The Road To Sub 6:10

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 15th, 2005, 5:27 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Pete Marston @ Jan 13 2005, 07:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Now doing my 10k recovery / technique days wearing a HRM. At the moment pace for them is 8sec slower than the faster 5k the day before, so today was 1:55. Every split within 0.1 of 1:55.0, and all at 26spm - strapless and 10mps all the way. HR at the end of each 500m went like this: 131, 135, 141, 143, 143, 147, 147, 146, 147, 147, 148, 148, 149, 149, 148, 148, 150, 149, 150, 151  </td></tr></table> Sounds about right, although I seem to be a little more efficient that you at the moment. Strapless at 26 spm and 1:55, my heart rides at 142 bpm. Pretty inefficient way to do 1:55, though. Rate is too high. I would prefer 20 spm or so. More relaxing. Uses a much more normal stroke. 1:55 at 26 spm is "mincing." Under 9 SPI. Why waste the effort? BTW, what drag are you rowing at? ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 15th, 2005, 5:53 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Would you say, then, that Rod Freed has no CV fitness, since he trains daily at race pace. </td></tr></table> BTW, Freed's 2K times might also be hurt by the fact that he rows on setting 7, about 170 drag, even though he is a lightweight. Not good. This might indeed help your distance times when you don't have to pull very hard or be in an oxygen debt. But in a 2K, it takes quite a bit of strength to haul the chain with that level of drag, and when you do, you are forced to up the rate and haul hard with your back and arms rather than pushing easily with a long stroke at a lower rate with your (much more efficient) legs. Result: Slow(er) time. This is again a technical issue that a lot of UT2 rowing could clear up. ranger

[old] Janice · Post by **[old] Janice** » January 15th, 2005, 6:08 am

Well maybe if Pete jumped rope half the day like you seem to, he'd have a lower HR.

[old] SteveV · Post by **[old] SteveV** » January 15th, 2005, 6:09 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Jan 15 2005, 04:27 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Pete Marston @ Jan 13 2005, 07:29 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Now doing my 10k recovery / technique days wearing a HRM. At the moment pace for them is 8sec slower than the faster 5k the day before, so today was 1:55. Every split within 0.1 of 1:55.0, and all at 26spm - strapless and 10mps all the way. HR at the end of each 500m went like this: 131, 135, 141, 143, 143, 147, 147, 146, 147, 147, 148, 148, 149, 149, 148, 148, 150, 149, 150, 151  </td></tr></table> Sounds about right, although I seem to be a little more efficient that you at the moment. Strapless at 26 spm and 1:55, my heart rides at 142 bpm. Pretty inefficient way to do 1:55, though. Rate is too high. I would prefer 20 spm or so. More relaxing. Uses a much more normal stroke. 1:55 at 26 spm is "mincing." Under 9 SPI. Why waste the effort? BTW, what drag are you rowing at? ranger  </td></tr></table> Don't hold back there Ranger, just tell him what you think. Why not give him a few kicks in the back while he is down there. Give the guy a break

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 15th, 2005, 6:53 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Janice @ Jan 15 2005, 05:08 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Well maybe if Pete jumped rope half the day like you seem to, he'd have a lower HR. </td></tr></table> Only an hour a day, Janice, while waking up, in my family room, watching the ESPN rundown of sports highlights or the economic and political news, and drinking coffee. Not that much effort, really, or time spent (that wouldn't be spent fiddling around anyway). Yes, UT2 work does indeed help the CV system. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 15th, 2005, 7:03 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Don't hold back there Ranger, just tell him what you think. </td></tr></table> Just comparing notes. We all know that Pete is just starting to train hard again and that I have been training hard pretty continuously. The comparison doesn't kick anyone. It will be interesting to see how the 10MPS regimen brings Pete along toward his goals. The workouts he is doing now are just a starting point. It is useful to look sidewise now and again as you are charging forward, at least it always has been for me. ranger

[old] Pete Marston · Post by **[old] Pete Marston** » January 15th, 2005, 6:58 pm

I'm rowing everything at 130 drag. I agree with Ranger that 1:55 at 26spm does feel a pretty inefficient way to row that pace. I would find this pace at around 22spm easier, and I dare say my heart rate would be lower. If I was to row these "technique and recovery" days at 1:55 and 22spm, say, then being strapless would not be noticable. At 26spm (10mps) it is very noticable. With the weaker drive I have to be much more proactive at the beginning of the recovery, getting my hands away fast in order to get down for the next catch. Although the drive is weaker (well it is supposed to be a recovery), the recovery half of the stroke is much more "normal" than it would be at 20spm. By normal, I mean more like it would be in a hard 5k or 2k. When rowing at 20spm and high stroking power I really don't see how this works on technique. Anyone can have a smooth recovery when you're going back down the slide that slowly, takes much more skill at higher rates IMO, and so working these recovery rows with a lower power on the drive, and therefore a higher stroke rate, I think will work more to gain me a technically efficient stroke. These 10k's aren't where the work is being done anyway, they are simply for technique and recovery. The work is being done on the inbetween days. 2 x 5k with a 3mins rest is a tough workout. Especially being strapless when you're not used to it. And when the two reps get a second faster each time I do it, it makes it harder still, and progressive. These are done at a much higher power, today was 1:47 and 1:46, at 10mps the 1:46 is around 28spm. As I work down towards the lower 1:40's the stroking power will really start to ramp up. It seems to me that Ranger just likes to convince himself that what he's doing is the right way to train. He seemed to like the idea of doing 4 x 1k at 2k race pace a few months back, and advocated that as a good sharpening session for his races, but I don't believe he ever got around to doing it? Maybe that's something you need to look at doing this season if you're going to get the WR back. Also, what ever happened to that sub17 for 5k? Pete

[old] Dodsy1974 · Post by **[old] Dodsy1974** » January 15th, 2005, 7:05 pm

Being new to the Indoor Rower and having never been near a boat on the water. Can someone tell me if you have your feet strapped into a water boat?

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » January 15th, 2005, 7:38 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Dodsy1974 @ Jan 15 2005, 03:05 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Being new to the Indoor Rower and having never been near a boat on the water. Can someone tell me if you have your feet strapped into a water boat?  </td></tr></table> Yep, there are two options in a boat to connect your feet to the foot stretcher. 1) Shoes - Imagine taking a pair of track spikes and using a few bolts to attach the toe end of the shoes to the foot plate in similar locations as teh spikes are located. There are cords attached from teh lowest part of the foot plate to the heel to allow the rower to lift their heels and free themselves from the shoes (hopefully) in the event of a swamping or capsize. Shoes seem to be all the rage, but are stinky, slow to dry, unhygenic, rarely the right size, not particularly comfortable, and add weight. 2) Clogs - A much more simple arrangement with a heel cup (trap) and either a fabric or leather flap that is laced much like a shoe, or sometimes uses velcro closures. One size fits most, they dry quickly, no way to get stuck in them in a capsize that anyone not deserving a Darwin award would need to be conerned with, lightweight, and durable. Strapless rowing in a boat is used often as a drill, but is considerably more difficult than strapless on the Erg since there is no Bungee to pull you back to the catch position (yet). The tracks are on a similar incline as the Erg has (in the majority of boats) so there is some gravitational assistance on the recovery.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 16th, 2005, 5:45 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Pete Marston @ Jan 15 2005, 05:58 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'm rowing everything at 130 drag. I agree with Ranger that 1:55 at 26spm does feel a pretty inefficient way to row that pace. I would find this pace at around 22spm easier, and I dare say my heart rate would be lower. If I was to row these "technique and recovery" days at 1:55 and 22spm, say, then being strapless would not be noticable. At 26spm (10mps) it is very noticable. With the weaker drive I have to be much more proactive at the beginning of the recovery, getting my hands away fast in order to get down for the next catch. Although the drive is weaker (well it is supposed to be a recovery), the recovery half of the stroke is much more "normal" than it would be at 20spm. By normal, I mean more like it would be in a hard 5k or 2k. When rowing at 20spm and high stroking power I really don't see how this works on technique. Anyone can have a smooth recovery when you're going back down the slide that slowly, takes much more skill at higher rates IMO, and so working these recovery rows with a lower power on the drive, and therefore a higher stroke rate, I think will work more to gain me a technically efficient stroke. These 10k's aren't where the work is being done anyway, they are simply for technique and recovery. The work is being done on the inbetween days. 2 x 5k with a 3mins rest is a tough workout. Especially being strapless when you're not used to it. And when the two reps get a second faster each time I do it, it makes it harder still, and progressive. These are done at a much higher power, today was 1:47 and 1:46, at 10mps the 1:46 is around 28spm. As I work down towards the lower 1:40's the stroking power will really start to ramp up. It seems to me that Ranger just likes to convince himself that what he's doing is the right way to train. He seemed to like the idea of doing 4 x 1k at 2k race pace a few months back, and advocated that as a good sharpening session for his races, but I don't believe he ever got around to doing it? Maybe that's something you need to look at doing this season if you're going to get the WR back. Also, what ever happened to that sub17 for 5k? Pete </td></tr></table> Pete-- (1) I would lower your drag--now. (2) Actually, I tried 1:55 at 22 spm and my heart stayed the same. It _wasn't_ more efficient than at 1:55 and 26 spm. This is good new, though, I think. It means I can now change the rate freely at this low level of effort without losing efficiency. That is, my stylistic range has broadened. I used to row everything at the same rate (about 32 spm) and lost efficiency when I moved in _either_ direction. (3) Following the authorities again (e.g., Wolverine Plan, C2 manual, etc.), I still disagree that the most important "work" in training for rowing is the work at a high heart rate. In _anything_, not just sports and not just rowing, the most important and influential work is foundational. In rowing, this is work on efficiency at low heart rates, going faster and faster with no effort. If you can go x pace with no effort, you can go x + y with maximal effort. If you can only go x - z pace with no effort, you can only go x + y - z pace with maximal effort. It's a no-brainer. Your starting point determines your finishing point. It is also a myth that this work is easy. Just try it! Can you row 1:46 at 22 spm with a 70% MHR. No! You would need to work _very_ hard (on various things) in order to be able to do this. In particular, I would guess that you need to traing yourself to do what I have just done and what _anyone_ has to do to meeet the UT2 schedule of rates, paces, and heart rates in the C2 manual: Technically, you need to drop your drag, do more work with your legs rather than your upper body, speed up your drive by gettting quicker feet, shift your center of gravity forward to take more advantage of your leg drive, and so forth. I suppose there are many ways that you could learn to do this. The best way, I think, is to row in a boat. The second best way, I think, is to row strapless day after day for long distances over a substantial period at low rates and _very_ high power: for you, 15-17 SPI. (4) In my case at least (and this seems to be the general intention of the internal structure of the authoritative rowing plans), in both the drive and the recovery, rowing efficiently at a low rate has taught me how to row efficiently at a high rate, not the other way around. Amazingly, I have become a "good" student (!), not just a close-minded "professor." It appears that it takes a while, but I have found this out: you can indeed teach an old dog new tricks! (5) How I am training now is not _my_ way of training at all. I am following the basic philosophy of the authoritative training plans. It is you, Pete, who are not doing this. Why? You are neglecting the _foundation_ of all of the training plans that maximize potential--the development of a strong, efficient stroke. I will say it again: IMHO, you won't reach your goals unless you stop right now and work on being able to row 1:46 at 22 spm at 70% MHR. You need to get maximally efficient before you sharpen if you want to maximize your potential. This advice is the gift of the wise (the rowing authorities) to the uninitiated, naive, inexperienced, unknowledgeable, etc. (6) You are again thinking constantly about racing rather than training. You are too impatient! I think I will indeed do 4 x 1K, 17:00 for 5K, and all the rest, but only when the time is right. As I have said, the first pb I will break, I think, is my marathon pb. In fact, I might try this today. Then I will break my pbs from the top down: HM, hour, 10K, 5K, etc. Why? This order reflects the order of all good training for rowing, which goes from efficient long distance rowing to efficient sprinting. You don't have to listen to me. You only have to check out what the authorities say. I am no authority on rowing. Like you, I am just a student, trying to learn. Our discussions here are peer review! ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 16th, 2005, 5:56 am

Pete-- For you, the _shocking_ thing should be this: If your heart rate range is something like mine, which I presume it is, at the moment, you are rowing 1:55 at about 70% MHR. But given your 2K goals, the authorities say that you should be able to row 1:46! 9 seconds per 500 faster! Conclusion: Given your 2K goals, at the moment, your stroke is _massively_ inefficient. The advice of the authorities is this: Neglect such inefficiency at your peril. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 16th, 2005, 6:35 am

Pete-- I suppose you could think about these things this way, too: The limits of the work load you can manage at a high heart rate are not very flexible. Near the limits of your potential, what you can do at high heart rates is genetically fixed. At the limits of your potential, your efficiency at low heart rates is more flexible. That is... Work at high heart rates helps you fully realize the level of efficiency you have crafted with your work at low heart rates. Work at low heart rates determines the potential of your work at high heart rates. ranger

[old] Xavier · Post by **[old] Xavier** » January 16th, 2005, 7:21 am

Rich - if I may. It seems to me that your "UT2" rowing is slightly skewed as to your HR average, as they're not continuous rows. I wouldn't want to find out that you're just rowing your target UT2 pace until your HR reaches a certain level, and then slowing down until it goes down again, repeating until the end of the 20 odd k. I've always been of the opinion that UT2/UT1 rowing is the way to go. I hardly ever do sprints. But I think it has to be approached the correct way! Does the C2 manual advocate stopping all the time? Xav

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 16th, 2005, 8:31 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It seems to me that your "UT2" rowing is slightly skewed as to your HR average, as they're not continuous rows. I wouldn't want to find out that you're just rowing your target UT2 pace until your HR reaches a certain level, and then slowing down until it goes down again, repeating until the end of the 20 odd k.  </td></tr></table> Training is an art, not a science, or at least I still think this. So... Sure, any test of your achievement with UT2 rowing must be a continuous row, in the ideal case, I think, for an indefinite period (marathon, etc.). In fact, your UT2 pace, I think, is _very_ close to your marathon pace. The only constraint is on rate, and that is a good one that should be respected anyway, I think, if you want your distance rowing to bear on your 2K, which (really) is the only race in this whole game. So do a marathon continuously at 22 spm and see what you get. As a pretty close approximation, that will be your achievement with UT2 rowing. On this, I think we agree entirely. Of course, as I mentioned a few notes back, what the C2 manual does _not_ tell you is how the heck to meet their standards of UT2 rowing. For instance, in my case, how does a 55-year-old lightweight train himself to row a 2:37 marathon at 22 spm without breathing (i.e., at 70% MHR)? Quite a trick, I think. And as far as I can tell, there is no scientific answer, only an artistic/individual/imaginative/improvisatory exploration of how you, the rower who you are and person who you are, might get there. My strategies for getting there have been several (rowing strapless at _very_ low rates and _very_ high power (both continuously and discontinuously) over substantial distances, working endlessly on technique, cross-training with a vengence (running, biking, stepping, sit ups, skipping, for most of the year, 2-4 hours a day), learning to row in a 1x, and so forth. So this is the difficulty again. The C2 doesn't tell you what the heck to do if you can't meet your UT2 standard. It just advises you to get in better shape and improve your technique. So that is what I have been trying to do. I have admitted that I have not yet quite met the UT2 standards, but I am getting very close--and closer every day. This is _very_ encouraging to me. Because UT2 rowing augments your potential toward some maximum by giving you absolutely the largest base you can muster, rather than just realizing what potential you might how have given your base training, a better measure of your achievement with UT2 rowing, I think, would be this: UT2 pace achieved (e.g., marathon at 22 spm) - PAT (predicted age time) = UT2 achievement Right now, the C2 manual's specified UT2 pace for me is 1:52; my PAT is 1:39; so my UT2 achievement is 13. That is, if I can meet the UT2 standards, I will have a UT2 pace that is 13 seconds per 500 slower than the predicted world record for someone my age and weight. In other terms, this is just about a "double the d, add 3" marathon at 22 spm and 70% MHR with respect to the 2K world record for someone my age and weight. This is my goal. Yes, I still have a little work to do. But the work so far has been going very well. I get closer every day. For an open lwt, a comparable achievement would entail a UT2 pace of 1:44-1:45. I would guess that Eskild can row just about this. At 1:45, I bet he isn't working very hard at all. In fact, it would be interesting to know how hard. My guess would be 70% MHR. So if you can do UT2 rowing at 1:57 or so, your achievement with it is 25 or so, about half of Eskild's, if he can indeed do 13-14. You are lucky. You have quite a bit of room for improvement. I am afraid that I don't have much at all. I am not sure when I will get there, but I think I will indeed get to where I can row a marathon at 1:52 and 22 spm with a heart rate in the middle 150s (70% MHR). In fact, I don't thnk you would want to do a marathon with a heart rate much faster. I think I remember Paul Flack saying that he does marathons at 156 bpm. BTW, yesterday, I rowed a continuous 5K strapless at 1:55 and 22 spm with a heart rate of 142 bpm. Today, I was rowing continuously at 1:52 and 22 spm with a heart rate of about 156, a couple beats short of the C2 standard. I like to row discontinuously when I do UT2 rowing for the same reason, I think, that Level 4 rowing in the Wolverine Plan is both modulated in rate and discontinuous (at most rates). Staying at the target heart rate and pace teaches you how to search around for efficiency, relaxation, etc., at those targets. Letting your heart rate rise out of the proper band for that rate and pace, lowering the pace for that rate and heart rate, or raising the rate for that pace and heart rate does not. Or at least this has been my experience. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 16th, 2005, 8:38 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I've always been of the opinion that UT2/UT1 rowing is the way to go. I hardly ever do sprints.  </td></tr></table> Again, I would go with the authorities on this one. If you want to reach your full potential in the 2K, I don't think that sprints can be avoided. They should just be done in a proper sequence and quantity relative to other sorts of rowing. Painful stuff, but necessary. ranger