Concept2 Forum

I have been following the Interactive 2000 m program from the UK site and like it due to the variety of workouts. However, I tend to find the suggested paces a little too slow, so I usually decrease the pace (go faster) and also decrease the rate (SPM). Today the workout was 20 min in the UT 1 zone. The workout called for a minimum of a 2:07 pace, 22-24 SPM and a heart rate of 138-149. I did it at 2:05, 22 SPM but my heart rate at the end was 158 which puts me solidly into the AT or even TR zones. I was pretty tired at the end but could have gone longer. Realizing that the UT1 and AT workouts have different goals, am I minimizing the aerobic benefit of the UT1 workout by going faster and entering the AT zone?

I believe the input data for the interactive program are accurate because I measured my max heart rate of 172 bpm after a 1,000 m test piece. Of course resting heart rate (58 bpm) age (51) and best 2000 m (7:29) are empirical.

I haven't got an answer, but I'm interested in the replies you get because I too found paces suggested by the IP to be too slow, and at too high a stroke rate. I also found that my "cruising speed" gave me a heart rate that would have been more appropriate to the higher intensity zones.

Cheers
Dave

PaulG wrote:I have been following the Interactive 2000 m program from the UK site and like it due to the variety of workouts. However, I tend to find the suggested paces a little too slow, so I usually decrease the pace (go faster) and also decrease the rate (SPM). Today the workout was 20 min in the UT 1 zone. The workout called for a minimum of a 2:07 pace, 22-24 SPM and a heart rate of 138-149. I did it at 2:05, 22 SPM but my heart rate at the end was 158 which puts me solidly into the AT or even TR zones. I was pretty tired at the end but could have gone longer. Realizing that the UT1 and AT workouts have different goals, am I minimizing the aerobic benefit of the UT1 workout by going faster and entering the AT zone?

I believe the input data for the interactive program are accurate because I measured my max heart rate of 172 bpm after a 1,000 m test piece. Of course resting heart rate (58 bpm) age (51) and best 2000 m (7:29) are empirical.

I've not followed the plan but here's my two cents - I'm sure someone knowledgeable will be along shortly
You state "my heart rate at the end was 158 which puts me solidly into the AT or even TR zones. I was pretty tired at the end but could have gone longer."
Perhaps you answered your own question here. AT and TR are unsustainable so I would not consider your 'rate of perceived excertion' to put you in those bands.
Most likely the band you have for UT1 is conservative. In a fit person the Anaerobic Threshold can be at a very high percentage of max HR.
Might be worth doing a step test to try to establish your true AT and adjusting your UT1 band.
Hope my thoughts help.
Cheers.

Please do not interpret this as being given short schrift.

"No."

PaulG wrote: Realizing that the UT1 and AT workouts have different goals, am I minimizing the aerobic benefit of the UT1 workout by going faster and entering the AT zone?...

The danger is going to hard and not recovering for the next workout. If you don't recover and don't go as hard as you otherwise would in the next hard workout then you are overdoing it.

PaulG wrote:I believe the input data for the interactive program are accurate because I measured my max heart rate of 172 bpm after a 1,000 m test piece.

I bet that value is way too low.

It's horrible but you need to do a step test to failure. http://www.concept2.co.uk/guide/guide.p ... =step_test to find a more sensible number for maxHR.

Thanks for the information folks. I had to enter a max heart rate of 190 in the interactive program to get a 2:06 pace and and have a heart rate of 158 to be in the UT1 range. That max rate of 190 seems pretty high as the highest heart rate I had in college doing track interval work was around 200 and that was long ago.

The step test to failure looks like more pain than I am willing to put up with right now. Maybe I will just assume a max rate of 190 and try to follow that program and see how I feel.

Snail Space wrote:I haven't got an answer, but I'm interested in the replies you get because I too found paces suggested by the IP to be too slow, and at too high a stroke rate. I also found that my "cruising speed" gave me a heart rate that would have been more appropriate to the higher intensity zones.

Cheers
Dave

Dave:

I did a little experimenting with the input parameters for the IP and it seems like the suggested paces are driven by your best 2k time. Your max heart rate drives the suggested heart rate ranges. Seeing how for me the heart rate range is a result of my training, not something I aim for, I will concentrate on being just a little faster than the suggested paces. I still think the paces from the IP are a little slow, but nothing prevents me from going a little faster.

Paul