Concept2 Forum

I'm going to close my "Training for WIRC (Virginia) and/or Crash-Bs (Boston)" thread as both those 2018 races are now history. I thought about getting up in the small hours this morning and driving up to Boston for a quixotic, rated-up bullpen row. But as soon as I looked at the weather report I abandoned the idea as beyond even my usual level of stupid.

I'm going to move training/medical reports over to this thread and keep going. Inspired by the live tracker (and audio) feed from Boston, I tried to do something this afternoon that might be a rough equivalent to a rated-up competition 2k. I have just the interval workout in my repertoire: 8 x 500m on 1:30 rest, severely negative-splitted, trying to take the pace down roughly 1 second on each rep. Some trading rate for pace is allowed.

01] 1:39.8 352w r30
02] 1:38.9 362w r31
03] 1:37.7 375w r31
04] 1:36.6 388w r32
05] 1:35.9 307w r31
06] 1:34.7 412w r32
07] 1:33.8 424w r33
08] 1:29.8 397w r31

4000m total work distance in 12:47.2 net elapsed work time, 1:35.9 pace r31 [PM3]. This works out on average to a 2k of 6:23.6, which is slightly under age-group WR pace.



I don't necessarily claim to be able to produce something of the sort in a continuous 2k -- if nothing else, there's my blood-glucose level to consider. The greater the intensity rated up, the higher the demand for carbs to fuel muscles that are working more rapidly than at lower ratings. My insulin sensitivity having been damaged by my induced diabetes, I can't count on 'normal' responses to that demand. I also can't carbo-load ahead of time to mitigate some of the demands of a race. Interval sessions like this one -- which I was predisposed to well before the onset of the disease last March -- let me check how I'm doing during the rests. If necessary I can do a finger prick and verify that I'm in an acceptable range given the exertion. I also can take in fluid if I wish. I didn't on this workout, but sometimes I will during longer sessions. Hydration directly affects plasma volume which in turn affects glucose levels that are measured in the US in milligrams per decaliter. Finally, there's a potential post-exercise hypoglycemia problem to consider. If there are any Type II diabetics out there who stumble on this thread, a good place to start looking for advice when exercising is: http://www.diabetes.org/food-and-fitnes ... rcise.html But consult your doctor before embarking on a workout program. You want to strengthen your body against the disease, not stress it in counter-productive (indeed, potentially serious) ways....

March Team Oarsome Challenge just now, first erg in like four days although there have been some cycle workouts. Wednesday AM, for example, was 30' on the stationary cycle at a nominal 410 watts. Ouch. Oh, and Ms Nav is back from Poland for two weeks so cut me some %$#&*^G slack.

01] 1:36.0 396w r24
02] 1:36.3 392w r24
03] 1:36.8 386w r24
04] 1:37.0 383w r24
05] 1:37.2 381w r24
06] 1:36.0 396w r27

9:39.3 net elapsed work time. The PM3 says 1:36.5 average pace, 389w r24. Our TO Challenge page thinks it was 1:36.6. Grrr.....

Belated congratulations for your performance at WIRC.

NavigationHazard wrote: Wednesday AM, for example, was 30' on the stationary cycle at a nominal 410 watts.

Why do you call it "nominal"?
It is completely unbelievable but one would think that bikes are the most likely to measure the
power output correctly. Can you make an experiment the next time and spin at a higher rpm for a couple of minutes (say 70 rpm)?

For a while I did some experiments myself. When turning 250 watts at 55 rpm I was close to pulling a muscle not to speak of the knee problems (within 3 minutes). From that experience I concluded that the bikes are probably correct at that rpm.

Nominal. adj. (of a quantity or dimension) stated or expressed but not necessarily corresponding exactly to the real value.

In other words, I have reason to doubt the displayed wattage values on the cycle. On the other hand, the US Navy certifies the same model for semi-annual fitness tests so there's also some reason to accept them as well. At the end of the day, I don't really care how "accurate" they may be as long as they're consistent. I use the sessions for cardio fitness (low cadence / high resistance) and the details matter less to me than the overall effect over time....

Nominal watts in cycling means something different... it tries to allow for variations in power during the session

I thought that was "normalized power." But I'm always willing to learn new things.

1 hr stationary cycle yesterday, 378 watts, cadence 47, average HR 124 bpm.

30 x 250m r30 on 30" rest this afternoon:

*

* I forgot to rename the data series so the label in the graph still says 2/23 workout. Oops....

7500m total work distance in 24:30.0 net elapsed work time, 1:38.0 average pace, 372w r30 [PM3]. Trademark fast last rep:

30] 44.7 secs 1:29.4 pace 372w r35

16 x 250m r31 on 30" rest this afternoon:

01] 49.8 1:39.6 pace 354w r30
02] 49.6 1:39.2 pace 359w r30
03] 49.5 1:39.0 pace 361w r30
04] 48.9 1:37.8 pace 374w r31
05] 48.7 1:37.4 pace 379w r31
06] 48.7 1:37.4 pace 379w r31
07] 48.7 1:37.4 pace 379w r31
08] 48.6 1:37.2 pace 381w r31
09] 48.5 1:37.0 pace 383w r31
10] 48.0 1:36.0 pace 396w r31
11] 48.0 1:36.0 pace 396w r31
12] 47.6 1:35.2 pace 406w r32
13] 47.2 1:34.4 pace 416w r32
14] 46.9 1:33.8 pace 424w r32
15] 47.0 1:34.0 pace 421w r32
16] 44.0 1:28.0 pace 514w r37

4000m total work distance in 12:49.8 net elapsed work time, 1:36.2 pace, 393w r31 [PM3]. Meh.

60' on the stationary cycle just now, 378 nominal watts, cadence 49, average HR 131 bpm.

MUCH sweat..... Blood glucose was 97 mg/dL immediately post-exercise, about as low as I want it to go. I've had a protein shake and a banana to boost things and help ward off any delayed crash.

NavigationHazard wrote:60' on the stationary cycle just now, 378 nominal watts, cadence 49, average HR 131 bpm.

60 mins ... 378 watts... That is impressive.... Very....Cadence??? Heart rate??... You are in the wrong sport

On reps .... On time.... I come from swim coach background.... Where an on time is the time for the rep and the rest.... Eg. 60 x 50 on 60. Takes an hour

16 x 250m r33 on 30" just now:

01] 48.4 1:36.8 pace 386w r32
02] 47.7 1:35.4 pace 403w r33
03] 47.3 1:34.6 pace 413w r33
04] 47.3 1:34.6 pace 413w r33
05] 47.3 1:34.6 pace 413w r33
06] 47.2 1:34.4 pace 416w r33
07] 47.3 1:34.6 pace 413w r33
08] 47.4 1:34.8 pace 411w r33
09] 47.2 1:34.4 pace 416w r33
10] 47.4 1:34.8 pace 411w r33
11] 46.5 1:33.0 pace 435w r33
12] 47.2 1:34.4 pace 416w r33
13] 47.4 1:34.8 pace 411w r33
14] 46.0 1:32.0 pace 449w r34
15] 46.3 1:32.6 pace 441w r34
16] 43.7 1:27.4 pace 524w r37

4000m total work distance in 21:31.4 net elapsed work time, 1:33.9 pace, 423w r33 [PM3].

Should win the category again this year in the World Virtual Indoor Sprints....

1000m 3:06.2 434w r30 [PM3]

01] 250m 45.5 1:31.0 464w r26
02] 250m 46.8 1:33.6 427w r29
03] 250m 47.6 1:35.2 406w r32
04] 250m 46.3 1:32.6 441w r35

1st place in the 60-69 MHW rankings for the year at the moment by 3.5 seconds; 1st place in the Virtual Sprints rankings by something like 6.9 seconds. That's NOT how I'd pace/rate a full-out trial or record attempt. This was something of an exercise in blindly trading rate for what I'd like to have been constant pace, but wasn't, and was rowed mostly without looking at the monitor. The 'trick' to the exercise is to count strokes mentally and shift a gear every time you get to one of your marks. Here I'd mentally blocked out 4 roughly 250m sets as my targets. It more or less worked....

Feeling fat after a 36-hr trip to Orlando Florida for family business.... Nothing for it then but

100 x 30" r30 on 30", aiming for consistent pace on the first 90 and negative-splitting the last 10:

001-016] 152m 1:38.6 pace 364w r30
017] 153m 1:38.0 pace 371w r30|
018-060] 152m 1:38.6 pace 364w r30
061] 153m 1:38.0 pace 371w r30|
062-063] 152m 1:38.6 pace 364w r30
064] 153m 1:38.0 pace 371w r30|
065-090] 152m 1:38.6 pace 364w r30
091] 154m 1:37.4 pace 374w r30
092] 155m 1:36.8 pace 386w r30
093-094] 157m 1:35.5 pace 401w r30
095] 158m 1:34.9 pace 409w r30
096] 159m 1:34.3 pace 417w r30
097-098] 160 1:33.8 pace 425w r30
099] 161m 1:33.2 pace 433w r30
100] 178m 1:24.2 pace 585w r38

15,289m total work distance in 50:00.0 net elapsed work time, 1:38.1 pace 371w r30 [PM3 + spreadsheet].

Trademark last rep. I thought the 42 in a row in there at the same pace was pretty good, even by my own somewhat obsessive-compulsive standards. It's all about rowing economy, i.e. doing more with less, the substantial portion of which involves getting in a 'groove' and sticking to it.

NavigationHazard wrote:15,289m total work distance in 50:00.0 net elapsed work time, 1:38.1 pace 371w r30 [PM3 + spreadsheet].
Trademark last rep. I thought the 42 in a row in there at the same pace was pretty good, even by my own somewhat obsessive-compulsive standards. It's all about rowing economy, i.e. doing more with less, the substantial portion of which involves getting in a 'groove' and sticking to it.

one of the best Jon but OCD for sure - I agree with the groove thing it is just so hard to concentrate for that long without missing one.
Well done on the 1k - faster than last year!

60' stationary cycle this afternoon, 383 nominal watts. I forgot to note the average cadence - I think it was about 50. Average HR was 127 bpm. New personal best for the full hour on that particular bit of kit at that level of resistance (magnetically braked).

I was toast afterwards....

amazing training sessions Jon - do you have a goal of racing again this year?

Whilst we are looking at papers here is an interval one:
http://www.wattkg.com/short-intervals/