Interactive Programme Training Bands

[old] Ralph Earle · Post by **[old] Ralph Earle** » February 2nd, 2005, 1:15 pm

After several people posted that they could not meet the UT2, UT1 and/or AT paces in the C2 Manual's Interactive Programme within the specified heart rate range, Mel Harbour responded that there is an error in the manual. The heart-rate ranges should be % of Heart Rate Reserve (HRR), not % of Maximum Heart Rate (MHR). Terry O'Neill, the Programme's creator, has confirmed this: <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Ralph, The real measurement by which to assess training intensities is blood lactate levels. These are not possible to measure without sophisticated equipment but up to anaerobic threshold, heart rates and blood lactate will rise proportionately. Blood lactate levels/heart rates will vary from one individual to another but more significant is that the only data available is from high performance athletes because they are the only ones who have the blood tested from which the heart rate blood lactate relationship originates. So it is possible that for some people the heart rate ranges suggested in the interactive programme could be optimistic. It could also be that whereas the aerobic ranges are difficult to achieve the anaerobic ranges could be easy and vice versa, depending on what type of animal you are. Mel is correct that all the percentages of HRM should read HRR and although it is not stated this is an omission. HRR is the standard method generally accepted as the measure of work intensity not the simple percentage of heart rate max. For people who are very unfit the difference is irrelevant but it does become significant the fitter you become. Training is about developing different systems but once you go beyond anaerobic threshold heart rate does not continue to rise but there are still levels of increased intensity that challenge different functions of the metabolism. Heart rate is a commonly accepted way to measure intensity for aerobic work but it is only an approximation regardless of what plan you follow. Tel </td></tr></table>

[old] Mel Harbour · Post by **[old] Mel Harbour** » February 2nd, 2005, 3:16 pm

Interestingly, the latest version of the ARA's recommendations for physiological classification of training adjusts the numbers a bit from those which I was quoting previously: <table width='95%' cellspacing='1' cellpadding='3' border='0' align='center'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>CODE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='code'><div> Band | %HRR | Lactate (mmol/l) | Rate | % Gold Time UT2 | 59-67 | <2.0 | 17-18 | 70-76 UT1 | 67-75 | 2.0-4.0 | 19-23 | 77-82 AT | 75-85 | ~4.0 | 24-28 | 82-86 </div></td></tr></table> Well, anyway, I find that sort of thing interesting...

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » February 2nd, 2005, 4:27 pm

Mel-- So what is the difference between HRR and MHR. Is X% of HRR equal to .X (MHR - RHR) + RHR? Or is that %MHR? ranger

[old] Mel Harbour · Post by **[old] Mel Harbour** » February 2nd, 2005, 4:33 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(ranger @ Feb 2 2005, 03:27 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Mel-- So what is the difference between HRR and MHR. Is X% of HRR equal to .X (MHR - RHR) + RHR? Or is that %MHR? ranger </td></tr></table> Short answer: x% HRR = .x (MHR - RHR) + RHR Also, the current advice is that any combination of heart rate, speed, etc can only ever be an approximation to work out how to classify a given piece of training. There's also an element of duration involved in classifying training. So for example, rowing at 72% of gold standard speed for 40 minutes is not really a UT2 session. Whereas rowing for 90 minutes at the same speed is. Mel

[old] Ralph Earle · Post by **[old] Ralph Earle** » February 2nd, 2005, 5:16 pm

The % Gold Time actually is % Gold Watts, correct? For a Gold Standard 2K of 6:40, % of Gold Time gives UT2 @2:23, UT1 @2:10 and AT @2:02 for the bottom of each band, which is clearly more appropriate for a 7:40 2K. % of Gold Watts gives @1:59, @1:54, and @1:50. I note that in the Interactive Programme, 6:40 2K => UT2 @1:55, UT1 @ 1:49 and AT @1:45 -- which prompts me to ask, Are the new guidelines intended to lull the competition into training too slowly? Or are they an admission that the Brits have been overtraining?

[old] Mark Keating · Post by **[old] Mark Keating** » February 2nd, 2005, 8:45 pm

Thanks Ralph for clarifying this. I had read and reread the C2 manual and the Interactive Programme a few times, trying to figure out which I was to use - %MHR or %HRR. I hope C2 will make permanent changes to their charts and manual for future users of the programme to avoid any more confusion. Now if someone could just explain what "%Gold Time" is and how it applies to my training ... ?! thanks, Mark

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » February 2nd, 2005, 9:45 pm

I think Gold Time is the phrase used to descibe the time needed / expected to 'win' an event based on history. George

[old] Mel Harbour · Post by **[old] Mel Harbour** » February 3rd, 2005, 2:15 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Ralph Earle @ Feb 2 2005, 04:16 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The % Gold Time actually is % Gold Watts, correct? </td></tr></table> Nope, % gold time is % gold time. The crucial link in the chain that's missing is the fact that the table refers to times on the water, which may drop off a bit faster as the rate drops. I'm attempting to establish exactly why they've changed the numbers from last year and will report back. Suffice to say that in classifying the training band it's more important to refer to the physiological intensity of a piece of rowing. Mel

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » February 3rd, 2005, 2:26 am

Gold Standard is the time needed to win a Gold at the Olympics. This varies according to the boat you're in, but the erg is supposed to equate to a 4- so the times/paces etc could apply to erging too if we use a 4- Gold time. If a 4- can get Gold at 6' dead (?? - adjust to the latest no-wind dead-water 4- time), then their UT2 would be (rating 17-18) 70-76 % of the corresponding speed, or 143% to 131% of their Gold pace, according to the ARA Table. If the erging Gold pace is 1:30 or 90 seconds, UT2 would be 118 to 128 seconds, 1:58 to 2:08. So we'd have for UT2: fastest 1:58 at 18 for 90 minutes, with HR lower than 67% of range, slowest 2:08 @ 17. Fastest UT1 would be 1:50 @ 23 which looks doable (260W, 11.4 W'/stroke) for people of the right shape and size. The Interactive says things like 3x20' UT1 for Level 5. The problem would be maintaining those 11W up to say rating 40.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » February 3rd, 2005, 12:02 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The crucial link in the chain that's missing is the fact that the table refers to times on the water </td></tr></table> Lordy, Mel, that _really_ makes all of this business you have been talking about oblique to our concerns here (with erging). If my notes are right, the winners of the 50s hwt US Nationals do around 3:46/1:53 pace for 1K in a 1x, when some of the folk rowing on the water in these races can do 3:00/1:30 pace (or below) for 1K on the erg. So this is how I set up my rowing in my 1x this summer, 23 seconds per 500 off my erging paces and rates, e.g., 20 spm at 2:16 rather than 1:53, etc. Then I rowed by keeping a constant stroke, 13.2 meter/stroke at 15 spm and 2:30, 6.5 meters per stroke at 44 spm and 1:45, with even gradations inbetween, e.g., 2:00 pace at 29 spm. BTW, if you use %HHR, I find the paces, rates, and heart rates in the C2 training manual right on for the erg and have been getting wonderful training effects by following the advice there on these matters--to the letter. Mind boggling to discover this after all these years, but _sometimes_ even "authorities" on a subject can (accidentally?) know what they are talking about (until they are contradicted by another "authority"!). ranger

[old] Byron Drachman · Post by **[old] Byron Drachman** » February 3rd, 2005, 5:36 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>After several people posted that they could not meet the UT2, UT1 and/or AT paces in the C2 Manual's Interactive Programme within the specified heart rate range, Mel Harbour responded that there is an error in the manual. The heart-rate ranges should be % of Heart Rate Reserve (HRR), not % of Maximum Heart Rate (MHR). </td></tr></table> The recommendation to use %HRR instead of %MHR is included in the training manual, but it is not clearly written. I remember asking the same question a month or so ago. Adding to the confusion is the label %MHR in table 3.1 and the accompanying note at the bottom. For your convenience, I have cut and pasted some passages from that manual at the UK website: “Training Heart Rate Training heart rates are divided into bands. These bands are determined by four key physiological points; resting heart rate, maximum heart rate, heart rate at aerobic threshold and heart rate at anaerobic threshold. In an unfit person the anaerobic threshold can occur as low as 50% of maximum heart rate but in a highly trained athlete this can be as high as 85% of maximum heart rate. When starting out on a training regime, either from scratch or after several years of no regular exercise, then the simple method of determining your training heart rate can be used. This simply requires you to subtract your age from a nominal figure of 220, which represents maximum heart rate. You then apply the relevant percentage referred to in the training programmes to this figure. Any errors in this method will be on the safe side but as you get fitter you may want to use the heart rate range method. If you have been exercising regularly you should calculate your maximum heart rate using the test in Physiological Tools in Section 3 : Physiology and then calculate your training bands accordingly. “ I take this to mean that whenever you see the terminology MHR, you are supposed to re-interpret it as HRR. Unfortunately, they included the table 3.1 on page 309 before redefining the training bands, so if someone wanted to look up the various percentages, that reader would see the note at the bottom of the page and think MHR means MHR instead of HRR. You would have to remember that later you were supposed to not use MHR any more. While I am being a little critical of the manual, the point of deflection on page 3.11 is not well-defined. The graph has the form of a straight line for a while and then starts to curve. It is not obvious at all to me where the “point of deflection” is. I would have guessed further to the left. Here is another passage. “Frequently Asked Questions answered by Terry O’Neill I have been following the Concept 2 website advice for weight management. By taking 41 (my age) from 220 for my maximum heart rate I get 179 but recently achieved 185 bpm in my hill sprint training. My resting heart rate is 42 to 44. Using the figure 179 I take 65% to get a work rate of 116 bpm. In order to achieve this I have to row at rate 28 to 30 instead of the 18 to 20 as recommended in the Training Guide. What am I doing wrong? Your maximum heart rate will depend on what you are doing. Hill sprints will initiate a much higher maximum heart rate than indoor rowing. If you want to find your maximum heart rate on the Indoor Rower refer to the test in Physiological Tools in Section 3 : Physiology. The percentage of heart rate that you should work at is with respect to your heart rate range. You determine this by subtracting your resting heart rate from your maximum heart rate. Multiply this by the percentage you require and add your resting heart rate on again. This will give you an accurate idea of the correct heart rate for that training zone. You should not be too concerned about the stroke rate you use to achieve your training zones. This is a throwback to water rowing before heart rate monitors were common, when rowers controlled the intensity of training by using stroke rate. It is much more important to achieve the correct heart rate than the suggested stroke rate. “ Here is another passage: “The Interactive 2,000m Training Programme Target Group: Anyone training for a 2,000m race. To help you create your own training programme we have included the building blocks that are used to create the interactive 2,000m training programme that is available on the Concept 2 website. This can be used either as an alternative to the original 2,000m race training programme set out in the previous section or simply to help you create your own programme. By starting with the programme that designates the nearest number of sessions a week to the number that you require you can also use this to give your training programme some flexibility. If you plan to do eight sessions per week but for some reason you know you will only be able to do six then you can look at the sessions that would be removed to create a six session per week programme and only complete those. 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, 7. 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. How to Use the Training Pace Guide In order to get the best from the training programme follow the pace guide for the different training bands. Look at your current 2,000m time in the left hand column then follow across to the right for the target pace in each band. After six weeks retest your 2,000m time and reassess your pace. Working at the recommended stroke rate will develop your technique and if you can combine stroke rate, heart rate and pace then you will develop both technical and physical efficiency. ” So this rather subtle sentence tells you to ignore the earlier advice to not worry much about stroke rate. It wasn't until Ranger started the thread on UT2 and I tried his challenge that I appreciated the importance of the above statement (in bold.) Summary: I think the manual is fabulous and it would take just a little editing to remove the confusion. Maybe they could find an English professor. Byron

[old] Mark Keating · Post by **[old] Mark Keating** » February 3rd, 2005, 9:48 pm

Since we are in clarification mode here, I need some help interpreting the Pace Guide with the Interactive Programme. Based on my most recent 2K test, my current AT, TR and AN training paces are 1:56, less than or equal to 1:50, and greater than or equal to 1:47 respectively. The Pace Guide says that "Training in the TR band should be equal to or less than TR pace (), but not less than the figure in the AN column. The pace figure indicated in the AN band is 110% of 2K pace. Training in this band should be carried out at 110% or better than 2K pace ( )." Two (embarrassingly simple) questions: 1. Should my TR training be in the range from 1:50 to 1:56, or from 1:47 to 1:50? 2. If AN training is to be performed at 110% or better of 2K pace, how is a pace of 1:47 determined? By my calculations, 110% of a 1:50 pace is 1:40. thanks, Mark

[old] Ralph Earle · Post by **[old] Ralph Earle** » February 3rd, 2005, 10:46 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Mark Keating @ Feb 4 2005, 01:48 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Two (embarrassingly simple) questions: 1. Should my TR training be in the range from 1:50 to 1:56, or from 1:47 to 1:50? 2. If AN training is to be performed at 110% or better of 2K pace, how is a pace of 1:47 determined? By my calculations, 110% of a 1:50 pace is 1:40. </td></tr></table> 1. @1:56 - @1:50 2. 110% of 263 Watts = 289 Watts = ~@1:47 Also, regarding the AN column: "Training in this band should be carried out at the pace shown in the AN column of the table or faster." [last sentence on page 74] Apparently they are using ">" to mean "faster" rather than "a higher number."

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » February 4th, 2005, 4:50 am

I think Mr T wrote that page (if he's taking the blame or credit) to exercise our brains as much as anything else. The game is to find the misprints (hint: look for the contradictions) and to discover when and whether < and "less than" mean faster or slower. Also when "pace" means "Watts" "May sweat" is interesting too; my wife looks down on it, but at least I can always say I have T's permission if not approval. "Will" would have been more accurate tho'.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » February 4th, 2005, 4:51 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Also, the current advice is that any combination of heart rate, speed, etc can only ever be an approximation to work out how to classify a given piece of training. There's also an element of duration involved in classifying training. So for example, rowing at 72% of gold standard speed for 40 minutes is not really a UT2 session. Whereas rowing for 90 minutes at the same speed is. </td></tr></table> Sure, that all of this is approximate is understood. These are just "guides." Sure, that UT2 sessions should be long is also understood. I don't have any problem with length, given the low HR and pace of a UT2 session. The major difficulty is meeting the specified combination of rate, pace, and heart rate, even for short periods (e.g., 15 minutes/5K). When I row at such as low pace my heart rate is flat, a steady state; my heart just finds its constant level of work and stays there. So at low paces, if I can row at a certain heart rate, rate, and pace for 15 minutes, I can keep rowing just as comfortably for 90 minutes. ranger