UT2 SS pace question & RPE

[ShortAndStout]

HR 60-200, 8min 2k time, 24M 200lb 5ft7 usually around 50-70k/wk. To provide context to my build, I swim and bike casually, am military so I need to maintain a good PT score (and I do - 95+ usually). I'd consider myself muscular.

This is in response to this video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XG0exWwM75U where Travis suggests a normal male beginner athlete should pull no slower than a 2:18 in their UT2 SS. Slower than that is appropriate for "prepubescent children" or "really old" people, like 70+.

EDIT: https://youtu.be/XG0exWwM75U?t=468

"If you're a 40yr old athlete with 30-40 extra pounds, just picked up the sport, been doing this for a month or two, I'd recommend your UT2 to be around 2:06 to 2:10"

In what world?

I try to do my steady state UT2 pieces for 75 minutes at a pace where I can speak a few sentences, and feel 0 lactic buildup, monitored breathing. For me, that's 2:24. It's not hard, and is easy to maintain for that time. It's also not nothing and I feel like I worked out a little. A UT1 pace for me is between 2:10 and 2:15 depending on the day, 35 minutes. Hopefully this gives you some context for my question.

I find there is a relationship between RPE, HR, and split - I can maintain two of the three in a "reasonable" range, and the other one goes haywire. For a UT2 session:

• If I maintain RPE (like 4, normal breathing with some sweat), my split goes way down and doesn't come close to being near a 2:18. This is what I do currently, with a 2:24ish. HR around 160-168, 75 minutes.
• If I maintain a higher split (2:18 in this case) my HR goes up into the 165-175 range I'd say, and my RPE goes up to a 6, out of UT2.
• If I maintain a HR band and try to keep it between 140-150, I'm looking at a 2:30 or slower, which drives RPE down to like 2

So I'm stuck in this weird "pick two" situation, where I'm unsure if my UT2 sessions are too hard or too easy or what. Travis' suggestion of a 2:18 minimum doesn't correlate with what many would expect to be a low RPE or low HR, and I don't know how to balance it. Then I see posts on here of people doing like... 1:55 UT2 steady state sessions and I don't even know how to relate!

Looking back at my data for the last month, I have a few sessions where my HR is 160 for a 2:18 and 172 for a 2:25. A 2:25 this week is 170, last week it was 150, and next week it will be 150 again. There is no correlation. This problem leaks into my UT1 sessions as well - a 2:11 pace today was an RPE 8 and HR 183 while two weeks ago it was RPE 7 and 175. I feel like I'm going backwards, almost.

So what gives? Why is there such a big discrepancy? Do I pull below a 2:18 on my UT2 and ignore RPE, or do I pull a 2:25 and ignore the general guidance?

[btlifter]

IMO...

There are at least 2 ways to interpret what Travis said:
1. As a diagnostic. E.g A healthy adult male ought to be able to 'easily' pull 2:18 or faster. aif they're unable to, it auggests there might be some technical flaws that ought to be addressed.
2. As a prescription.... this would be a really dim thing to say and I'm uninterested in saying anything further about that.

So, I'd suggest considering #1 - maybe getting some review on your form. If you believe #1 is inapplicable to you, I'd suggest ignoring the source.

[Dangerscouse]

IMO...

There are at least 2 ways to interpret what Travis said:
1. As a diagnostic. E.g A healthy adult male ought to be able to 'easily' pull 2:18 or faster. aif they're unable to, it auggests there might be some technical flaws that ought to be addressed.
2. As a prescription.... this would be a really dim thing to say and I'm uninterested in saying anything further about that.

So, I'd suggest considering #1 - maybe getting some review on your form. If you believe #1 is inapplicable to you, I'd suggest ignoring the source.

I couldn't have put it any better

[ShortAndStout]

IMO...

There are at least 2 ways to interpret what Travis said:
1. As a diagnostic. E.g A healthy adult male ought to be able to 'easily' pull 2:18 or faster. aif they're unable to, it auggests there might be some technical flaws that ought to be addressed.
2. As a prescription.... this would be a really dim thing to say and I'm uninterested in saying anything further about that.

So, I'd suggest considering #1 - maybe getting some review on your form. If you believe #1 is inapplicable to you, I'd suggest ignoring the source.

I guess the issue is, I can "easily" pull a 2:18 for 75 minutes. The only problem with that is, such a pace isn't compatible with UT2 heart rate bands, and is 1-3 RPE higher than I think they should be. I can either pull a 2:18 comfortably for that length of time, or maintain a low HR - I can't do both.

A 2:18 UT2 75 minute SS is totally possible for me, I'd just be looking at a 175 average heart rate by the end of it, at least, which is nearly 20bpm above what it should be, meaning I'm not doing UT2 at all.

[MPx]

Basically you have to keep reading lots of different people's take on the situation and make up your own mind as to what works for you. What you decide will also be what works for some others, but there will be some who think you're wrong and can tell you it didn't work for them! A couple of observations - just my opinions, not evidenced:

Most of the science agrees there is an inflection point at a certain level of activity which is often termed Transition. For those who believe in polarised training, the value is in training above or below this inflection point - not so much on or around it. So you might consider UT1 and UT2 as both below TR so why not just slow down and make sure you stay under TR - you'll get the training effect required - this is obviously balanced with occasional full on sessions above TR. Others strongly dis the merit of such "easy" sessions and specify much stronger pace for SS work - the limit being solely what you can recover from. Of course what you can recover from is affected by volume and frequency as well as pace, age, etc etc. As a young chap you will recover quickly and can train harder than some. Also while 50-70k a week is good going, if its done in say 4 sessions with three rest days then you get plenty of recovery time and can go harder - not so much if you train every day. Being of shorter stature, despite your power, you'll know you are at a relative disadvantage on the erg compared to the giants. Some of the norms quoted will be based around what the giants can do. Nevertheless, I think there is a misuse of terminology in the sentences you quote in your post. I think UT2 is defined by a heart rate band. It says nothing about pace. So if you want to train using HR bands then do that and put up with the pace that dictates. Or if you want to go with rate/pace ... as that's been proven to work too ... then that's fine but don't get hung up on HR. My view is that there is very little crossover between steady state for the rate/pace guys and Zone UT2 for the HR guys.

[ShortAndStout]

@mPX That actually helps tremendously, thank you. I haven't been able to get all three variables to line up correctly, and I've heard about both groups you mention, and tried to do a fair amount of research on both. I have a higher than normal HR I think, averaging 10-20bpm higher than what it should be, so I fall squarely into the RPE/split group.

[jrkob]

Travis suggests a normal male beginner athlete should pull no slower than a 2:18 in their UT2 SS. Slower than that is appropriate for "prepubescent children" or "really old" people, like 70+.

I am a novice but this sounds like an absurd thing to say.
Or he's bragging.
Or both.

[jamesg]

In what world?

Maybe the running world where you know neither your speed nor the slope you're running up or down, so have to look at some so-called proxy, such as feelings or kg/h sweat loss (1kg/h = about 500kCal/h) or whatever you like.

Cyclists have shifted control to Power; and this is how the C2 ergometer works too.

So suggest you use ONE index only; on the C2 erg this is Watts, the Power we develop, which can be seen at all times.

From Watts you can also derive two Quality controls:

Watts/Rating. E.g. 120W/20 = 6: like me (age 82, 80kg). 15 can get you an Olympic medal.
NB this the Work in each stroke, and equal to net Length x average handle Force.

Watts/kg bodyweight, maybe using BMI = 23: 1W/kg is beginner, 2W/kg is fit, 3 W/kg and up is race.

[jrkob]

Watts/kg bodyweight, maybe using BMI = 23: 1W/kg is beginner, 2W/kg is fit, 3 W/kg and up is race.

I have some questions.
1) using a different BMI, will your numbers (1W/kg is beginner etc) change ? If no, why do you mention the BMI in the above ?
2) say my weight is 55kg. Pulling 55x2=110W is possible for me. Just for not super long. For how long would I need to be able to pull those 110W to qualify as "fit" ? Or it doesn't work that way ?

[iain]

I personally think that variation in pace is so wide that it is difficult to generalise. Travis's stated paces have been mentioned before and most agree that these are "optimistic". Many people come to the erg as training for another sport or a replacement when they need to reduce the impact of their training and so they start from a high level. Also I imagine those in contact with Travis are amongst the fitter so he may have a biased view of the real breadth of paces out there!

As stated above the key to SS training is that it doesn't compromise the faster sessions, so if you have a benchmark of a faster session that was close to maximal after a few days rest, then see if you can replicate this after your chosen SS. If you are slower and there is no extrenuous reason for this (greater stress, reduced sleep, poor nutrition etc.) then I suggest you slow the SS. While I am not an expert in HR training, while some advocate very low rates, there are many who advocate 70% of HRR. So for you (200-60) x 70% + 60 = 158 as the maximum, so you wouldn't need to slow much to be in this band. Also I would say that the majority should be in this band, HR fluctuates and a slight rise due to drift at the end is to be expected, so I would say that if 80%+ of the rowing 10-15min from the end is at or below 158 I would call this a UT2 workout. True UT2 is not determined by any formula, the maximum is where the initial increase in gradient when power is plotted against lactate levels. Difficult to get a proxy on the rower as HR rises with water loss and without a Camelbak this is significant for most ergers on a long session, so the cycling test of looking to find the pace where your HR levels off from say 30 -60 min but would continue to rise if you went faster doesn't really work! The best you can do is to make sure that HR at constant pace is only drifting up "slowly", say a couple of BPM / 10 mins or less. But basically I would go with RPE and the "capable of talking" threshold.

All that said there are many who would see this as blasphemy, so it is up to you!

[MPx]

I have a higher than normal HR I think, averaging 10-20bpm higher than what it should be...

An interesting concept. For those into HR, then Max HR is just what it is for you as an individual - there is no normal, and you can't train it lower or higher you will just lose a beat here or there as you age. Your Resting HR is trainable and will lower the fitter you get. As a result, what you should find is as your fitness improves you will see a lower max for a given distance/pace or the other way around, be able to go further/faster for any given HR. The numbers tend to change very slowly - months/years... You tend to see faster changes/improvements in scores with more mid-pace work, but also hit plateaus more quickly.

[ShortAndStout]

Watts/kg bodyweight, maybe using BMI = 23: 1W/kg is beginner, 2W/kg is fit, 3 W/kg and up is race.

I have some questions.
1) using a different BMI, will your numbers (1W/kg is beginner etc) change ? If no, why do you mention the BMI in the above ?
2) say my weight is 55kg. Pulling 55x2=110W is possible for me. Just for not super long. For how long would I need to be able to pull those 110W to qualify as "fit" ? Or it doesn't work that way ?

Maybe this is my misunderstanding too. 90x2=180, or a 2:04, which I can do without a hitch, just for probably only 5 or 10 minutes. I feel as though that's normal, but is it enough time to fall into that category?

[Dangerscouse]

Maybe this is my misunderstanding too. 90x2=180, or a 2:04, which I can do without a hitch, just for probably only 5 or 10 minutes. I feel as though that's normal, but is it enough time to fall into that category?

I agree with all of the above comments and you'll need to find what works for you, but don't underestimate the need for you to adapt to the training load and effort. Your aerobic capacity will grow slowly over time, almost certainly too slowly for your liking, but that sounds like it is a definite limiter for you atm.

Imo, fitness and erg fitness are very often not the same (there are obviously some exceptions to this). I'd struggle to run a 5k, as it's just a different type of effort.

If I was you, I'd try using RPE for about four weeks and monitor how you feel in terms of recovery in addition to the usual data. If you feel good enough, and you're not regressing, I'd stick with this. I suspect that your HR is slightly misleading, for some reason, maybe you're too strong and not 'aerobic' enough just yet? It might also be due to your technique. For a seemingly simple exercise it is surprisingly technical and you can leak power all too easily.

[jamesg]

HR 60-200, 8min 2k time, 24M 200lb 5ft7 usually around 50-70k/wk.
90x2=180, or a 2:04, which I can do without a hitch, just for probably only 5 or 10 minutes.
I try to do my steady state UT2 pieces for 75 minutes at a pace where I can speak a few sentences, and feel 0 lactic buildup,

Would seem you're not training at all: probably due to chasing irrelevant criteria such as RPE, HR etc. None of this can teach you to row, so is useless. If we can't row we can't build waste, so can't train getting rid of it either.

If using a C2 erg, the monitor shows Power, in Watts. Rowing is about moving boats and is therefore a Power sport needing a lot of Watts. So suggest you watch this quantity only and forget all the inferior gauges such as HR, RPE etc. They'll all be off the scale when rowing, as is needed. Stop when forced too, or maybe a few seconds before.

Your data confirms this:
An 8' 2k (200W) on 200lb (91kg) is 2.2 W/kg: slow in a 2k.
50-70k a week if rowing well would be an enormous amount of Work.

See here for technique:
https://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/ ... que-videos

And here for training:
https://www.britishrowing.org/indoor-ro ... ing-plans/

[iain]

Would seem you're not training at all: probably due to chasing irrelevant criteria such as RPE, HR etc. None of this can teach you to row, so is useless.

James, I think you underestimate the variation in fitness (both mental and physical) in the wider population. It is easy to get hung up with the stats churned out routinely on this board which would suggest that 80 - 90kg men in their 40's can churn out >180W for long periods while still recovering from harder efforts. But these are from exceptionally fit individuals whose muscles have adapted to the rowing stroke and who are so used to the discomfort from extended rowing that they no longer register it. Yes many (myself included) could improve their stroke significantly and that would increase their output, but I also think that even with an optimum stroke many would struggle to get close to your prescribed ratios for extended rows.

After lengthy layoffs I have found rowing 5k a challenge at a very pedestrian pace despite probably still having a muscular balance tailored to rowing, years of rowing and some memory (mental & muscular) of many long rows. I suspect that those starting out would find this tougher again. Rowing pace may well be determined by the weakest of the muscles required. So to compare people you not only have to deduct excess fat, but that of the muscles that are constrained by other groups. Clearly this would be impossible to estimate. As such I believe that while people should strive to improve, they need to listen to their bodies and work within their current abilities. We are not machines! Power is an objective measure of output, but it tells us nothing of the effort required to generate it.

That said, I respect your ability and knowledge that has much to teach the vast majority of us, but I would hate those starting out to get discouraged from comments made that may be based on assumptions that might not yet be true for them.

- Iain