Ut2!!

[old] Byron Drachman · Post by **[old] Byron Drachman** » December 27th, 2004, 5:56 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> The challenge is to row 60-90 minutes at your target UT2 pace and 20-22 spm, as this pace is specified in table 5.15 in the C2 training guide. What is your 2K pb?  </td></tr></table> Hi Ranger, I'm starting to catch on, but I couldn't find table 5.15 at the UK site. I did find a table 5.1 and table 5.2. I've only done one 2K and I was just comfortably rowing well within the RRH+(70-85)*HRR zone. I did 7:53.6 but as I said, I wasn't trying that hard. My resting heart rate is usually about 48, although I've been a little lower recently. I've seen 182 several times so I'll take that as my max heart rate. So then I don't want to go higher than 142, right? If I could just use 70 percent of my max heart rate, that would put me at about 127, way too easy, right? George also says to use the RHR+70*(MHR-RHR). So do I finally have it? I try to hold 60-90 minutes at 20-22 spm with heart rate not to exceed 142? Am I still missing something? Byron

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » December 27th, 2004, 5:58 pm

The first UT, At etc tables showed no paces at all (see 3.1); then a couple of years ago TO'N tightened the screws in the Interactive and added paces as to table 5.8 on page 5.15 that everyone said were tough. He said well yes, if you want to go faster, what else? The "may sweat" bit I think was just his joke - in UK English it means work bl(asphemousl)y hard and shut up. Of course he was working with Olympic level oarsmen who have large hearts and so low heart rates (I'd guess) and presumably fit the "6-8 sessions a week for the last three years" description that corresponds to your mention of 60-90' UT2. Lighter weight mortals no doubt suffer more. There are also residual contradictions and strange things to be seen in the Interactive - the stroke rates in the two tables differ, our test 2k pace is implicitly defined as "unsustainable for long periods" (2k is long enough for me), the UT1 Wattages vary from 71 to 78% of 2k levels for no apparent reason and so on. In any case, the paces shown are the fastest for each band, and the bands are so wide that they absorb all the discrepancies. However I think the Interactive (with the French Protocol) is the most useful training guide there is; as level control we can use rating, HR, feelings, pace according to cases, and as they converge, see the results. Above all we can fiddle with it before starting, so there's no need to fudge it during. Then once we've decided who we are, it tells us what to do day by day. That UT2 is effective is not in doubt and you've more than shown it: all that skipping and such that you do, calling it a "warm-up" is probably from a HR point of view, nothing other than UT2. I don't think of ut2 work as a target tho', for me t's a tool in the box.

[old] Almostflipped · Post by **[old] Almostflipped** » December 27th, 2004, 6:01 pm

Ranger: <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> And this is no simple or easy or irrelevant task, as you make it seem ("you shouldn't feel much while doing this workout").  </td></tr></table> I don't mean to imply that there is any irrelevant task, however UT2 rowing is in fact easy. A lactate level of 1-2 mmol is not very difficult or painful to achieve. Technical efficiency is all well and good but if you are attempting a UT2 workout (which is meant to improve capillirazation, mitochondrial density, aerobic enyzmatic reactions, etc...) then you want to ensure that you are within the appropriate zone along with appropriate technique (which may allow you to be closer to 6k + 13). Now, if you already have a solid foundation you may well be better off focusing more on UT1 level workouts. As for unlearning anything, its just a matter of appropriate periodization of your workouts. Mix in an ample supply of UT1 and AT work during your early season stuff along with UT2 for recovery and longer pieces. There is no unlearning to do, only appropriate training of the bodies zones. And with that in mind, right off the bat the C2 zones don't make much sense as they are based off of the 2k which is being used as an approximation of VO2 max. This is nice except that the 2k overestimates the VO2 max due to the anaerobic components in both the first and last few hundred meters. So right off the bat, the zones are probably going to be too high. As for those canadian studies, they were done by the national team. I find it hard to believe that athletes who are winning multiple world championships are very inefficient. Instead I contend that C2 is just plain wrong. PS: Please explain the point of SPI as I'm unfamiliar with it. I've always been taught to row according to physiological zones with the intent of getting faster as oppossed to improving a statistic.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 27th, 2004, 7:11 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I contend that C2 is just plain wrong.  </td></tr></table> That's reassuring! I always like to look to authorities for good advice! The irony is large. I am a teacher. Now I know how my students feel! ranger

[old] Byron Drachman · Post by **[old] Byron Drachman** » December 27th, 2004, 7:14 pm

Thanks everybody. I finally found the elusive table on page 5.15 in the training guide at the UK website. Yikes! That's going to be a killer workout. I'll give it a try but I don't think I'll be able to do that for 60 minutes. Ranger, I see what you mean, at least for my case. Byron

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 27th, 2004, 7:27 pm

Alreadyflipped-- SPI is average watts per stroke. I suppose this is what intrigues me about the C2 UT2 paces--the relation between this training band and stroking power (SPI). Sure, it is important that the UT2 work be easy. Then again, it is also important that what you do on those long easy rows has some relevance to your faster rowing. And one of the most relevant things is what sort of stroke gets used. Given the specified low rates and heart rate cap, the C2 paces are stiff enough to demand that you become very "easy" with a strong stroke. You need to keep up a stiff pace without upping the rate or the effort. Those who have not yet become easy with a strong stoke will go much more slowly at such a slow rate and low heart rate cap; but unless they stop and take the time to master a stronger stroke, they cheat their overall potential. As the C2 manual urges, if you take seriously the combination of rate, pace, and heart rate that is specified, you will become more efficient physically _and_ technically. Good stuff. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 27th, 2004, 7:35 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Byron Drachman @ Dec 27 2004, 06:14 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Thanks everybody. I finally found the elusive table on page 5.15 in the training guide at the UK website. Yikes! That's going to be a killer workout. I'll give it a try but I don't think I'll be able to do that for 60 minutes. Ranger, I see what you mean, at least for my case. Byron </td></tr></table> Byron-- It is probably a much stiffer requirement that you think, too, given that you have never done a 100%, flat out, fall on your face, turn blue 2K, so you don't really know yet what you can row as a 2K pb. If I just stayed comforable on a 2K, I would probably row about 20 seconds slower (1:42 pace rather than 1:37). ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 27th, 2004, 7:42 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (GeorgeD @ Dec 27 2004, 02:50 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Because the targets are hard people seem to dimiss the concept - surely the challenge is to row say 60 mins at a capped HR, and then over time as you get fitter and improve technically you will go faster and still remain under the cap. Isnt that the goal of everything we are trying to achieve in our training ? Be it capped rate, or distance, or whatever, we are always trying to achieve more within certain phsysiological boundries.... George </td></tr></table> Sure. But what is so important about the UT2 paces and rates, I think, is that UT2 rowing is a foundation, (1) something that you need to do well before moving on to other training bands and (2) something that can then remain fixed while you work harder and harder to improve times, distances, effort, efficiency, etc., at "higher" levels. You can't build a house without a strong foundation. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 27th, 2004, 7:45 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The "may sweat" bit I think was just his joke - in UK English it means work bl(asphemousl)y hard and shut up. </td></tr></table> hehehehehehe The British didn't invent discipline, but they sure gave it a good heave-ho. By and large, the common American just doesn't understand the fuss over discipline and character. They just don't get it. ranger

[old] Mel Harbour · Post by **[old] Mel Harbour** » December 27th, 2004, 7:48 pm

Well, if you look at TO'Ns responses to some questions about the training plan: <a href='http://www.concept2.co.uk/training/tels_tales.php?id=23' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.co.uk/training/tels ... He states that the anaerobic threshold is roughly at 4mmol/l, which is fairly universally agreed. <a href='http://www.concept2.co.uk/training/tels_tales.php?id=37' target='_blank'>http://www.concept2.co.uk/training/tels ... He states amongst other things that UT1 should be 70-80% of 2k speed. Now an excerpt from a seminar given by a GB rowing physiologist (not sure how well this is going to come out - don't know if the fount's going to be fixed width or not! </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>CODE </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'> Band | %HRR | %Gold Speed | -----|-------|-------------| UT2 | 56-63 | 75-78 | UT1 | 63-70 | 78-82 | AT | 70-80 | 82-86 |  </td></tr></table> Now if you run these numbers through into powers, we get that UT2 for Matthew Pinsent would be 1:54-1:49 for UT2, 1:49-1:44 for UT1 and 1:44-1:39 for AT. This is significantly slower than the paces that are suggested by the Interactive Training Programme / Concept 2 manual, however it is much closer to being in line with a) the 30' r20 testing mentioned in the same seminar and with the paces quoted by both Pinsent and Tim Foster in their recent books. Mel

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » December 28th, 2004, 12:51 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Byron Drachman @ Dec 28 2004, 10:56 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> The challenge is to row 60-90 minutes at your target UT2 pace and 20-22 spm, as this pace is specified in table 5.15 in the C2 training guide. What is your 2K pb?  </td></tr></table> My resting heart rate is usually about 48, although I've been a little lower recently. I've seen 182 several times so I'll take that as my max heart rate. So then I don't want to go higher than 142, right? If I could just use 70 percent of my max heart rate, that would put me at about 127, way too easy, right? George also says to use the RHR+70*(MHR-RHR).  </td></tr></table> 70% HRR is for you 182 - 48 = 134 .... then 134 * 0.7 = 94 .... then 94 + 48 = 142 !!!! so yup your HR for UT2 is capped at 142 BPM George

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » December 28th, 2004, 5:08 am

Mel, can you please clarify what the % of gold speed means. tks George

[old] Mel Harbour · Post by **[old] Mel Harbour** » December 28th, 2004, 6:40 am

The strategy Jurgen adopts for training the GB team is to work out what time will be the winning time at the major championships they are working towards. This then gives them the 'predicted gold standard'. They then train, aiming to get certain levels of physiological work up to certain percentages based on this target. Note that they are training based on the physiological levels, but are pushing themselves on to get towards the target speeds. Once they are achieving the target speeds at low rates, they know they are ready to go and do the targets at high rates. It is important to realise that while they may be able to go a certain speed r18-19, that may not be UT2 work, depending on the physiological load. The aim is to get your thresholds into the right place to be working at the correct load. An interesting side point on these gold standards relates to Redgrave and Pinsent. They achieved Jurgen's gold standard for the 1992 Olympics in their race in 1991. Jurgen didn't raise the bar for the following year - he was convinced that that would be the time that would win, so they carried on training based on the same targets. And then won the Olympics by a huge margin. Mel

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 28th, 2004, 6:42 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>He said well yes, if you want to go faster, what else?  </td></tr></table> ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 28th, 2004, 7:01 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>That UT2 is effective is not in doubt and you've more than shown it: all that skipping and such that you do, calling it a "warm-up" is probably from a HR point of view, nothing other than UT2. </td></tr></table> No, once you get used to it, it is too easy for UT2 work, at least from a CV point of view. When I jump rope, my heart beats at 110 bpm. On the other hand, the overall _skeletomuscular_ and _neuromuscular_ effect of jumping rope for an hour or more every day, especially for a 54 year old man, is significant, perhaps even crucial, if other things are to be possible. It works on leg strength, foot speed, flexibility, weight, agility, and so forth. Maybe I need a name for this kind of work. How about UT3! Or NM3 (neuromuscular 3). Ah, another acronym for a foggy, ill-defined training concept! Perhaps NM3 work will lead to further haggles on the net! The UT2 cross-training that I have done has been running, stepping, and biking. For the last three years during racing season, especially as competitions approached, I have done 2 hour stepping sessions with a heartbeat capped right about at the UT2 level for me: 150 bpm. Interestingly, I can do these stepping sessions at 280 watts or so, equivalent to 1:48 on the erg. I wore my heart monitor on a leisurely 10-mile run once, too, and my heart beat right around 150 bpm. I suspect that when I ride my bike hard, my heart beats about the same. For a couple of summers, I consistently took daily three-hour, 60-mile (20 MPH) bike rides in lieu of working on the stepper. This cross-training again might mean that, if I can get my technique sorted out, I can try a marathon at 1:48 on the erg. If so, this would pull me up even with Rob Slocum, the perennial US National on water single sculls 50s hwt champion, who has rowed 2:32 for the marathon on the erg. I can already outrow him in the 2K. ranger