Concept2 Forum

Hi All:

I know the ISS website is long gone, and their 'Interactive Plan' is pretty long-in-the-tooth. But I still think it is one of the most comprehensive and accessible plans out there. The ability to follow the general principles to create your own plan is one of the strengths. But as I've gone through the process of trying to cobble it together from various places, I've noticed a few inconsistencies - maybe errors? - maybe undocumented changes in the plan over time? None of this is at all critical, I'm mostly just curious about how and why it all went down if any of you equally long-in-the-tooth folks might have thoughts.

My "data" so to speak are:

• 1: the C2 "indoor Rowing Training Guide, Version 2" (O'Neill and Skelton) which is the most detailed description of the Interactive Plan I could find.
  http://www.redking.me.uk/sport/rowing/t ... ing_v2.pdf

.

• 2: the spreadsheet of the interactive plans downloaded from the ISS website (found in this thread):

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=188118&p=486970&hil ... ve#p486970

Here's some of the issues I've found:

1. HR Zone Definitional Issues

In the Indoor Rowing Training Guide there seems to be some contradictory information on how to calculate HR for the various training bands (UT2, UT1, etc.).

In the text, it says:

"When training bands are identified by percentages of heart rate, it is percentage of the HRR that is referred to.
This value is then added to the RHR to give the training heart rate." (p. 3.06).

But the subsequent tables in the same guide (3.1 & 3.2), clearly defines each training band by %MHR, not %HRR+RHR. I'd think that maybe this is just a typo and they meant to put %HRR (and +RHR?) in the table headers, but in Table 3.2 they even give a concrete example calculation ("20 year old, MHR=200, 75-80% MHR = 160-170) that shows they are definitely using only %MHR and not %HRR+RHR. Weird.

The online Free Spirits Rowing Calculator uses the text's description (i.e., %ofHRR+RHR) rather than the table 3.1/3.2's calculation. And the Interactive Spreadsheet also uses the %HRR+HRR, so I'm guessing it is just an error/typo in the guide.

2. Power Zone Definitional Issues & Inconsistencies between Guide and Website/Spreadsheet

In the Training Guide they don't actually ever define any power zones by wattage. But in the spreadsheets, they do use an explicit breakdown for % of 2k power (UT2=45-60%; UT1=60-70%; AT=70-80%; TR=80-105%; AN=105-115%). And when you plug your 2k time into the spreadsheet, it automatically spits out your wattage and pace based on those definitions. Interestingly, when you use the 2000m Training Pace Guide (Table 5.8) in the Training Guide they do *not* follow those same assigned wattages. For example, if I look at Table 5.8 and assume I have a 2k time of 7:00 (302W), I get training times & equivalent wattages of: UT2=2:01=197.6w=<65%; UT1=1:56=224.2w=<74%; AT=1:51=255.9w=84.7%; TR=1:45=302.3w=100%; AN=>1:42=329.8=109%.

So, most of the zones have been shifted down 5% in power between the guide and the interactive spreadsheet (UT2 is 60% rather than 65%; UT1 goes to ~70% rather than 75%; AT goes to 80% rather than 85%, etc. I'm also pretty sure the % are not actually entirely consistent all the way up-and-down the table.

Frankly, I'm happy to have discovered this because my HR and Power Zones didn't match all that well when I was relying on Table 5.8's pace guide, but the spreadsheet's power zones seem to be closer to my HR zones. That 5% in power at the top end of each zone makes a big difference.

3. Week Eliminations when creating individualized plans

In the text of the Training Guide, it notes that if you are creating your own bespoke training plan that has fewer weeks than their standard 26 Week Interactive Plan, you should eliminate weeks like this:

"The programme below sets out 26 weeks of training. If you have less time to your competition then you will need to remove some of the weeks. The weeks are removed as follows: 13, 14, 15, 12, 11, 10, 16, 17, 18, 9, 8, 8. For example, to create a 22 week programme you remove the first four weeks from the list, these are weeks 13, 14, 15 and 12.

However, in the spreadsheet, if you look at, for example, the tab for Level 3 Athlete/4 Sessions/week/21 weeks until race, you'll find that the 'eliminated weeks' are 13, 14, 15, 16, 17. So 16 & 17 get rejected instead of 12 and 11 as advocated in the Training Guide. Not sure why. The practical effect is that the Guide's advice eliminates some of the early competition training weeks (weeks 12 & 11) while the spreadsheet's version eliminates some of the later competition period workouts (weeks 16 & 17).

Anyway, as I said, this is mostly out of curiosity than anything else. Just wondering if there is any other documentation out there that might shed light on whether there was any conscious evolution of training principles (re-calibrating power zones, for example) between the Training Guide v2 and the creation of their now defunct ISS Website Interactive Plans.

The chief virtue shared by the O’Neill material and the Indoor Sports adaptation is prescriptive demarkation of training zones. Whatever the observed vagaries of both accretion and reduction in the Interactives, the fatal defect of both is failure to identify lactate thresholds/inflection points by direct determinination. The customization of training volume and training intensity progression in The Indoor Guide V. 2 is, as you mention, a thoughtful optimization of training opportunities and time available. The ISS distillate is a clever bit of marketing. Bit like ‘bespeaking’ a Saville Row suit or a Purdy doublegun. You get your ego stroked and decisions made for you without putting much effort to iearning the double windsor or which trigger is first barrel.

The ISS isn't really an adaptation of the Training Guide V2 ... the training guide itself has all the information for creating an 'interactive' program. The ISS just automated everything by putting it into a spreadsheet/website. I think the website was even designed by the authors of the guide, wasn't it? I'm really just interested in how and why some of the things changed during this automation. Were they intentional changes due to updated training philosophy? Transcription errors?

The idea that the guide/plan's failure to use LT is a 'fatal flaw' seems a little harsh. Direct determination of LT/inflection points is hardly available to the vast majority of rowers (and it was even less-so at the time the guide was written), and HR/%Power are reasonable enough proxies of physiological systems for the aims/ambitions of 99% of rowers. And it doesn't seem fair to say that programs that define training bands on the basis of single measurements like HR or VT or %power are any more prescriptive or cookie-cutter than programs that define a series of training bands on the basis of a different single-measurement such as LT. The science of LT is also a whole lot more murky than people assume based on the seemingly 'hard' definitions bandied about. While there is no doubt that LT is a useful concept, it is just that ... a concept ... and one that is plagued by issues of false precision and inconsistent definitions/applications. It is not nearly the 'direct measurement' it is made out to be in the secondary literature. When you look at the primary literature the identification of LT is actually pretty arbitrary (or at the very least inconsistent in its definition between researchers) and that it is, just as much as HR or ventilatory thresholds or whatever, a proxy for some sort of physiological change; but there is not anywhere near consensus as to what, exactly, that physiological change actually is, or how it relates to 'performance' (however you want to define that), or what the exact relationship is between LT and that physiological change, or how important it is as a standard marker for defining an entire training regime around. It is definitely important . . . but details are still being sorted.

As an example, here are just some of the different (in some cases quite different) definitions/measurements for LT I found during a 30min scan of the the primary exercise physiology literature:
- Squinting and turning your head while holding out your tongue and looking at a lactate-blood curve until your squinting identifies a 'meaningful inflection point'. Different researchers identify the 'inflection point' at different places, and there has been very little in the way of experiments to control for inter-observer error on this.
- The moment when blood lactate concentration begins to increase in an exponential manner
- The moment when blood lactate concentration increases more than 1mMol/L over x minutes of exercise (x= whatever the researcher wants, apparently, because it differs substantially from researcher to researcher).
- A log-log BLC-exercise intensity data
- some ratio of lactate/pyruvat (exact ratio depending on whims of researcher)
- some measure of bicarbonate ( exact ratio depending on whims of researcher )
- some polynomial function applied to the lac/workload ratio by considering curve vertices (whatever the hell that means).
- etc.

The Interactives work well if we already know how to row: they all start with a 2k test.

The first set I saw also used ratings as control: 18-20 UT2, -23 UT1, -28 AT, which could help with learning to row, if we follow the instructions and use a double control: HR Range (Karvonen) and Rating, so that 23 is fast and HR shows it.

The plans themselves were highly progressive, using 3-week blocks with increasing times, but shorter and faster in the next block, all the way to sprints in the weeks before racing. Much as oarsmen did: O'Neill was an Olympic coach.

The only plan on this level, for 2k racing, is the Wolverine (M Caviston). His L4 tables are a lesson in how to row and train on the erg; again based on 2k times.

Bobcamanos writes:

As an example [of LT determination methods], here are just some of the different (in some cases quite different) definitions/measurements for LT I found during a 30min scan of the the primary exercise physiology literature:
- Squinting and turning your head while holding out your tongue and looking at a lactate-blood curve until your squinting identifies a 'meaningful inflection point'. Different researchers identify the 'inflection point' at different places, and there has been very little in the way of experiments to control for inter-observer error on this.

I thought the respected squint/contortionist method required tongue in cheek.

jamesg wrote: ↑

September 29th, 2021, 1:36 pm

The first set I saw also used ratings as control: 18-20 UT2, -23 UT1, -28 AT, which could help with learning to row, if we follow the instructions and use a double control: HR Range (Karvonen) and Rating, so that 23 is fast and HR shows it.

Yes, good point. In addition to HR and %2kPower, O'Neill et al. also had SR guidance with their plan.

Unfortunately, that reminds me that there is yet another inconsistency in the C2 Training Guide V2. In Table 3.1 (Training Bands) the SR guidance is:
UT2 (18-20); UT1 (20-24); AT (24-28); TR (28-32); AN (32+).

But in Table 5.8 (2000m Training Pace Guide) the SR guidance is somewhat different:
UT2 (20-22); UT1(22-24); AT (26-28); TR (30-34); AN (36-46).

Shrug.

The second set of ratings looks better suited to rowing afloat using modern blades and rigging, or on slides / Dynamic. TR 28/32 is what I used when racing a long time ago, but also on the erg in my sixties.

Such tables are guidelines, and one at a time is enough. I use Rating, and in ergdata pull hard as possible, full length, usually in 5 to 8 minute intervals. What HR and Watts say are results, not guide lines.

Watts is the best for racing. If we have a 300W 2k target, to be raced at 30, then we need a 10 Watt stroke. So we get it and train it.