Concept2 Forum

remisture wrote:Hi,

Are you guys using some sort of formula to know what pace to have on a 30r20 vs. a 30' free rate session? For instance, a 30r20 @ 1:54 is for me probably a 95% effort, while free rate it would be a "walk in the park". I'm a bit afraid to have both low rate and low pace, since that seems like "junk meters", but what is "low pace"?

This is maybe where watts comes into play?

hmm - i tend not to try and say low pace, but low wattage per stroke...
I use my watt / stroke (average) for my 2k as reference
i.e. 2k time 7:00 @R30 = 300W (Rate 30) = 10W / stroke (R30, 7:00-2k chosen for easier math)
for me a 30' is usually about a 25/26 SPM on average (somewhere between 5k / 10k based on previous rows: milage may vary here).
- so that would be about 250-260 W on average...

stick the numbers in the calculator:
http://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/t ... calculator

My stickynote on the PM would probably note a pace

1:50 @ R25

as target...

Dean, you don,t have a 2k Just a "paddle" one.

For me, my base ish pace is roughly 154/55 rate 21, 158/2.00 rate 18.

Free rate 10k roughly 1.47 this season. Low rate is always strapless. So very little difference between free rate and lower rates.
60 min, rate 22, again strapless 151.x ish.


One could say, you are not fit enough , or use a to strong a stroke.

I've currently got a difference of about 7 seconds between the two for 30 minutes but I usually rate very high so my low rate is quite poor.

paul45 wrote:You beat me to it Henry, Dean your 30r20 (well 19spm ave) sub max you say was 1:51/2,
a free rate 30' is a lot faster than 1:50 and this is my point, r25 for 1 sec faster would be
a cruise, fluffy.

A free rate 30 is your best at 27/28, but 25/26 a lot faster than 1:50 compared to your 30r20

I am just poking Dean a bit. 2k is currently not his objective. Some people never once do one.

paul45 wrote:You beat me to it Henry, Dean your 30r20 (well 19spm ave) sub max you say was 1:51/2,
a free rate 30' is a lot faster than 1:50 and this is my point, r25 for 1 sec faster would be
a cruise, fluffy.

A free rate 30 is your best at 27/28, but 25/26 a lot faster than 1:50 compared to your 30r20

just my method of working it out, paul.
more than one way to skin a cat, i'm sure...

27/28 is probably more accurate for the majority (except rod that prefers to rate his age :p )

the numbers i provided werent mine - just for simple maths..
Henry is quite right - I dont really have a 'fullout fast '2k (he just keeps reminding me at every possible moment...)
they look like a lot of hard work
just means mine is probably out a little..

I did do one (my only for 2016/2017) but as you can see without much reference I fluffed it.
Probably a little too slow - HR doesn't start to go out of AT until the last 300m and then just slightly... - I can't really say I found it extremely hard - still nonathlon needs a score...
2k is just not my thing...



but that is ~ 10,5W (5k is around about 11W) / stroke so around 1:48, which would be what I would target personally...
probably do that for the first stretch and see how i feel.

Interesting topic.....
I'm also following this thread hoping to gain some insight!

I've just started the PP and wondering what I should be working towards for the off days I.e. Steady distance (~8 to 15k), the program suggests 22r but nothing regarding perceived effort!! So as to avoid junk K's I try to maintain reasonable wattage but that brings me to the point of "rest/recovery day" should the row be more focused on relaxed, technique focus as opposed to meeting a preferred pace??

Cheers and thanks in advance

JadeMerrett wrote:Interesting topic.....
I'm also following this thread hoping to gain some insight!

I've just started the PP and wondering what I should be working towards for the off days I.e. Steady distance (~8 to 15k), the program suggests 22r but nothing regarding perceived effort!! So as to avoid junk K's I try to maintain reasonable wattage but that brings me to the point of "rest/recovery day" should the row be more focused on relaxed, technique focus as opposed to meeting a preferred pace??

Cheers and thanks in advance

I prefer Heart over Watts so on my recovery days I do:

same drive / wattage - more recovery time.
if my UT2 limit is 135 then I might start off @
R20 2:00 pace (200W /20 = 10W -I picked 10 because I can work ou the maths in my head - insert your numbers here) if i hit my HR limit then I would drop down to
R18 2:05 pace (180W / 18 = same 10W) if i still hit the cap then drop it down even more
R16 2:10 (160W)

Because the wattage on the drive is the same - my drive is the same - I'm using the same technique just altering the time on the recovery phase.
using heart over watts, means the pace is related to you on the day, not you on a certain reference day...

I'm sure there are more methods out there though, but this is the method i follow

remisture wrote:Hi,

Are you guys using some sort of formula to know what pace to have on a 30r20 vs. a 30' free rate session? For instance, a 30r20 @ 1:54 is for me probably a 95% effort, while free rate it would be a "walk in the park". I'm a bit afraid to have both low rate and low pace, since that seems like "junk meters", but what is "low pace"?

This is maybe where watts comes into play?

I like 55-60% of my 2k watts as the perfect range for low rate (19 for me) steady state work.

It's not junk meters - its steady state, aerobic base building work.

Try putting your 2k time in here for a great breakdown and see how it compares to what you are doing now

https://www.rowingnz.kiwi/Attachment?Ac ... ent_id=330

remisture wrote:Hi,

Are you guys using some sort of formula to know what pace to have on a 30r20 vs. a 30' free rate session? For instance, a 30r20 @ 1:54 is for me probably a 95% effort, while free rate it would be a "walk in the park". I'm a bit afraid to have both low rate and low pace, since that seems like "junk meters", but what is "low pace"?

This is maybe where watts comes into play?

Remi, I would ask "what are junk meters"? Seems to me if you are going up and down the slide with a rowing stroke and are using good form and good pressure with a heart rate in a workout range they are not junk - you are working your cardio system and form if nothing else. They just might not be fast, or as pristine as those who line up all there watts/stroke so elegantly - which is enviable.

remisture wrote: So I need to find that spot where I can both improve my engine, get stronger stroke, lose weight, have fun AND void using two hours daily on the erg. And that is probably somewhere between "walking", "jogging" and "running"

I would suggest looking at that UT1/UT2 range on that spreadsheet. Want to do half an hour and feeling good? Aim for the top end of that range at a low rate (18-20)

Feeling tired and want more of a 'jog' then stick to the bottom end of that range, still at the same stroke rate.

Hi,

I had to jump in because I heard my favorite term "junk meters". I agree that there is a threshold below which there is very little training stimulus (the walking analogy above), but there is an important concept that I think needs to be understood about aerobic endurance training. The concept of multiple energy systems in your body. The energy system that provides the base for endurance is the one that metabolizes fat as an energy source and does not produce lactate. When you train at very low intensities, your blood lactate levels are very low (~1mmol/l). At a certain intensity, your body transitions from that system to one that preferentially burns carbohydrate and this one does produce lactate. There is a third pathway at work which actually uses lactate as a fuel so it is possible to maintain a steady lactate level even though you are burning both fat and carbohydrate because of this third pathway. This is what people talk about when they talk about training at 2.0mmol lactate levels.

So, what happens above that level. Above that level, neither the fat pathway or the lactate pathway are efficient enough to support the activity, so almost all the energy comes from carbohydrates and the lactate level starts to rise. The rate of the rise depends on how much above this magic "crossover" point you are. The theory behind training at 2.0mmol/l lactate levels is that you are providing the maximum training stimulus for the aerobic metabolic system. If you train at higher powers, you are still training, but you are really working on your ability to generate and tolerate lactate, not your ability to process it into fuel.

So, do you need to measure lactate to find this optimum training point? No. It can be interesting and helpful to measure it to understand the process, but working to a HR cap below 80% HRMax, or at about 65% of recent best 2k power will also work. The best indicator for me that I am training at the right intensity is that my HR plateaus in a longer session and only drifts up about 2 or 3% over the last 30 minutes of an endurance row.

Which brings me to the spreadsheet. I like the spreadsheet, it is an interesting breakdown of training zones. Given the source it appears to be derived from elite athletes. This causes me two problems.
1. By asking for your goal or fastest every 2k, it encourages you to train at a much higher intensity for aerobic sessions than will be useful. An elite athlete will be trying to shave a couple seconds off an already fast 2K. If your goals are significantly faster than you are now, or you are getting older I think this could be murderous.
2. Elite athletes have generally spent years building an aerobic base and need much higher training power to get to that 2.0mmol crossover. This can be the difference between 60% of 2k power for a returning masters athlete to 75% of 2k for an olympian.

Of course, you will not improve 2K performance by only training at this magic crossover point, it is important to work on anaerobic capability and strength too, but getting in the meters at the right intensity is really important. One side note though. If you are doing other forms of low intensity exercise for significant amounts of time (commute by bike, go running multiple times a week, cross country ski, etc), then it probably makes sense to skew your erg sessions to a more intense level.

Last point, about rate. The theory is that by training at a consistent "watts per stroke" that it will be easier to translate your training to race pace. There is some truth to this because the drive length and drive time will be the same, so you will have some specific adaptations that could help you out. However, I don't think there is much of a need to get pedantic. The main background for doing sessions like a 30r20 was as a way to manage intensity in those sessions without resorting to heart rate monitors or lactate testing or any of that stuff. I don't think there is much magic to it, but it sure helps develop stroke power.

Kleshnev's 'normative rates' are here (worked out in the standard fashion as Dean does):

http://www.biorow.com/RBN_en_2007_files ... News10.pdf

Useful? Up to a point though a committed 30r20 is not a 60min SS effort.

If my 95% 30r20 was 1.53.0/500. I work at 1 sec/500 faster for each 2 spm rate increase. It does take a bit of practice go up the rate ladder though.

In reality a 95% effort at each rate would be a tad faster than 1 sec/500 but it's a good starting point.

So, for your 95% effort 30r20 @ 1.54 try a 30r30 @ 1.49/500 and see how you go.

remisture wrote:Thank you, guys. This is helpful

nick rockliff wrote:So, for your 95% effort 30r20 @ 1.54 try a 30r30 @ 1.49/500 and see how you go.

I will try a 30r30 this week. I had 30r26 @ 1:50.9 two days ago.

Bang n then, if you can sustain r30 you should be a tad faster than 1.49

I can't be doing with all this talk of watts, I race in sec/500 so train in sec/500