Concept2 Forum

Posted: **December 26th, 2004, 5:33 am**

Just got around to reading the C2 training manual over the last couple of days. Never had looked at it before. Why doesn't anyone use this plan? Here is my guess: Because it demands a kind of technical _foundation_ that almost no one in and around these web-sites takes seriously before moving on to racing, etc. The rub: UT2 As far as I can tell, no one reading this can do it. For instance, if people like Toddler, Pete, and ASH did UT2 rows, they could do 60-90 minutes at 20 spm and 1:47 without breaking a sweat (i.e., without their heart rate going over 140). That would be quite a trick., I think. To do a UT2 row, I am supposed to be able to row 60-90 minutes at 1:52 and 20 spm without breaking a sweat. Hmm. On a brighter note, I now realize that my work on technique over the last two years has exactly been an attempt to do what the C2 plan specifies, especially for UT2 rows. The surprising thing, though, is that, if I am hearing right, no one else seems to be paying much attention to these things. The great advantage of the UT2 standards set by the C2 plan as opposed to, say, the standards set by the Wolverine Plan's level 4 rowing is that the C2 plan stresses technique and demands efficiency (i.e., a heart rate cap). Doing a 90 minute UT2 row is almost exactly comparable to doing 90 minutes of Level 4 rowing at, say, 22 spm. But the C2 plan demands that this only be done keeping your heart rate below 140 bpm. If you can't do this, the plan suggests that you go back and work on technique. You are too inefficient. Interesting conclusion to these musings: If people in and around these web sites follow the C2 plan in some way, they skip its _foundation_: UT2 rowing. Why? Because no one has the technical accomplishment to do it. Some people might be able to meet the requirements for pace and rate, but no one, I think, can meet the requirements for efficiency (i.e., the heart rate cap). Surprising. ranger

Posted: **December 26th, 2004, 7:32 am**

Have you got this right? because on the 11 Nov I did a 21k row at 1.59.4 at 27 spm and average h/r of 138. Or does it have to be at 22 spm. I'm sure I can row 90 mins at 22 spm at under 140bpm, or does it have to be at a specific pace too?

Posted: **December 26th, 2004, 7:49 am**

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Rocket Roy @ Dec 26 2004, 06:32 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Have you got this right? because on the 11 Nov I did a 21k row at 1.59.4 at 27 spm and average h/r of 138. Or does it have to be at 22 spm. I'm sure I can row 90 mins at 22 spm at under 140bpm, or does it have to be at a specific pace too? </td></tr></table> Roy-- The UT1 rows are done at a certain combination of pace, rate, and % of maximum heart rate. For you (with a 6:44 2K), the specification would be 1:56 @ 20-22 spm for 60-90 minutes at a heart rate under 140 (perhaps under 130, if your maximum heart rate is 185 bpm rather than 200 bpm). The difference between this and what you rowed is a _combination of low pace and lower rate_--efficiency. And you are not alone. So it is with _everybody_. ranger

Posted: **December 26th, 2004, 7:50 am**

Sorry, UT2 not UT1. ranger

Posted: **December 26th, 2004, 7:55 am**

Surely this is a fitness issue, not a technique issue. I doubt that any of the three you mention could do that pace at 20spm for over an hour even with breaking sweat, nevermind without. If any of them could, they would easily be under 6 minutes and perhaps that is your point but it is still a fitness issue, _not_ a technique issue.

Posted: **December 26th, 2004, 8:20 am**

BTW, I have made a lot of progress with this UT2 foundation. I am not there yet, but I think I will be soon. I will certainly keep working on it. For instance, to row 6:20, the UTW requirements of the C2 plan suggest being able to row 1:50 for 60-90 minutes at 22 spm with a heart rate under 140 bpm. This is just the sort of thing that I have been shooting for with my distance rowing. The UT2 foundation could also be interpreted this way, I think: If you have good technique and proper CV fitness, you should be able to row a marathon fairly easily at your UT2 pace. If your heart rate does not exceed 140 bpm (or thereabouts), the rowing should be _very_ comfortable, as the C2 manual describes it, "relaxed" and "conversational." This means that for people like ASH, Pete, and Toddler to meet this requirement they should be able to row sub-2:30 marathons at 22 spm--no sweat, while chatting to the neighbors! Dwayne should be able to row a marathon at _1:40_ and 22 spm! I haven't checked exactly, but my guess is that, even _without_ meeting the rate and heart rate criteria, their marathon pbs are all about 10 minutes shy of that--quite a distance. Beware: The UT2 requirements that surround technical accomplishment and foundational CV rowing in the C2 plan are _very_, _very_ stiff. Good stuff. ranger

Posted: **December 26th, 2004, 8:35 am**

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Janice @ Dec 26 2004, 06:55 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Surely this is a fitness issue, not a technique issue. I doubt that any of the three you mention could do that pace at 20spm for over an hour even with breaking sweat, nevermind without. If any of them could, they would easily be under 6 minutes and perhaps that is your point but it is still a fitness issue, _not_ a technique issue. </td></tr></table> Janice-- As with Level 4 targets in the Wolverine Plan, the UT2 paces in the C2 manual are correlated with 2K paces. So, no, the plan does not suggest that those who can row under 6 minutes for 2K should be able to row 1:47 at 22 spm for 60-90 minutes without breaking a sweat. It suggeests that people who can row 6:12 for 2K should be able to do this. It suggests that folks such as Rich Blagrove, who can indeed row well under 6:00 for 2K, should be able to row _1:43_ for 60-90 minutes at 22 spm without breaking a sweat. Of course, in part, this is indeed a matter of a certain sort of fitness. But given my experience over the last two years, I think this is much more a matter of technique. A couple of years ago, I could indeed row 1:52 at 22 spm for 60-90 minutes, but the row was maximal. I suspect my heart rate approached 200 bpm by the end. Why? I was rowing at high drag (200 df.) and with bad technique (leading with my back rather than with my legs, not finishing completely with my arms, cutting the slide, etc.). Now at 113 df. and using better technique, I row 1:52 at 22 spm with a heart rate of very close to 140 spm. My fitness is the same as it was a couple of years ago. The only change has been in my technique. ranger

Posted: **December 26th, 2004, 10:23 am**

Well, FINALLY(!) someone has turned his attention to the C2 training manual and let us know that ONLY HE understands it fully and is tough enough to attempt to do it right while the rest of us slackers piddle about with our wimpy self-delusions . I look forward to your enlightenment on how to use the program properly, as I retreat respectfully with my tail between my legs . Thank God you are here to show us the light. Rick (Not worthy, not worthy. I'm scum, I suck)

Posted: **December 26th, 2004, 10:28 am**

Ranger, You cite Rich Blagrove as an example. As you say, he is rowing well under 6mins for 2k now (5:56), but he could not row a 60-90min piece at 1:43 at 22spm without breaking a sweat. I have trained with Rich, and seen him race a number of times. His technique is very good, and his stroking power is awesome for someone so light. He's done 1:41.6 @ 20 for 30mins, but that is flat out, and I dare say sweating a lot with a very high ending HR, and he has as good a base fitness as anyone in rowing. I could do 1:47 for 60-90mins, probably at around 26 - 27spm, but it'd be tough (pb is 1:45.2 pace, unrestricted rate). Maybe with training I'll get to this pace at 22spm one day, but never easily without breaking a sweat, no way. I don't see the value, still, with UT2 rowing, unless as a second session of the day (ie recovery rowing). UT1, imo, is just as good (better..) for working on technique. Pete

Posted: **December 26th, 2004, 10:58 am**

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Pete Marston @ Dec 26 2004, 09:28 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Ranger, You cite Rich Blagrove as an example. As you say, he is rowing well under 6mins for 2k now (5:56), but he could not row a 60-90min piece at 1:43 at 22spm without breaking a sweat. I have trained with Rich, and seen him race a number of times. His technique is very good, and his stroking power is awesome for someone so light. He's done 1:41.6 @ 20 for 30mins, but that is flat out, and I dare say sweating a lot with a very high ending HR, and he has as good a base fitness as anyone in rowing. I could do 1:47 for 60-90mins, probably at around 26 - 27spm, but it'd be tough (pb is 1:45.2 pace, unrestricted rate). Maybe with training I'll get to this pace at 22spm one day, but never easily without breaking a sweat, no way. I don't see the value, still, with UT2 rowing, unless as a second session of the day (ie recovery rowing). UT1, imo, is just as good (better..) for working on technique. Pete </td></tr></table> Cheers, Pete. Yes, I cited Rich, not as an example of someone who meets the UT2 standards, but exactly as someone who also falls short. I also mentioned, and therefore recognize fully, that we _all_ (in and around these web sites) fall short of the UT2 standards, at least at the moment. I am not at all sure that these UT2 standards are inappropriate, irrelevant, or whatever, though. In fact, I am going to try as hard as I can to meet them, and I think I might have a pretty good chance. The task is not an easy one, though, as I am finding out. I think that the unusual thing about these UT2 standards is that they deal with technique and CV fundamentals; and, by and large, very few rowers in and around these web sites are concerned with these things. Sure, for certain purposes, it is fine to skip UT2 rowing entirely, and just row at UT1 paces anand rates (and beyond: AT, TR, AN), just as for certain purposes in basketball, it is fine to shoot 60% from three-point range but only 40% from the free throw line. Fundamentals, schmundamentals. Who needs them! Somewhat sadly, I think, this is _very_ widespread contemporary attitude--in many arenas, not just in rowing. ranger

Posted: **December 26th, 2004, 11:01 am**

True: The only thing lost when you neglect fundamentals is the possibility of reaching your full potential; and if this goal is not high on your list of values, then very little is lost at all. ranger

Posted: **December 26th, 2004, 12:22 pm**

The only thing lost when you neglect fundamentals is the possibility of reaching your full potential. Hey Ranger, that statement is spot on, is it yours? I'm framing it, no doubt will use it in the future, and want to get the credit correct.

Posted: **December 26th, 2004, 2:02 pm**

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (PaulS @ Dec 26 2004, 11:22 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The only thing lost when you neglect fundamentals is the possibility of reaching your full potential. Hey Ranger, that statement is spot on, is it yours? I'm framing it, no doubt will use it in the future, and want to get the credit correct. </td></tr></table> Paul-- If it is someone else's, I don't know whose. Has a nice ring to it, no? Is it yours? BTW, I think I will hit my UT2 targets before the CRASH-Bs. I am pretty close, and I still have various issues that I am working out with my new stroke--more regular breathing, more relaxed shoulders, smoother transitions at the catch and finish, and so forth. I just did 15K, and I was getting 1:52 at 22 spm with my heart rate in the high 140s. So I have about 10 bpm to work on. Pleasingly, though, I don't get much of an increase in effort when I go up to UT1, e.g., 1:47 at 24 spm; so I may find the pace and rates easier to hit at that level. The UT2 paces and rates are all about technique, being one with the machine. Interesting project to work on. Instead of my skipping and sit ups, I am now doing a daily 15K of UT2 and UT1 rowing (with some bursts into AT) as a warm up to TR and AR intervals. Perhaps this is helping. I seem to be getting a big training effect. ranger P.S. Thanks again for getting me to this point with my stroke. It has taken quite a while and has been a load of work. But now this is getting fun!

Posted: **December 26th, 2004, 2:47 pm**

Yes, very nice ring. It certainly has a meaning that I hold to be very important. Maybe it's the result of "yeah, so you can get a WR while rowing like shit, imagine what would happen if you cleaned it up" percolated through a more eloquent mind. It seems very Lombardi-esque. Or maybe it was mom's "Cheating is only cheating yourself." redeux. I will claim, "Compete only against yourself, and eventually you may be your only competition." You're welcome, of course. It's not everyday that Stubborness Vs Stubborness works out, but maybe we can shake hands on this case in Boston.

Posted: **December 26th, 2004, 6:47 pm**

Just to clarify a couple of things about HR etc in the manual:- The % HR is HRR so '((MaxHR - RestHR) x %) + RestHR so this will give you slightly higer numbers. The paces given are generally accepted to be max so for UT1 the pace should be somewhere between the UT1 given and the UT2 in the next colum UT2 is 20 - 22 spm and UT1 22 - 24 As to sweating well I already do that before I finish my warm up so 'feeling warm, may sweat' for a UT1 session is not an option for me As to meeting the target HR's for the pace at the given SPM - not a hope for me at the moment, but I do agree with the concept - George

Concept2 Forum

Ut2!!

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training