The Road To Sub 6:10

[old] SteveV · Post by **[old] SteveV** » January 16th, 2005, 9:15 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Xavier @ Jan 16 2005, 06:21 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> It seems to me that your "UT2" rowing is slightly skewed as to your HR average, as they're not continuous rows. I wouldn't want to find out that you're just rowing your target UT2 pace until your HR reaches a certain level, and then slowing down until it goes down again, repeating until the end of the 20 odd k. Does the C2 manual advocate stopping all the time?  </td></tr></table> Did Ranger actually answer the quetion ?? He lost me Do you actually row UT2's or do you just continually ease off the pace every time the HR gets high ??

[old] Xavier · Post by **[old] Xavier** » January 16th, 2005, 9:17 am

It must have gone around again that it's been explained (by C2 themselves if I'm not mistaken), that the UT2 standards are harsh! So there's no need to jump up and say that "you will be unable to do this, unless you can do x at UT2". I do value sprints, but my aerobic base is still improving, and I'm gearing up for a gold at BIRC 2005 rather than anything closer. The only other thing really is in response to: "BTW, yesterday, I rowed a continuous 5K strapless at 1:55 and 22 spm with a heart rate of 142 bpm. Today, I was rowing continuously at 1:52 and 22 spm with a heart rate of about 156, a couple beats short of the C2 standard. I like to row discontinuously when I do UT2 rowing for the same reason." If the 142bpm was an average over the 5k, then that's not a great indication of a continuous HR. It's just not long enough - your HR will continue to rise. So if the "reason" is that your HR is continuing to rise, then again, that's not UT2. Xav

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 16th, 2005, 9:21 am

Xav-- BTW, the rowing I did in the off-season was discontinuous because it wasn't at all UT2 work. I did the rowing to UT2 _distances_ per day, but the work was done strapless at _very_ high power (sometimes 15 SPI, always at least 13 SPI) and various stroke rates and paces. The rowing was discontinuous because, although I wasn't wearing a heart rate monitor, I suspect that much of the rowing was at AT, TR, and AN heart rates, not easy work at all. I took breaks when my heart maxed out! Then I went again. That is, I was doing a type of interval training--for body positioning (especially compression at the catch and therefore full use of the slide), foot action (especially getting from the balls of my feet at the drive to my heels and the finish), drive speed, timing (legs before back before arms), ratio of recovery to drive, leg and arm strength (my back is already strong), relaxation and smoothness of recovery, and so forth. The purpose of the rowing was to put me in the position that I could meet something like the UT2 standards in efficiency when I raced this year (even though, at the time of the rowing, I didn't even know about these standards, because, it seems, no one likes to talk about them and because I had never read the C2 manual). We'll have to wait to see for sure, but it _seems_ that my training strategies are succeeding--beautifully. ranger

[old] Xavier · Post by **[old] Xavier** » January 16th, 2005, 9:28 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Jan 16 2005, 01:21 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> BTW, the rowing I did in the off-season was discontinuous because it wasn't at all UT2 work.  </td></tr></table> Ah-ah-ah! You know I was referring to the work that you did a couple of days ago: "BTW, yesterday, I rowed a continuous 5K strapless at 1:55 and 22 spm with a heart rate of 142 bpm. Today, I was rowing continuously at 1:52 and 22 spm with a heart rate of about 156, a couple beats short of the C2 standard." Again, this isn't UT2! Xav

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 16th, 2005, 9:29 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>If the 142bpm was an average over the 5k, then that's not a great indication of a continuous HR. It's just not long enough - your HR will continue to rise.  </td></tr></table> No it won't, not at 70% MHR, not if you are properly trained. If you are properly trained, you can even row close to your anaerobic threshold (80% MHR) without any heart rate "drift." When I rowed my hour pb a couple of years ago, I rowed flat at 1:48 the whole way. My heart went up to 172 bpm after a couple of minutes and then stayed flat at 172 until the final 1K, which I rowed at 1:39 (driving my heart rate up to 190 bpm). An hour of rowing at my anaerobic threshold. No drift. 1:48 for 55 minutes or so. Same bpm. I assume that, CV-wise, people like Rod Freed are similarly conditioned. Freed's problem seems to be working up an adequately powerful stroke for the sprints, including the 2K. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 16th, 2005, 9:39 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Again, this isn't UT2!  </td></tr></table> If the rowing is continuous (e.g., an hour) and at 1:52 and 22 spm, why isn't it UT2? I don't understand. You are right. I haven't yet rowed a marathon yet at 1:52 and 22 and 70% MHR; but so it goes. As I have admitted, I am a couple of heart beats short (i.e., I am still working a little too hard) and I still need to work on my endurance with my new stroke so that I can stretch the hour row to a marathon without my heart rate drifting. I am definitely getting there, though. We'll see. But I think I might get there before the CRASH-Bs. I think that the sharpening work I do for racing with my new stroke will improve my strength and endurance in my UT2 rowing. Unlike the Wolverine Plan and such, I have not been rotating the types of rowing I have been doing. I have been working up from low stroke rates to high. ranger

[old] Xavier · Post by **[old] Xavier** » January 16th, 2005, 9:50 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Jan 16 2005, 01:39 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Again, this isn't UT2!  </td></tr></table> If the rowing is continuous (e.g., an hour) and at 1:52 and 22 spm, why isn't it UT2? I don't understand.  </td></tr></table> I will not be beaten down over this. The rowing described in my previous post, which I was referring to, wasn't continuous, was it? The question of HR drift over the 5k - I think maybe I wasn't explaining myself enough. If you rowed 142 flat from start to finish, then that's fine. If however, you started substantially lower, and then finished at an equally high HR (to give you the 142bpm average), then the distance is too short for it to be UT2. Xav

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 16th, 2005, 9:57 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>If the 142bpm was an average over the 5k, then that's not a great indication of a continuous HR. </td></tr></table> The 142 bpm was _not_ an average. I never compute heart rate averages. I just report my stable heart rate. My heart rate went to 142 almost immediately and then stayed there for the full 19 minutes or so, flat on 142 bpm. It didn't budge. No drift. I didn't wear a heart monitor, but I also assume that this is what happens when I row _very_ long distances (e.g., 100K). How could your heart rate "continue to drift" for 7 hours! You would run out of places for your heart to drift to long before then! When I row long distances, I just find a tolerable level of work (i.e., heart rate) and work along at that level. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 16th, 2005, 10:43 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It must have gone around again that it's been explained (by C2 themselves if I'm not mistaken), that the UT2 standards are harsh! So there's no need to jump up and say that "you will be unable to do this, unless you can do x at UT2".  </td></tr></table> Yes, agreed. But I am not at all against the "harshness" of these standards, and I am not sure that anyone else should be either. Since UT2 rowing is foundational rowing and therefore is about maximally augmenting potential, not just realizing potential given some base, I interpret the UT2 paces, rates, and heart rates to be guidelines for exactly that--maximally augmenting potential. That is, I interpret them to mean that if your maximal _potential_ is to be able to row, say, 6:28, then in order to do this, you will want to set a foundation by preparing yourself to do UT2 (70% MHR) rowing at 22 spm and 1:52. Interpreted this way, this by no means implies that someone can't neglect this foundational aspect of their rowing and still row 6:28. It just means that, if they did so, they would be falling _way_ short of their potential and therefore cheating themselves out of their full reward, given their effort, especially given that UT2 rowing, once you are able to get it done adequately, can find the time to do it, and can get used to the monotony of it all, is really the _easiest_ sort of rowing because it is done at a low level of effort (i.e., a low heart rate). I am urging these things on Pete because, given his size and sports background, if he wants to row under 6:10, I think that, like me, he might well no longer be just realizing his potential, given his base, but in need of establishing a new base that can augment his potential and bring his 2K times closer to his full capability. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 16th, 2005, 10:47 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>If you rowed 142 flat from start to finish, then that's fine. </td></tr></table> As I said, yes, I rowed 142 from start to finish. I was just checking, had other things to work on (UT1 rowing), and just stopped at 5K because I didn't want to spend any more time on it. During the entire row, however, my heart rate did _not_ drift. 142 is not an average. It was my heart rate from about the second minute until the 19th minute. No drift. Steady state. ranger

[old] Physicist · Post by **[old] Physicist** » January 16th, 2005, 10:47 am

Ranger, you seem to be analysing your heart rate to death! If I can offer my opinion, then you are regarding the numbers you've calculated as more accurate than they really are. Heart rates are nothing more than an rough guide for your training zones. With the quantity of training you do, I don't think I've ever met anyone who could more certainly justify the expense of getting tested in a lab, or at least forking out $300 or whatever it is for a lactate pro, in order to make your determination of training paces that bit more accurate. I'm sure you've already noticed this but one of the problems with using your heart rate, and actually seeing a reduced bpm as a goal in itself, is you can drop your heart rate by a few beats just by breathing a bit deeper. I don't think this has any effect on the lactate levels in your blood or the percentage of the energy you're generating that comes from the different metabolic pathways: it's just an example of heart rate variability - one of the big problems with heart rate training.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 16th, 2005, 11:17 am

Notice that Paul Flack's ability to row 1:50 for a marathon is exactly in line with his pb 6:20 2K. His base and realization are exactly in order. He can no longer use his 1:50 base to improve his 6:20 2K. He would need to improve his base in order to improve his 2K. On the other hand, Graham Watt's 2:40 marathon, but 6:26 2K, shows that he is neglecting his base. He should be able to row a marathon in 2:36. Pete's great opportunity is this: If his full potential is to row 6:00 for 2K, with a fully developed base, he should be able to row a marathon as fast as Dwayne, at about 1:45 (2:27). But at the moment, he rows a marathon at about 1:54 pace. This means that, if he wants to stretch toward the full reaches of his potential, Pete might have _enormous_ leeway for using his base to improve his 2K. At full potential, 1:54 is the UT2 base for a 6:36 2K. This means that Pete is falling _way_ short of his full potential by neglecting his base. He is trying to get better in the 2K by realizing the potential of an inadequate base. This can be done _to a point_, but then... As Pete has reported, he has brought his 2K time down in a short period from 6:32 or so to 6:12. It is hard to say for sure, but it looks to me as though he might be running out of territory to improve unless he takes the time to improve his base. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 16th, 2005, 11:22 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Physicist @ Jan 16 2005, 09:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Ranger, you seem to be analysing your heart rate to death! If I can offer my opinion, then you are regarding the numbers you've calculated as more accurate than they really are. Heart rates are nothing more than an rough guide for your training zones. With the quantity of training you do, I don't think I've ever met anyone who could more certainly justify the expense of getting tested in a lab, or at least forking out $300 or whatever it is for a lactate pro, in order to make your determination of training paces that bit more accurate. I'm sure you've already noticed this but one of the problems with using your heart rate, and actually seeing a reduced bpm as a goal in itself, is you can drop your heart rate by a few beats just by breathing a bit deeper. I don't think this has any effect on the lactate levels in your blood or the percentage of the energy you're generating that comes from the different metabolic pathways: it's just an example of heart rate variability - one of the big problems with heart rate training. </td></tr></table> So you say. We'll see. My impression to this point is my heart rate is reflecting _exactly_ the work done. BTW, in my experience, breath control in rowing is a _very_ important aspect energy expenditure. Rowing is rhythmic and depends crucially on relaxation. Breathing is an important part of both rhythmicity and relaxation. By the way, how is your rowing? What is your age, weight, and 2K time? What is your pace at 70% MHR? ranger

[old] Physicist · Post by **[old] Physicist** » January 16th, 2005, 11:29 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>By the way, how is your rowing? What is your age, weight, and 2K time? What is your pace at 70% MHR? </td></tr></table> Hey, relax old man. I wasn't attacking you. I'm younger, lighter and faster than you. But nowhere near as dedicated - and that's why I respect you. Not because of your achievements, but because of the effort you put in. Who knows, with the humility to take advice, maybe you could have achieved something in sport.

[old] Janice · Post by **[old] Janice** » January 16th, 2005, 11:46 am

Had posted, but this is getting silly. No one needs to help ranger inflate his already huge ego while he tries to break Pete down. Ranger needs to find a different thread to play his "look at me, I'm fitter than everyone else" game.

Concept2 Forum

The Road To Sub 6:10

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training