interval. My problem isnt that I cant stay at the AT pace for the length of the intervals! Michael

[old] Citroen · Post by **[old] Citroen** » March 9th, 2006, 9:19 am

This exact problem with the C2 Interactive Plan was discussed in <a href="http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... 778#183778" target="_blank">http://www.concept2.co.uk/forum/viewtop ... 778</a> not very long ago.

[old] jjpisano · Post by **[old] jjpisano** » March 9th, 2006, 12:52 pm

Michael: I'm a big advocate of watching watts. If your 2k @ 7:13 was a good, wholesome 100% effort, then your AT work should be done at 80% of your 2k intensity. 2k @ 7:13 is equivalent to around 275 watts. 0.8 X 275 watts is 220 watts (which is around a ?1:57/500m pace? - I'm not quite sure exactly). This level of intensity is a little more doable than the 1:54 pace you quoted. Your UTI work should be done at 60% to 75% intensity, corresponding to (0.6 X 275w) to (0.75 X 275w) i.e. 165 to 206w. Stroke rate is a whole 'nother story and is complicated. But changing the subject a little bit. We already know you can do a 7:13 2k. You already have the aerobic ability and muscular charcteristics that can get you to a 7:13 2k or a 275w 2k. Perhaps you want to acquire the charcteristic of a body that can do a 7:00 2k, which translates to 304w. I recommend training for your goal not your past result. In my opinion then, you have to do your UT1 work at 60% to 75% of the goal. In this hypothetical example, if the goal is 304w, then your UT1 work should be performed at 60%to 75% of 304w (182w to 228w) and your AT work should be performed at 80% of 304w (243w). But I'd recommend that you don't bump up your level of intensity in one big jump but do it in an incremental manner. If you bump up your intensity too quickly, you may get burned out, or injured or become discouraged because you can't perform the work. The incremental approach is the way to go. There are many ways to incrementally increase the level of your training. To get to a 7:00 2k, your UT1 work has to go from 206w to 228w and your AT work has to go from 220w to 243w. There are no short cuts (I've tried a bunch of short cuts) - you have to put in the time and meters and master certain intensities. Once you are confident in your UT1 work, you can be confident that you can go out and do a corresponding 2k. When you are performing a monster 2k, you need all the confidence you can get. (When I was doing my personal best 2k at CRASH-B's, I had mastered 40 minutes of 240w @ 23 s/m; I was confident that being well rested I could do 2k at 320w, i.e. 6:52.0. 240w is 75% of 320w. Train hard, race with confidence) Goal setting is an important part of the equation also. The goal has to be reasonable and the time to get to that goal has to be reasonable. Perhaps an experienced mentor, who knows you reasonably well, can help you with goals and appropriate time frames. Perhaps a 7:00 2k is impossible for you or perhaps it's a goal that a few months away or perhaps it's a year a way. Hopefully, you have an experienced person in your life who can help figure out what are some good short term and long term goals for you. Jim Pisano

[old] michaelb · Post by **[old] michaelb** » March 9th, 2006, 2:33 pm

I am a bit confused by your confusion. Where did you get the idea that the C2 training program was based on the idea of constant SPI? I was not aware of any connection. I am sceptical about constant SPI having any particular usefulness or meaning, and it seems like a whole belief system has arisen around SPI that I don't understand. The C2 training bands are really tough, and it was explained once at least (here or on the UK forum) that the pace target is considered the maximum possible for that band, so that the training band includes slower paces up to that target, for a given HR, at the specified SR (and as far as I know, with any connection or reference to SPI). I am not a coach or experienced and am not particularly fast. I used to train more by HR, but I find that capping your HR is much easier than sticking to a pace target. So I have moved away from basing my workout on a set HR and more to a set pace (still keeping an eye on my HR). Xeno, however, seems to advocate for HR based workouts, and he is certainly one to trust and listen to instead of me.

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » March 10th, 2006, 2:53 am

MB If you take any line of the paces in the Interactive, convert to Watts and divide by the ratings at the heads of the columns, you get a constant number, within about 5%. This is SPI, or in engineering terms, work done per stroke. You can see similar relationships in the Wolverine too. NB in the interactive if you copy the paces as they are and put them in a spreadsheet, they are not in min:sec,0 but h:min,0 so the constants for conversion to m/s or W are not what we might think they should be. Constant work means in practical terms that we pull every single stroke, whatever the rating, with the same force and length. Train as you race, what else. Then to govern the Power level and training band, we need only adjust the rating. Any other hypothesis means that we would use a different force/length combination for every rating. Which makes life a bit complicated for coach, to say the least. One stroke type is enough. How a crew could otherwise ever get together becomes a mystery. The Interactive is full of To'N's pranks. He even plays on the meanings of may and might, and understanding the paragraph on the paces to use in the various columns is quite a mind-bender. Technique doesn't just mean not tangling hands and knees. It's also knowing how large a pinch of salt to sprinkle on coaches. And I think the whole idea of pace-based training is the best joke of all - on the skin of the no-pain-no-gain fans. Long live Xeno and the Gold standard.

[old] toonraider · Post by **[old] toonraider** » March 10th, 2006, 5:40 am

Hi everybody - thanks for your replyes so far! Citroen: Thank you for the link. I have now read the different threads on the UK forum. Allthough the discuss the excact same subject, I am not sure whether I am now more og less confused - there doesnt seem to be one clear cut solution, which I (in my naivity) kind of hoped for

Jim Pisano My 2k effort was clearly a 100% effort, as I did this monday and still feel tired in my legs

Thanks for the input. I have thought about changing target-zones from pace, to both watts (seem more reasonable in the long run) and to HR. I see your point in using your goal to set your target-zones. For now though, I just train in the top end of the training bands in the interactive-plan, which seems to be hard enough for me in my current shape, but gives me just enough time to recover (with the exception of the 2K tests). I you remember though, my problem isnt that i cant keep up the pace (in the target zones) for the duration of my training peaces, but that I end up going to fast (which I cant keep up), if I use the recommended SPM, and keep SPI consistent. I quite agree that it is important to have goals when you train, which was the exact reason I started using the interactive plan (instead of just rowing a couple of times a week). I am also very confident that I can go sub 7, and that it will happen within a few months. I started using the plan less than 2 months ago, my first test was 7.24, and my second 7.13 - som I am clearly seeing som progress, even more than I had hoped for actually. michaelb I totally agree that there is no reference to a consistent SPI in the training plan. That "idea" I have picked up reading posts in this forum. Also it seems much easier to me, to control your effort/training when using consistent SPI (which I of cause hope will increase over time), than if you use different SPI for different SPM. As I wrote earlier, I surdently will consider changing targets to heart rate. When I am done with my current interactive training-program, my plan is to try the training programs in RowPro (which I have recently bought), and these programs seem to be HR-based. Jamesq I havent done the math on the SPI in the interactive plan, so I have to trust you on that

My understanding of watts/pace relationship though, is that the faster you go, the more watts you need to generate to increase you pace 1sec (correct me if I am wrong). In this light the pace guide in the interactive plan seems strange to me, given various examples, but for instance: 2K pace=7.20 -> UT1 pace=2.03 2K pace=7.16 -> UT1 pace=2.02 2K pace=7.12 -> UT1 pace=2.00 I do however agree, that it is much easier to control just one stroke type (SPI). Especially since I dont have a coach, have no affiliation with any rowclub, and practically have to learn rowing (erging) by what I can read on this forum.

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » March 10th, 2006, 6:57 am

Watts and erg "Pace" are linked by a cube law, to reflect what happens on water. Watts = 2.8 x V^3 where V is in m/s. As you say, this means that the faster you go, the harder it becomes to drop another second, so we've another good reason for going slow: 1:40 = 350W 1:39 = 361W More in my line: 2:06 = 175W 2:05 = 179W Near enough, 1% faster = 3% more power. In the Interactive the paces derived from your last 2k test are designed to train you to go faster at the next test; and they are therefore hard (one of O'N's principles it seems) but have a lot of latitude to let us ease in, spreading from the pace in the column to the next pace on the left. So it's fine if you have room for improvement. If not you "may" suffer. Of course you don't want to win an Olympic medal, then like me you can forget all this nonsense, and just get on and pull as and when you like. The miracle is it'll keep you fit anyway if you give it time.

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » March 10th, 2006, 9:39 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(jamesg @ Mar 9 2006, 10:53 PM) </div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Constant work means in practical terms that we pull every single stroke, whatever the rating, with the same force and length. Train as you race, what else. Then to govern the Power level and training band, we need only adjust the rating. </td></tr></table> While that all looks well and good, it couldn't be more wrong. Unless you would advocate learning to lift more weight by simply varying the rate at which you completed reps of a constant weight. In fact, it's quite backwards, for instance: maintaining SPI and decreasing the SR stretches out the ratio of the stroke, requires a different kind of drive/recovery, and therefore lacks the exact specificity of the "single dirve idea" that you are mentioning. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(jamesg @ Mar 9 2006, 10:53 PM) </div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Any other hypothesis means that we would use a different force/length combination for every rating. Which makes life a bit complicated for coach, to say the least. One stroke type is enough. How a crew could otherwise ever get together becomes a mystery. </td></tr></table> Not at all, train the rowers to cover a constant DPS, and regardless of pace, they will be using the same ratio once DF has been adjusted accordingly. Then when you put them together in a boat they will match quite nicely since they all have the same ingrained rhythm. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(jamesg @ Mar 9 2006, 10:53 PM) </div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The Interactive is full of To'N's pranks. He even plays on the meanings of may and might, and understanding the paragraph on the paces to use in the various columns is quite a mind-bender. Technique doesn't just mean not tangling hands and knees. It's also knowing how large a pinch of salt to sprinkle on coaches. And I think the whole idea of pace-based training is the best joke of all - on the skin of the no-pain-no-gain fans. Long live Xeno and the Gold standard. </td></tr></table> Hmmmm, having been quite well discussed regarding pace based training, nowhere near a "no-pain, no gain" philosophy, and also explained why HR based training has it's own set of problems; Perhaps you could explain the joke, or at least produce a punch line. Maybe there is a disconnect between using the Erg as a tool to improve what we end up doing in boats, and using the Erg as a fitness tool, though I'm not sure exactly how those two goals could be in such opposition as you would suggest. I'm really quite flattered that my Term "SPI" has reached such status as to be part of our language at this point, surely "S10PS" will not be far behind. 8)

[old] Citroen · Post by **[old] Citroen** » March 11th, 2006, 7:35 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(toonraider @ Mar 10 2006, 09:40 AM) </div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Citroen: Thank you for the link. I have now read the different threads on the UK forum. Allthough the discuss the excact same subject, I am not sure whether I am now more og less confused - there doesnt seem to be one clear cut solution, which I (in my naivity) kind of hoped for

</td></tr></table> I think the basic conclusion from the UK forum was; since for some pieces the rate/pace isn't achievable then train to your HR bands. It's one of those religious wars whether rate/pace is more important in training than HR. It may also pay to a) review your HR bands and b) look at other training plans (Wolverine or the Pete Plan).

[old] jjpisano · Post by **[old] jjpisano** » March 11th, 2006, 8:55 am

With constant SPI, proportional pace and stroke rates are achievable. I do it all the time. I have a whole year of training under my belt where I did my aerobic work progressing from 180w @ 17s/m to 240w @ 23 s/m. I didn't do much AT work but at the end of the year it was 2k intervals @ 260w & @ 25 s/m. Jim Pisano