Interactive Programme Training Bands

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » February 5th, 2005, 5:03 am

GD<br />The contradiction depends on what is the gold standard. We can't choose this, only aim at it. Referring to erging only, gold standard for HWM would be by definition the current HWM world record, lets say 5:40 to round off.

[old] Mel Harbour · Post by **[old] Mel Harbour** » February 5th, 2005, 6:11 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Bill @ Feb 5 2005, 01:35 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mel Harbour @ Feb 4 2005, 04:24 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><snip> For a lot of people reading this (people doing <= 6 sessions of rowing per week), there's a pretty good chance that limiting the intensity to UT2 paces is not really worth it and you'd be better off rowing at what would be about 3mmol rather than 1.5mmol.<br /><br />At elite level, one of the biggest single problems is not training the athletes hard enough, but avoiding overtraining.<br /><br />Mel <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Hello Mel<br /><br />Help please.<br /><br />Just whem I thought I was starting to understand this UT2 stuff .............. I read the above.<br /><br />Is 3mmol approx Ut1 ? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The first thing I'd say is that unless you're an elite level athlete, worrying about lactate values etc is probably a bit OTT!<br /><br />That said, I'll try and put a brief summary down.<br /><br />The first thing to understand is that blood lactate is a chemical the body produces during energy metabolism. It doesn't cause the pain that we experience when pushing ourselves hard, and it doesn't stop the muscles working effectively, however it is tightly correlated with how hard the body is working, and exhibits several features which can be useful in setting a training program, for reasons I'll discuss in a second.<br /><br />The body always has some level of blood lactate present in it (typically around 1mmol/l). If you start to exercise gently (eg walking at a slow to moderate pace), there is almost no extra physiological load on your body and sure enough, the blood lactate level doesn't change. Once you get up and going though, the blood lactate level mirrors the intensity of the work you are doing - the harder you work, the higher the level of lactate in your blood.<br /><br />There is one significant point in this information however. At low levels of work, if a constant workload is performed for (say) 30 minutes, the lactate level will not show any rise in the last 20 minutes or so. At high levels of work, this is not true (the lactate levels continue to rise). The point at which this changeover happens is regarded as a significant point (I'll call it 'Maximal Lactate for Steady State'). Note there are numerous other terminologies for this and various different ways of estimating the point at which it occurs. This point is typically around 4mmol/l, and that is often used as a starting point for estimation of the location of the threshold value.<br /><br />Roughly speak, work below that threshold can be regarded as 'aerobic' and work above that threshold carries an anaerobic component. A 2km ergo is roughly 80-85% aerobic work, so the suggestion is that the training times allocated should reflect that ratio.<br /><br />Generally the closer you get to MLSS from below, the greater the level of aerobic adaptation (Hagerman). However that's not the whole story. An athlete training many times per week at intensities not far below MLSS will soon go into overtraining (or whatever the in vogue term is!). The high volumes of training are desirable for a couple of reasons:<br /><br />- Improve technique<br />- Improve feel for the water (compare swimming training of Popov)<br />- Improve the robustness of the athlete (ability of the linkages in the athlete to support the forces required)<br /><br />So a way is found to control the intensities at which rowing is performed. This way is to break up the 'aerobic' band roughly half and half by adding an additional point at roughly 2mmol/l.<br /><br />Mel

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » February 5th, 2005, 8:45 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Mel it took me a while, several months probably to realise that on 6 -7 sessions a week with a max time of 60 - 75 minutes that UT2 work more than say once a week was a waste of time (in a preparation phase) - I think it was a comment in another thread that made it thru my thick scull.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />George--<br /><br />Have you been doing _any_ UT2 work? If your goal is a 6:20 2K, a UT2 row, according to the C2 manual, is 1:50 @ 22 spm for 90 minutes at a heart rate of 70% HRR. <br /><br />If can't meet this standard, the manual recommends further work on technique, overall fitness, and so forth. <br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » February 5th, 2005, 8:51 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> The high volumes of training are desirable for a couple of reasons:<br /><br />- Improve technique<br />- Improve feel for the [wheel] (compare swimming training of Popov)<br />- Improve the robustness of the athlete (ability of the linkages in the athlete to support the forces required)<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes. I like this a lot. <br /><br />ranger

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » February 5th, 2005, 3:33 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Feb 6 2005, 01:45 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Mel it took me a while, several months probably to realise that on 6 -7 sessions a week with a max time of 60 - 75 minutes that UT2 work more than say once a week was a waste of time (in a preparation phase) - I think it was a comment in another thread that made it thru my thick scull.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />George--<br /><br />Have you been doing _any_ UT2 work? If your goal is a 6:20 2K, a UT2 row, according to the C2 manual, is 1:50 @ 22 spm for 90 minutes at a heart rate of 70% HRR. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well good on the manual Ranger as they obviously know me better than I do. But I would be fairly confident in saying that I will break 6:20 long before I ever row 1:50 @ 22 for 90min and keep my HR under 70%. You also did not read my post as you would have noted that I am not rowing for that long at anyone time by choice.<br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>If can't meet this standard, the manual recommends further work on technique, overall fitness, and so forth. <br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br />As you keep telling us, you have done the training and you can meet the standards so I guess the next thing is for you to stop talking about it and get out there and <b>race.</b> ... or is the stroke still not quite right.<br /><br />George

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » February 5th, 2005, 6:44 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(jamesg @ Feb 5 2005, 10:03 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>GD<br />The contradiction depends on what is the gold standard. We can't choose this, only aim at it. Referring to erging only, gold standard for HWM would be by definition the current HWM world record, lets say 5:40 to round off. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Jame I was thinking along the lines that we can each set our own 'gold standard' for an event in the future as the basic physiology guidlines would still apply. So for me the current gold standard might be 6:20 and for someone else 6:00 and someone else 8:00 - they are all to respected and all represent where that person wants to be at a given point in the future.<br /><br />Or have I got it wrong and those % quoted would change if the gold standard was less or the person had less time to commit.<br /><br />regds George

[old] TomR/the elder · Post by **[old] TomR/the elder** » February 5th, 2005, 6:49 pm

The C2 Interactive training paces are too fast for me, if I pick the recommended paces based on a recent personal best. <br /><br />The great thing about using the Gold Medal approach is that I can pick a personal goal medal time that I hope to achieve, say a 7-min/2k, do the calculations Mel provided, and start at the low end of the paces and gradually work my way up. <br /><br />I have found that I do better by training more and slower most of the time, rather than less and faster. My old body recovers slowly, so the relaxed UT2 suits me, and I can throw in a couple of faster workouts a week. <br /><br />I'm hoping this approach gets me back on track after a variety of setbacks.<br /><br />Tom

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » February 5th, 2005, 7:10 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>As you keep telling us, you have done the training and you can meet the standards so I guess the next thing is for you to stop talking about it and get out there and race. ... or is the stroke still not quite right.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The stroke is great. I am now training it, and that takes time.<br /><br />UT1 and UT2 are good now.<br /><br />Much more work is needed at AT, TR, and AN, though. <br /><br />I hope I will get that done over the next few months. Then the work (on the new stroke) will be finished.<br /><br />BTW, I am just getting in the car for the drive to Elkhart. My race is tomorrrow at 8:30 a.m. <br /><br />I think I will just cruise this one so that I can get the plane ride to Boston, but it should be fun anyway, given that it will be my first time racing at low drag (114 df.).<br /><br />Weight seems fine.<br /><br />ranger

[old] makesureyoudoitright · Post by **[old] makesureyoudoitright** » February 5th, 2005, 9:43 pm

Ive read the whole thread and am pretty confused, doesnt seem like anyone knows what theyre talking about to me.<br /><br />I am one of the people who have fallen victim to the C2 guide, 1 week ago I was doing a UT1 row at 1:56 and finding it pretty tough, now with my new 2K time Im supposed to be doing 1:51, now I know I cant do this for the length of time the guide expects me to(at least not yet). So how do I correct this for my new 2K time? <br /><br />This gold standard stuff is also quite confusing, youre saying that if the gold standard is 6:00, if I meet the required intensities them Im now good enough to row a 6:00 2K time??<br /><br />

[old] Bill · Post by **[old] Bill** » February 6th, 2005, 2:54 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mel Harbour @ Feb 4 2005, 04:24 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>For a lot of people reading this (people doing <= 6 sessions of rowing per week), there's a pretty good chance that limiting the intensity to UT2 paces is not really worth it ..........................<br /><br />Mel <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Hey Mel,<br /><br />If youve got the patience please have a read and respond - thanks.<br /><br />I asked you what the above quote meant .......Thanks for the answer.<br /><br /> ..... whilst I understand the individual words that you wrote I simply do not comprehend the idea that they paint, Lets forget about 1.5 and 3mmol .............. what does this bit mean please ?<br /><br />" For a lot of people reading this (people doing <= 6 sessions of rowing per week), there's a pretty good chance that limiting the intensity to UT2 paces is not really worth it "<br /><br />I can re-phrase my original question<br /><br />"What is worth doing then ? For the "lot of people" mentioned above what would you recommend instead of UT2 sessions ?"<br /><br />Please remember - very simple minded ordinary person here, struggling with this entire thread, starting to question much of what I have read, but willing to try harder to understand what the basic message is.<br /><br /><br />Bill<br /><br />

[old] Mel Harbour · Post by **[old] Mel Harbour** » February 6th, 2005, 6:02 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Bill @ Feb 6 2005, 01:54 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I can re-phrase my original question<br /><br />"What is worth doing then ? For the "lot of people" mentioned above what would you recommend instead of UT2 sessions ?"<br /><br />Bill <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Ok, simple question, simple answer: UT1 work. If you can't do the volume, either in terms of number of sessions, or in terms of the length of each session, you're probably better upping the intensity of the sessions.<br /><br />Use a 30' r20 ergo to establish the location of your MLSS (anaerobic threshold), then do most of your aerobic work at a pace just slightly slower than that pace.<br /><br />Mel

[old] Bill · Post by **[old] Bill** » February 6th, 2005, 9:37 pm

<br />[/quote]<br /><br />Ok, simple question, simple answer: UT1 work. If you can't do the volume, either in terms of number of sessions, or in terms of the length of each session, you're probably better upping the intensity of the sessions.<br /><br />Use a 30' r20 ergo to establish the location of your MLSS (anaerobic threshold), then do most of your aerobic work at a pace just slightly slower than that pace.<br /><br />Mel <br />[/quote]<br /><br />Mel,<br /><br />A brilliant clear answer - THANKYOU<br /><br />Bill

[old] Byron Drachman · Post by **[old] Byron Drachman** » February 7th, 2005, 11:54 am

If I am following what Mel says, the Interactive 2K Training Programme table 5.11 is very consistent with what Mel says. If you look at the table, there are very few UT2 workouts listed: 12 out of 150 workouts are UT2 if I counted right. Seven of those are during the first seven weeks. Three of those UT2 workouts are replaceable by 2K tests. As Ranger says, those UT2 workouts are excellent for working on your technique. <br /><br />Byron

[old] Mel Harbour · Post by **[old] Mel Harbour** » February 7th, 2005, 4:28 pm

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.<br /><br />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.<br /><br />Mel

[old] Mark Keating · Post by **[old] Mark Keating** » February 7th, 2005, 7:37 pm

So what does it mean if I am able to achieve the fastest pace at the lowest stroke rate while staying within the specified heart range for each of the training bands <b>except</b> UT2? Any significance at all?<br /><br />Thanks,