Ut2!!

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » December 29th, 2004, 3:37 am

<a href='http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0425.htm' target='_blank'>Volume training but with balance ...</a> Interesting article specific to rowing. - George

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 29th, 2004, 6:44 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (TomR/the elder @ Dec 28 2004, 06:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Ranger-- Are you saying that the C2 training program is too difficult for you? Perhaps a more interesting question is, does it make more sense to substitute UT2 rows for more demanding UT1 rows called for in the program, or would it be preferable to do that day's training at UT1 intensity, but shorten the intervals? If 3x5k is too tough, how abut 2x4k or 3x3k? Would that workout be better than a UT2 session? PaulS has raised questions about the value of long workouts; perhaps this is what he's talking about. Tom </td></tr></table> Tom-- No, I didn't say the C2 plan was too difficult for me. I said that if I hadn't first prepared myself to meet the UT2 targets, I couldn't meet the UT1 targets. For me, UT1 assumes UT2. Perhaps I still have something else to learn about this, but it seems to me that the best training plans for rowing, such as the C2 manual and the Wolverine Plan, first establish the easy use of a strong stroke at a low rate over long distances (20K-40K?). Then, using just about that same stroke, they slowly up the rate and cut the distance to get work in the other training bands. This is the "gold standard" business that Mel referred to. In this training logic, UT2 rows are the engine that generates the basic material that is used to gain improvement at UT1, AT, TR, and AN. As I said, if you can, leave out the foundation of your training and skip right on to UT1. But it is my guess that very few can. I suppose it is also a claim of this training logic that, even those who can will eventually run into serious difficulties (e.g., early plateauing of times, falling short of potential, staleness, injury, etc.). BTW, it has taken me two off-seasons, working almost exclusively on fitness, technique, and stroking power, to prepare myself to meet the UT2 targets. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 29th, 2004, 6:58 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Ranger, more power to you if you can do it 'by the book,' namely the C2 book.  </td></tr></table> Given the history of this forum, this fact that I am now (one of?) the only rowers around here training "by the book" is excruciatingly ironic (to me). My, my. How the world turns! Makes me smile. It appears that the major interest of the "regulars" on this forum is to have everyone who trades information here train about the same way, whatever that might be, not to have everyone train according to the best, most informed, most effective advice. The focus is social conformity rather than physical and biological improvement, or even aesthetic enjoyment/accomplishment. Interesting affair. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 29th, 2004, 7:06 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Perhaps a more interesting question is, does it make more sense to substitute UT2 rows for more demanding UT1 rows called for in the program, or would it be preferable to do that day's training at UT1 intensity, but shorten the intervals? If 3x5k is too tough, how abut 2x4k or 3x3k? Would that workout be better than a UT2 session?  </td></tr></table> The "best" approach is just to follow the program. The program requires that you have good fitness and technique before you begin so that you can meet the UT2 targets for pace, rate, and heart rate. If you can't meet these targets (because your fitness is poor or your technique inefficient), the plan recommends that you go back and work on your fitness and technique until you _can_ meet these UT2 targets. Then when you can go this, you are ready to go on to the other training bands. ranger

[old] Mel Harbour · Post by **[old] Mel Harbour** » December 29th, 2004, 7:12 am

A few more points. I believe Hagerman's work is often misquoted. Yes, his work does show that UT1 work causes more physiological adaptation (certainly in the short term). However everyone then makes the leap to assume that he advises doing almost exclusively UT1 work, which is actually not true by a long stretch. His advice actually reflects a need to do more UT2 than UT1 (exactly the same as almost everyone else says!). George - you've miscalculated. The percentages in that table don't refer to wattage, but to speed. An interesting comparison to Ranger's experiences would be that of Steve Redgrave. When he discusses his experiences when Jurgen first joined their setup, it was quite revealing. Jurgen came along and dropped the intensity of the work they were doing and upped the duration (amongst other things). Redgrave comments that he was concerned at the time that they weren't doing enough work at high rates etc (he was used to a system where they basically went out and tried to row as hard as possible all the time - more or less). Anyway, it came to the first major race after the winter (a long distance sculling head race). He says that he was quite concerned as Jurgen had refused to have him do any up tempo work before it and he couldn't see how he was going to be ready to race. Jurgen sent him off with the instructions to go fairly steady for the first 2k (out of 6k) and then go for it from there onwards. He did so and had an absolutely blistering row and won by one of the greatest margins he ever did. From then on he was something of a convert! Mel

[old] Rocket Roy · Post by **[old] Rocket Roy** » December 29th, 2004, 12:04 pm

Good point Mel, Just to add my 2p's worth. Since deciding to go lwt after Birc , I have done nothing but long steady row's plus some stepper and bike work, but on the erg nothing fast. I didn't see anything faster than 1.53 until my race at Cardiff, where I pulled a season's best 6.47.5. Then right back into the long slow stuff, and still no fast stuff. Next race was the EIRC and another SB 6.47.1. These are still 3.2 sec's off my pb but it goes to show that a diet of long slow stuff is not necessarily bad for your 2k.

[old] remador · Post by **[old] remador** » December 29th, 2004, 12:06 pm

There was an old rule of thumb that stated: "If you want to raise your stroke rate, you will have to do at least the same strength". AM

[old] Byron Drachman · Post by **[old] Byron Drachman** » December 29th, 2004, 1:01 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'll practice yelling "Hey, wait up!" before we ride them. </td></tr></table> Paul wrote: <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Based on your previous posting regarding your neighbor, you may be saying this "tongue in cheek", but having seen Rangers original Erging style, I'd recommend taking that practice seriously.. </td></tr></table> Hi Paul, No, that wasn’t tongue in cheek. I’ve seen Ranger’s times and I know he’ll fly on that chariot. I thought it would be fun to meet him in person, just as it would be to meet a lot of the people at this forum in person. Also, I’d like to see what an expert rower would look like on the Irish Mail. I’ve invited the MSU crew coach to go riding with me, but somehow it never works out. Maybe he doesn’t realize how much fun they are. Or maybe he doesn’t want to be seen with an eccentric retired professor riding around on a goofy looking contraption. Nah, that couldn’t be it. <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>after looking at that table again I realize that I can easily do 60 minutes at 20-22 spm at the rate specified in that table. </td></tr></table> Who’s the fool who said that? Was that me? OK, now I’m a believer. The first 40 minutes was so easy. I kept the spm where it was supposed to be, between 20 and 22 spm, and kept the pace at or just below the specified pace. Everything was fine but I did notice the heart rate doing the inevitable drift upward. Then with about 20 minutes to go, there was a delicate balancing act. I was near the heart rate cutoff, and if I kept the spm at 22 and maintained the desired pace, the heart rate wanted to increase. If I kept the heart rate at the cutoff, the pace started to slow too much. With the spm limited at 22, I needed to pull just a little harder. Oh, oh, then the heart rate goes up. I’m sure you know the drill. I was wishing I had brought up the fan or bought a CBreeze, had taken my shirt off, and had devised a way to drink something cold. Too late. What’s left? Technique! So I had the usual thoughts: back straight, smooth stroke, relax and release the shoulders at the catch, etc. I found that my dropping the spm just a little, to 20, and by breathing more deeply, I could take advantage of the phase-locking that the body automatically does and I got the heart rate to drop to below or at the cutoff. So the last 20 minutes was possible, but it took a lot of concentration. In one sense it was easy. I felt great afterwards. What a nice workout. Byron

[old] TomR/the elder · Post by **[old] TomR/the elder** » December 29th, 2004, 2:42 pm

Ranger-- Are you actually doing the C2 program "by the book": That is, are you following the workouts in the Guide at the recommended paces? Or are you simply doing one element by the book: UT2 at prescribed pace? Over the years, lots of us have used pieces from the Guide. Mel-- I don't believe I misquoted Hagerman, but in quoting him, I may have misrepesented his views. I couldn't say for sure. I have a document in which he says the "bulk" of one's work should be done at UT1. I personally cannot do that. It's too difficult for me. I do a fair amount of lsd (at 60-65% HR) because I cannot sustain UT1 or other intense work more than a few times a week. I recall that as a college athlete, I'd train hard or compete 5 or 6 days a week during the season. No more. What's interesting to me is that the C2 guide definitely calls for lots of UT1 work, and Hagerman's comments seem consistent w/ the guide. Tom

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » December 29th, 2004, 3:54 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Mel Harbour @ Dec 30 2004, 12:12 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> George - you've miscalculated. The percentages in that table don't refer to wattage, but to speed.  </td></tr></table> Tks, will re-calculate

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 29th, 2004, 4:49 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Are you actually doing the C2 program "by the book": That is, are you following the workouts in the Guide at the recommended paces? Or are you simply doing one element by the book: UT2 at prescribed pace? Over the years, lots of us have used pieces from the Guide.  </td></tr></table> No, I'm not yet doing the C2 program "by the book." But I soon might. It seems to me that the major problem with both the Wolverine Plan and the C2 program is what they presuppose. Both presuppose high fitness and good technique. I always had the first but I have never had the second (my stroke is still a work in progress). It looks as though I am now very close to being ready to take on one of these standard training plans, though, and I might very soon. The irony to me is that the odd training that I have been doing over the last two or three years has prepared me to train for rowing "by the book," whereas it looks as though most people in around these web pages, regardless of how much they might want to, are unable to train for rowing "by the book" because they lack the prerequisites (i.e., high fitness and good technique). Odd situation. Interestingly, I have now given up many aspects of my odd training. Since I am now fully prepared to row (well), I can now do all of my training on the erg (or on the water in my 1x). I am no longer skipping, stepping, biking, do sit ups, etc. I am not just rowing. Given my much improved technique (i.e., my much stronger stroke), I can now do foundational work on the erg. Now, a couple of hours on the erg at 1:52 and 22 spm (at a heart rate of 153 bpm) feels pretty much like a two-hour stepping routine or a three-hour bike ride a 10-mile run or an hour or two of skipping. It didn't feel this way until recently, though. Until recently, two hours on the erg at 1:52 and 22 spm would have killed me! My heart rate would have maxed out (200 bpm) well before an hour. It wouldn't have stayed at a comfortable 153 bpm. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 29th, 2004, 4:53 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>What’s left? Technique! So I had the usual thoughts: back straight, smooth stroke, relax and release the shoulders at the catch, etc. I found that my dropping the spm just a little, to 20, and by breathing more deeply, I could take advantage of the phase-locking that the body automatically does and I got the heart rate to drop to below or at the cutoff. So the last 20 minutes was possible, but it took a lot of concentration. In one sense it was easy. I felt great afterwards. What a nice workout.  </td></tr></table> Voila! ranger

[old] Paul Smith · Post by **[old] Paul Smith** » December 29th, 2004, 5:47 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Dec 29 2004, 03:49 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Now, a couple of hours on the erg at 1:52 and 22 spm (at a heart rate of 153 bpm) feels pretty much like a two-hour stepping routine or a three-hour bike ride a 10-mile run or an hour or two of skipping. It didn't feel this way until recently, though. Until recently, two hours on the erg at 1:52 and 22 spm would have killed me! My heart rate would have maxed out (200 bpm) well before an hour. It wouldn't have stayed at a comfortable 153 bpm. ranger  </td></tr></table> Ranger is this a 2 hour continuous row? Bloody good going.

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » December 29th, 2004, 5:50 pm

This is a great discussion and I think quite important: OK the C2 Guide has a 6:20 2k (95sec / 500) at UT2 1:50 pace and UT1 tops at 1:45 pace. Mel kindly relays some info that he has gleaned from the British rowing team training; Band | %HRR | %Gold Speed | -----|-------|-------------| UT2 | 56-63 | 75-78 | UT1 | 63-70 | 78-82 | AT | 70-80 | 82-86 | So mathemeticians please help, if UT2 pace is at 75% of Gold speed and and Gold speed is 95sec / 500 is it then approx 1:59 pace (95 * 1.25), or 25% more secs / 500 ? EDIT EDIT EDIT EDIT My maths was flawed - if I am travelling at 75% of the speed then it is 95 sec / 0.75 which gives a UT2 pace of 2:06 which is a long way from 1:50 and easily achievable for the HR Then I am lost, is 78% 95sec * 1.22 George

[old] Mel Harbour · Post by **[old] Mel Harbour** » December 29th, 2004, 7:14 pm

If your Gold Standard speed is 1:35 splits, then your speed is 500m/95s = 5.26m/s. 75% of this is 0.75 * 5.26m/s = 3.95m/s. Which equates to a split of: 500m/3.95m/s = 126.5s = 2:06.5 split. Contracting the calculation down a bit for simplicity gives you that you need to do: Gold Standard Time (95s) / Fraction (0.75). Going at 75% of the speed is not the same as adding 25% to the time!

Hagerman writes quite a detailed article on rowing training in the text 'Exercise and Sport Science (ed Garrett and Kirkendall)'. He compares and contrasts the US national team's approach (based on Hagerman's own work and that of Thor Nilsen, who it appears was one of the people strongly behind the development of the UT2 etc classification of training intensity) with that of the old DDR training. For early preparation period of the winter, Hagerman recommends 75% training time should be UT2 work, with 20% UT1. In the pre-competition period (roughly April time), the program shifts to roughly 40% UT2 and 55% UT1. In the competitive period (summer) he comments that aerobic training volume (UT1/2) drops to 'only' 85% of the total time! The DDR program is slightly different. They define slightly different bands: Category I - greater than 8mmol/l; Category II - 4-8mmol/l, Category III - 2-4mmol/l and Category IV - <2mmol/l. The alignment of the bands is therefore III = UT1 and IV = UT2. The DDR programme recommends In the preparation period, 90-94% of the time should be IV (UT2), with 5-8% III (UT1). In the pre-comp period this moves to 86-88% IV and 5-9% III, with the competitive period running at 70-77% IV and 15-22% III. Hagerman notes that the DDR system had (and has in the form of people such as Jurgen Grobler, Harald Jahrlang and so on) much success with this programme. Although it is not inconceivable that it might have been updated slightly since the late 70s/early 80s! Mel

Concept2 Forum

Ut2!!

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training