Wednesday Evening:- IP 2 x 15min / max pace 1:50 / 22-24spm
Target:- 2 x 15min / avg pace 1:52 / 23spm
Actual:- 15min / avg pace 1:51.9 / 23spm / avg HR 143 / 4019m
Actual:- 15min / avg pace 1:51.9 / 23spm / avg HR 148 / 4019m
Total session 10415m
Impressions:- felt a harder than it was based on HR I would estimate that 145/146 is about 80% HRR so from that factor the session was about right. I think it was just a case of a crappy day and poor nutrition and hydration having an effect, and maybe not enough sleep last night. Otherwise happy with the effort, strapless again 'thinking' about technique (to much arms not enough legs and opening the back to early ) and hitting target paces means walking away satisfied.
George
The Road to Boston 2007
Thursday Evening:- IP 45min / max pace 1:56 / 20-22spm
Target:- 45min / avg pace 1:58 / 21spm
Actual:- 45min / avg pace 1:57.8 / 21spm / avg HR 134 / 11454m
Distance per 9min split:-
2291m
2290m
2290m
2290m
2291m
Total session 13125m
Impressions:- Avg HR was 2bpm lower than my 36min row the other day - which is why I am not restricting my sessions on HR. 134 is approx 70%
George
Target:- 45min / avg pace 1:58 / 21spm
Actual:- 45min / avg pace 1:57.8 / 21spm / avg HR 134 / 11454m
Distance per 9min split:-
2291m
2290m
2290m
2290m
2291m
Total session 13125m
Impressions:- Avg HR was 2bpm lower than my 36min row the other day - which is why I am not restricting my sessions on HR. 134 is approx 70%
George
Looks like a nice easy row George ... what was max HR?GeorgeD wrote:Thursday Evening:- IP 45min / max pace 1:56 / 20-22spm
Target:- 45min / avg pace 1:58 / 21spm
Actual:- 45min / avg pace 1:57.8 / 21spm / avg HR 134 / 11454m
Distance per 9min split:-
2291m
2290m
2290m
2290m
2291m
Total session 13125m
Impressions:- Avg HR was 2bpm lower than my 36min row the other day - which is why I am not restricting my sessions on HR. 134 is approx 70%
George
Mark Pukita
48 / 5'7" or 1.70 m / 165 lbs. or 75 kg
1:38.3 (500m) 07NOV05// 3:35.2 (1K) 05NOV06// 07:10.7 (2K LW) 25FEB07// 20:16.0 (5K) 20OCT05// 23:54.1 (6K) 20DEC06// 7,285 (30min) 27NOV05// 41:15.7 (10K) 19NOV05// 14,058 (60min) 29NOV05
48 / 5'7" or 1.70 m / 165 lbs. or 75 kg
1:38.3 (500m) 07NOV05// 3:35.2 (1K) 05NOV06// 07:10.7 (2K LW) 25FEB07// 20:16.0 (5K) 20OCT05// 23:54.1 (6K) 20DEC06// 7,285 (30min) 27NOV05// 41:15.7 (10K) 19NOV05// 14,058 (60min) 29NOV05
Hi Mike, nice to have you on the threadmpukita wrote: Looks like a nice easy row George ... what was max HR?
HR towards the end was up around the 140 mark. As I wear a polar watch and so it is not displayed on the monitor I tend to just set it running at the start and then stop it at the end. Sometimes I have a peek but I find I can influence it either way by thinking about it and I dont want to spend my time manipulating my HR when I need to concentrate on getting to the end 
George
I've completed week one of the interactive plan and so far, so good. My goal is to be ready to race a 2K in January, so that gives me 22 weeks of prep. Initial test 2K was a disappointment as I have backslid (8:15.4) since last year's race, but nonetheless, it is a starting point.
36'UT2- 7,712 - held the recommended pace 2:20 (22sr) - but HR was a bit high than the UT2 band.
2x 15'UT1 : 6,600 2:16.3 (24) - HR a bit higher than UT1 band
3x12 UT1 : 7,425 2:16.2 (24) Ditto for HR.
-----
Tomorrow I will begin week 2 and have my annual assessment at the gym when a young trainer will collect all sorts of stats and tell me that I am getting old.
Glad to be joining this group.
Anne
36'UT2- 7,712 - held the recommended pace 2:20 (22sr) - but HR was a bit high than the UT2 band.
2x 15'UT1 : 6,600 2:16.3 (24) - HR a bit higher than UT1 band
3x12 UT1 : 7,425 2:16.2 (24) Ditto for HR.
-----
Tomorrow I will begin week 2 and have my annual assessment at the gym when a young trainer will collect all sorts of stats and tell me that I am getting old.
Glad to be joining this group.
Anne
5'11";150 lbs.52 years old
http://www.c2ctc.com/sigs/img1172201747.png
http://www.c2ctc.com/sigs/img1172201747.png
Nice work Anne and a couple of questions.Anne wrote:I've completed week one of the interactive plan and so far, so good. My goal is to be ready to race a 2K in January, so that gives me 22 weeks of prep. Initial test 2K was a disappointment as I have backslid (8:15.4) since last year's race, but nonetheless, it is a starting point.
36'UT2- 7,712 - held the recommended pace 2:20 (22sr) - but HR was a bit high than the UT2 band.
2x 15'UT1 : 6,600 2:16.3 (24) - HR a bit higher than UT1 band
3x12 UT1 : 7,425 2:16.2 (24) Ditto for HR.
-----
Tomorrow I will begin week 2 and have my annual assessment at the gym when a young trainer will collect all sorts of stats and tell me that I am getting old.
Glad to be joining this group.
Anne
Did you manage even splits on the UT1 sessions and what rest did you use?
Did you have a longer UT2 session as the 3rd one or is that not on your programme?
cheers George
ps Great to have another rower in the boat, what do you reckon Tom
UT2
45 min/2.13.9/18 spm/HR 130
First a note about spm. At 18, I cannot go much faster and hold a good stroke. (By that I mean as good as it gets when I haul on the handle.) Said differently, for me, 2.13 is roughly max pace at 18 spm for an extended row. This UT2 is hard work. I do it more slowly than I did when I was going at 21 spm, and my HR is lower, but the work is harder.
Second re rest between intervals. I am in the camp that says use a longer rest for a more intense work interval. Rest was 25% of work interval on UT1. I'll probably do 50% of work for AT. At least 100% for TR, although I've using longer rests recently. Probably 150% for AN.
Third resting HR. Since I have switched to the IP and started using HR to dictate the work, my resting HR has been about 3 bpm lower than it was (45 v 48). Does that suggest I wasn't recovering fully under my roll-your-own training plan?
Welcome aboard Anne.
Tom
45 min/2.13.9/18 spm/HR 130
First a note about spm. At 18, I cannot go much faster and hold a good stroke. (By that I mean as good as it gets when I haul on the handle.) Said differently, for me, 2.13 is roughly max pace at 18 spm for an extended row. This UT2 is hard work. I do it more slowly than I did when I was going at 21 spm, and my HR is lower, but the work is harder.
Second re rest between intervals. I am in the camp that says use a longer rest for a more intense work interval. Rest was 25% of work interval on UT1. I'll probably do 50% of work for AT. At least 100% for TR, although I've using longer rests recently. Probably 150% for AN.
Third resting HR. Since I have switched to the IP and started using HR to dictate the work, my resting HR has been about 3 bpm lower than it was (45 v 48). Does that suggest I wasn't recovering fully under my roll-your-own training plan?
Welcome aboard Anne.
Tom
George,
In response to your questions....
For me the splits were even, about as close as I could get them---2:16.3/ 2:15.9/2:16.8 (24 SR on all three)- for the 15' pieces
2:16.8/2:15.7/ 2:16.3 (24 for all three) for the 12' pieces.
Tomorrow I am going to try to keep a 22sr and 2:17.
I rested for 4 minutes which I just selected as a decent amount of time to take a drink, wipe down, change music...etc. I was glad to get your recommendations on proper rest time, as the 4 minutes seemed long. And, most of the workout consisted of talking with a neighbor on the erg who needed help. He couldn't seem to get the cadence- sped through the recovery. It helped pass the time to talk with him on a UT1 workout.
My programme is only 4 workouts a week....am playing a lot of golf and the dog is mighty frisky unless he gets a daily run.
I appreciate all advice...and need it!
Anne
Anne
In response to your questions....
For me the splits were even, about as close as I could get them---2:16.3/ 2:15.9/2:16.8 (24 SR on all three)- for the 15' pieces
2:16.8/2:15.7/ 2:16.3 (24 for all three) for the 12' pieces.
Tomorrow I am going to try to keep a 22sr and 2:17.
I rested for 4 minutes which I just selected as a decent amount of time to take a drink, wipe down, change music...etc. I was glad to get your recommendations on proper rest time, as the 4 minutes seemed long. And, most of the workout consisted of talking with a neighbor on the erg who needed help. He couldn't seem to get the cadence- sped through the recovery. It helped pass the time to talk with him on a UT1 workout.
My programme is only 4 workouts a week....am playing a lot of golf and the dog is mighty frisky unless he gets a daily run.
I appreciate all advice...and need it!
Anne
Anne
This year I have felt sort of adrift as far as training programs are concerned, so when George suggested that starting a 26 week interactive program on August 28 would work out just right for the 2007 Crash-B, I decided to give it a go. The first roadblock that I ran into was picking a base. The first day was supposed to be a 2k, but I needed a 5k for the USIRDS for the end of August instead, figuring that I could just get an approximate 2k from that.
Then I found an Excel spread sheet among my many ergo files that gives correlations for 7 stroke test, 0.5k, 1k, 2k, 5k, 20 minutes, 30 minutes, 10k, 40 minutes, UT2, UT1, AT, TR, and AN. I didn't know crap about all this alphabetical garbage, but I downloaded the dope on the interactive program for the C2 UK site, and read it over enough to know what I needed - not bad, actually. But I still have a big problem trying to figure out what pace I should be using. My best recent pieces are a 6k and a HM, both of them new PBs (and probably WRs, i.e. HWT WRs - I just checked, my time isn't listed in there yet, but it was 2 seconds under Dean's recent 6k entry, so it beat the LWT record as well). These aren't listed in that spread sheet, so I underlined all the events on that list that I have done this season. I was very surprised when the highest one, on the basis of that chart, turned out to be a 40' piece that included a 10' warmup, starting at 12 spm, and a 10' cool down that ended at 12 spm.
These are the pieces entered and the corresponding UT1 values:
0.5k 01:55.5 (01:55.5) 02:32.7
1k 04:02.0 (02:01.0) 02:31.2
2k 08:26.7 (02:06.6) 02:30.2 (interpolated)
5k 21:58.9 (02:11.8) 02:26.4+
20' 4434m (02:15.3) 02:27.9 (This one was just a warmup!)
30' 6717m (02:13.9) 02:22.8 (interpolated)
40' 8838m (02:16.1) 02:22.2 (interpolated)
I had made the decision to stick with three days a week of erging, so I had to list myself as class 2 for the IP. For the second workout of the first week (yesterday) of the IP class 2/three session per week program, it calls for 18' at UT1. I was going to do it at the 02:22.2, although that seemed to be on the slow side, but I checked against the IP pace guide and it gives a completely different set of numbers - all much faster than indicated by that spread sheet. Even the crappy 2k time corresponds to a UT1 pace of less than 02:21. I ended up using the UT1 recommended by the IP for my best 2k time from last season done here at 4000 ft. That was 02:18.5 and the corresponding UT1 pace would be between 02:18 and 02:19. I ended up with a 02:16.3 average pace for the 18' piece and the splits ranged from 02:16.0-02:16.9. It seemed fairly easy, so perhaps it still needs adjusting. I followed the IP suggestion on warmup and cool down - 10' minutes of each.
I don't remember where that spread sheet came from, other than I got it from some message on the U.K. forum and that it is in multi colors. I checked some of the numbers to see if they came from "Paul's formula" and while they seemed quite close, they were not exact.
I would appreciate any comments you can make on this. At this point, I just feel lost. I suppose that I should do it properly and follow through with the IP heart monitor protocol, but it seems like an awful lot of trouble and I don't know what they mean by an interface.
Bob S.
Then I found an Excel spread sheet among my many ergo files that gives correlations for 7 stroke test, 0.5k, 1k, 2k, 5k, 20 minutes, 30 minutes, 10k, 40 minutes, UT2, UT1, AT, TR, and AN. I didn't know crap about all this alphabetical garbage, but I downloaded the dope on the interactive program for the C2 UK site, and read it over enough to know what I needed - not bad, actually. But I still have a big problem trying to figure out what pace I should be using. My best recent pieces are a 6k and a HM, both of them new PBs (and probably WRs, i.e. HWT WRs - I just checked, my time isn't listed in there yet, but it was 2 seconds under Dean's recent 6k entry, so it beat the LWT record as well). These aren't listed in that spread sheet, so I underlined all the events on that list that I have done this season. I was very surprised when the highest one, on the basis of that chart, turned out to be a 40' piece that included a 10' warmup, starting at 12 spm, and a 10' cool down that ended at 12 spm.
These are the pieces entered and the corresponding UT1 values:
0.5k 01:55.5 (01:55.5) 02:32.7
1k 04:02.0 (02:01.0) 02:31.2
2k 08:26.7 (02:06.6) 02:30.2 (interpolated)
5k 21:58.9 (02:11.8) 02:26.4+
20' 4434m (02:15.3) 02:27.9 (This one was just a warmup!)
30' 6717m (02:13.9) 02:22.8 (interpolated)
40' 8838m (02:16.1) 02:22.2 (interpolated)
I had made the decision to stick with three days a week of erging, so I had to list myself as class 2 for the IP. For the second workout of the first week (yesterday) of the IP class 2/three session per week program, it calls for 18' at UT1. I was going to do it at the 02:22.2, although that seemed to be on the slow side, but I checked against the IP pace guide and it gives a completely different set of numbers - all much faster than indicated by that spread sheet. Even the crappy 2k time corresponds to a UT1 pace of less than 02:21. I ended up using the UT1 recommended by the IP for my best 2k time from last season done here at 4000 ft. That was 02:18.5 and the corresponding UT1 pace would be between 02:18 and 02:19. I ended up with a 02:16.3 average pace for the 18' piece and the splits ranged from 02:16.0-02:16.9. It seemed fairly easy, so perhaps it still needs adjusting. I followed the IP suggestion on warmup and cool down - 10' minutes of each.
I don't remember where that spread sheet came from, other than I got it from some message on the U.K. forum and that it is in multi colors. I checked some of the numbers to see if they came from "Paul's formula" and while they seemed quite close, they were not exact.
I would appreciate any comments you can make on this. At this point, I just feel lost. I suppose that I should do it properly and follow through with the IP heart monitor protocol, but it seems like an awful lot of trouble and I don't know what they mean by an interface.
Bob S.
Hey Bob welcome to the party - I have never trained with a WR holder tho I did have a chat to Graeme Watt on the phone the other night and I think you two would get on well, both champions in the truest sense.
Now as to your post you lost me about line 3 with all the numbers but this is how I see what we are doing here.
1/ We are using the IP because it takes a lot of the thinking out of life and we just have to sit there and row - no over thinking. It is possibly not the best plan in the world being generic but is aint going to be far wrong
2/ Any test done at the beginning is just there to give us a guide as to what 'level' we start at - better to be conservative than overstretch, and an educated guess would work fine. I am not using the maximum paces at this stage anyway in my level (drop me a PM if you have any questions)
3/ The 2nd test at week 7
will be more informative but even a change from one level to the next is not huge
4/ Some people (heck there are only 4 or us now) are using HR as a 'restriction / guide'. some are not (me). I think if you are 'feeling' your body as you row and are not overdoing it (and on 3 or 5 sessions a week that would be hard) then your not going to get into trouble. I am just tracking HR out of interest. I dont have it on the monitor just on my wrist and so it does not influence me
5/ This thread is not about right or wrong just sharing our experiences of the 'plan' and it becomes something we can relate to and each other - when someone did a 3 x 12 UT1 piece as Anne did then I can 'share' her experience no matter the pace as if it was my own
what else ... dont know I lost my train of thought
but hope that helps in some way
George
Now as to your post you lost me about line 3
with all the numbers but this is how I see what we are doing here.1/ We are using the IP because it takes a lot of the thinking out of life and we just have to sit there and row - no over thinking. It is possibly not the best plan in the world being generic but is aint going to be far wrong
2/ Any test done at the beginning is just there to give us a guide as to what 'level' we start at - better to be conservative than overstretch, and an educated guess would work fine. I am not using the maximum paces at this stage anyway in my level (drop me a PM if you have any questions)
3/ The 2nd test at week 7
will be more informative but even a change from one level to the next is not huge4/ Some people (heck there are only 4 or us now) are using HR as a 'restriction / guide'. some are not (me). I think if you are 'feeling' your body as you row and are not overdoing it (and on 3 or 5 sessions a week that would be hard) then your not going to get into trouble. I am just tracking HR out of interest. I dont have it on the monitor just on my wrist and so it does not influence me
5/ This thread is not about right or wrong just sharing our experiences of the 'plan' and it becomes something we can relate to and each other - when someone did a 3 x 12 UT1 piece as Anne did then I can 'share' her experience no matter the pace as if it was my own
what else ... dont know I lost my train of thought
but hope that helps in some way George
Mark ... not Mike Gene.GeorgeD wrote:Hi Mike, nice to have you on the threadmpukita wrote: Looks like a nice easy row George ... what was max HR?
George
<just kidding you>
George, that's a nice easy row ... you had plenty of gas left in the tank if you ended at 140. I'm assuming your Max HR is in the 170's somewhere. This ended at 80% of Max using 175 as your Max. You could certainly do this one faster.
Ha ha ... easy for me to say!
Onward and downward (pace that is). Interval day for me. Love 'em.
Cheers!
Regards ... Mark
Mark Pukita
48 / 5'7" or 1.70 m / 165 lbs. or 75 kg
1:38.3 (500m) 07NOV05// 3:35.2 (1K) 05NOV06// 07:10.7 (2K LW) 25FEB07// 20:16.0 (5K) 20OCT05// 23:54.1 (6K) 20DEC06// 7,285 (30min) 27NOV05// 41:15.7 (10K) 19NOV05// 14,058 (60min) 29NOV05
48 / 5'7" or 1.70 m / 165 lbs. or 75 kg
1:38.3 (500m) 07NOV05// 3:35.2 (1K) 05NOV06// 07:10.7 (2K LW) 25FEB07// 20:16.0 (5K) 20OCT05// 23:54.1 (6K) 20DEC06// 7,285 (30min) 27NOV05// 41:15.7 (10K) 19NOV05// 14,058 (60min) 29NOV05