australian spreadsheet

[The_Giant0]

Hi. I came across something kinda weird today. I was poking around the internet and found this: http://www.rowingnz.com/volunteers/coac ... alculator/

when I used it I found that my UT1 andUT2 should be around 1:47-1:54 if I want to break 6.25. This sounds incredibly low to me. I usually SS at 1.54.5-157.5 depending how long the session is and the stroke rating. Is it just me, or is there something off here...

[Bob S.]

Hi. I came across something kinda weird today. I was poking around the internet and found this: http://www.rowingnz.com/volunteers/coac ... alculator/

when I used it I found that my UT1 andUT2 should be around 1:47-1:54 if I want to break 6.25. This sounds incredibly low to me. I usually SS at 1.54.5-157.5 depending how long the session is and the stroke rating. Is it just me, or is there something off here...

I felt the same way when I used the UK interactive program which is based on the same zones and the same percentages, but this season I decided to follow the advice that I have seen several rowers express on one or both of the forums. That advice is that most people do the UTs at too fast a pace and the ANs and TRs at too slow a pace. So now I am just sticking to the recommended paces:

UT2 at 45-60% of the base 2k power
UT1 at 60-70%
AT at 70-80%
TR at 90-105%
AN at 105-115%

The UTs seem awfully slow, but that seems to be what is intended. They are for building up long term endurance and concentrating on good form. They are not supposed to be done at time trial intensity. In other words, if you are are doing a UT1 30' piece you shouldn't be doing it a the pace you would use if you were trying to set a personal best. I must admit, however, that my HR doesn't come up anywhere near the recommended level when I stick with the recommended pace.

Bob S.

Added note: Previously I had played games with the recommended paces and used the following:

UT2 60-70%
UT1 70-80%
AT 80-93%
TR 93-105%
AN 105% and up to whatever I could do in those short intervals.

Under those conditions, I could get my HR up to the recommended levels except for the AN zone where the pieces are too short for the HR lag.

[jamesg]

The 60 80% guideline has been in place at least since the 50s. But we used rating then, as HR and Watt readings were not available. We raced eights at 32-34, and trained at 22-24.

I'm thinking HR is obsolete, there are too many numbers each of which could be say 5% off, so the final result is meaningless: Max HR, band % and width, Rest HR. If then we use a hypothetical number like 220-Age, are not sure whether to use HR range or not and whether to slow down if the HR goes out of band, chaos ensues.

In any case HR was a proxy for "intensity" where, let's not kid ourselves, intensity = Power; why bother with a proxy when we can read Power directly? So use Watts and the 70-80% guide, adjusting next time if too low or too high.

Must say I like Xeno's rule: go either very slow or very fast; but with slow and fast referring to the rating, with Watts in proportion. It's the mileage that counts, if the mountain is bigger, we'll have to get used to walking further.

[The_Giant0]

Hey, thanks for the replies. I may have been unclear what I was confused about. I did not think that the splits given here were too slow, I thought they were too fast. As I said, I usually hold 1.54.5-1.57.5 depending on the SS distance/workout/rating. This puts me sever splits lower for a 6.25 goal 2k (which I am reasonably sure I am around). Should I be ss a lot faster than I am (goal of sub 6.20...btw I am ltw)

[Bob S.]

Hey, thanks for the replies. I may have been unclear what I was confused about. I did not think that the splits given here were too slow, I thought they were too fast. As I said, I usually hold 1.54.5-1.57.5 depending on the SS distance/workout/rating. This puts me sever splits lower for a 6.25 goal 2k (which I am reasonably sure I am around). Should I be ss a lot faster than I am (goal of sub 6.20...btw I am ltw)

Sorry, I misread it. I have the opposite problem, as you can see from my post, and was jumping to conclusions about the matter instead of reading more carefully. I have a hunch that it is a matter of long and short pieces. My short stuff is relatively slow compared to my longer pieces. As a result, my 2k is weak and the UT paces based on it are too slow to feel right for me. In your case, it seems like you have a strong 2k relative to your performance at longer pieces. The old strength versus endurance balance question. Application of Paul's Law has always shown that my endurance outweighs my strength.

Bob S.

[The_Giant0]

Ok, that makes a little more sense. It still seems rather fast to be SS what would be +12 off of 2k instead of +12 off of 6k (which is what I have usually heard as a good approximation of SS pressure)

[Bob S.]

Ok, that makes a little more sense. It still seems rather fast to be SS what would be +12 off of 2k instead of +12 off of 6k (which is what I have usually heard as a good approximation of SS pressure)

One of the problems here is that the 2k+x seconds is not linear with energy. In my case, I am using 2:15, i.e a 9:00 2k base. The recommended UT1 range is 2:32-2:40 and the UT2 range is 2:40-2:56. In other words from 2k+17 - 2k+25 and 2k+25 - 2k+41. The recommended paces are based on percentages of the 2k power and that varies with the inverse cube of the time.

Note: Yes, a 9' 2k is a horribly slow time for most of the members of this forum, but not all that bad for those of us long over the hill.

Bob S.

[jamesg]

Same here, 8 minutes. Looking forward to setting a new Personal Worst for this year.

[hjs]

Setting a personal worse beats the alternatives, after a certain age, decline is part of the game.......

[NavigationHazard]

The intensity of any given piece in any given session depends on how hard you're working and also how long you're working. Without knowing recommended durations it's impossible to know what the NZL spreadsheet's training bands/paces really mean. I'd have to dig out my copy of "Rowing Faster" to see what (if any) recommended workouts go with the recommended paces here.

Having said this, some of the boxed comments about intensity in the NZL spreadsheet are just wrong empirically. For a 6:20 2k, for example, the range described as "Aerobic Capacity Training, less than pace of 6 km test but higher than 60 minute test (ergometer)" runs from 74% of 2k watts/ 1:45 pace to 88% of 2k watts/ 1:39.1 pace. This implies that 1:39.1 pace is slower than your 6k test pace given a 6:20 2k. News flash: the WR for 50s MHWs is 1:39.5 pace -- done by a rower (Michelle Marullo) in 6:10 form at the time. Alternatively, British erg superstar Graham Benton won the 30-39 race at the 2010 British Indoor Rowing Championships with a 5:50.8 2k. Earlier that year he set the listed age-group world record for 6k* at 18:56.8/ 1:34.7 pace. According to the NZ spreadsheet, 1:31.5 pace should be slower than Graham's 6k test pace (i.e. he "ought" to be somewhat faster than 18:18). NFW (no f*****g way). Moreover, the NZL spreadsheet "thinks" that 2010-vintage Graham should be capable of a 60' test at 1:37 pace. His 2008 30-39 WR for 60' (set when he was in 5:42.5 form for 2k) is 18221m/ 1:38.8 pace. Again, the theory doesn't match the empirical reality. Allow me to suggest that the problem isn't the empirical results, it's the theory.

In my opinion all such tables and pace guidelines should be approached with caution. As the NZL spreadsheet cheerfully acknowledges, " To some extent you will need to find your ranges by trial and error, but this is a starting guide with approximate ranges." In other words, mileage may vary.

* Many national-team types have gone faster but haven't reported their scores publicly for competitive reasons.

[The_Giant0]

what I have heard is that the Aus. team spends about 20-25h a week doing non weight training. Thats a pretty high volume. Im just surprised they do it that fast(i dont mean fast absolutely, i mean fast relative to their 6k). I know that when I do a hour+ erg it is easy to hold +8 off 6k for the whole time. I mean, its not max, but it certainly doesnt feel like SS

[Bob S.]

I know that when I do a hour+ erg it is easy to hold +8 off 6k for the whole time. I mean, its not max, but it certainly doesnt feel like SS

It sort of depends on what SS means to you. To me it means a pace that I can hold for a reasonably long time, like an hour. Even if it is a one hour time trial, the only difference would be that I would try put out more effort during the last few minutes of the hour.

Bob S.

[The_Giant0]

yeah, i was thinking of SS as UT2 to pretty easy AT1, around 140- 165 bpm for me

[stroke]

Hi. I came across something kinda weird today.

Certainly is weird to think that New Zealand is anything to do with Australia.

[The_Giant0]

Yeah, that was my bad. A prime example of post 6k brain death