The Road to Boston 2007

TomR · Post by **TomR** » November 9th, 2006, 10:16 pm

Felt a bit tired in the legs today, the first time I've felt this way doing the IP. I suppose this is a consequence of the hard row Tuesday and the time I added to yesterday's UT1. At a result, today's AT 2x9 felt tough.

Average pace 2.00.7, slightly slower than I managed doing this same session a couple of weeks ago.

Rest tomorrow.

Will, you might think about taking an extra day of rest. That's better than succumbing. Stay healthy.

tom

Anne · Post by **Anne** » November 9th, 2006, 10:43 pm

Being worn down sure impacts a row; particularly when we are measuring it so closely. And, some weeks are seem to suck the energy out, whether it is the time on the erg or mental fatigue.

I've had a good week--managed to keep up with the plan but too busy with work to log meters until tonight. I completed week 11 and am wondering whether to be thinking the end game is January or February. The Crash B qualifiers are here January 29th and I am hoping to visit the Iron Oarsman in January too- timing isn't great but I will be in California. Are all of you going to race in Boston?

OK...as for training. I left the HR monitor in my gym bag and that was a help (thanks Tom)...I didn't need to worry about who in the gym might be able to do CPR. I did the 2x6' TR session on Tuesday with the goal of <2:03.
Managed 2:02.9 the first interval. (30spm)--pretty steady and rested 5 minutes
During the second interval I really wanted that mulligan

(Yes, it is only for the drive on the first hole of golf)....So, I couldn't stop, but was struggling

...I averaged 2:04.2 but my 1 minute splits follow...2:00.9, 2:03.9; 2:04.4; 2:05.5; 2:09.8, 2:02.4---so you can see how I just couldn't quite manage it. Quitting and repeating it was not an option, but my head and heart sure wanted to.

Today I did the AT workout (2x9') before a weight lifting class- Goal is 2:10 and I was OK holding 2:09.1. Then lifted weights and played 9 holes of golf (and took a few illegal mulligans)

Tomorrow I am going to row for fun. Nothing on the plan, but just a LSD piece.....or that 20x30. Any suggestions?

Are other people losing weight doing this plan? Do any of you follow a training type diet/ life style and does it make a difference? Just curious. I am not ready to give up ice cream yet.

TomR · Post by **TomR** » November 10th, 2006, 12:03 am

Anne,

That 2x6 TR is causing problems. If I were to do it (and I haven't) I would take at least 6 minutes rest and perhaps more. I think the WP calls for 5 or 6 min rest when doing the 4x1k intervals.

If you're going to row for fun, don't do the 30r20, unless you plan to do it at a relaxed pace.

I'm planning to drop some weight, but I haven't been altogether successful. After doing my workout the other night, I almost ate a hole in the refrigerator door. No ice cream, but manly volumes of almost anything edible.

Tom

Bob S. · Post by **Bob S.** » November 10th, 2006, 12:21 am

Anne wrote: The Crash B qualifiers are here January 29th and I am hoping to visit the Iron Oarsman in January too- timing isn't great but I will be in California. Are all of you going to race in Boston?

Are other people losing weight doing this plan? Do any of you follow a training type diet/ life style and does it make a difference? Just curious. I am not ready to give up ice cream yet.

Anne,

Re Boston: My current goal is the satellite regatta in Long Beach, "the Beach Sprints." I believe that it will be held on January 29 as well. No — I just checked a calendar. The 29th is a Monday, so the Beach Sprints are probably on the 27th. Whether or not I go to Boston depends on how well I do in Long Beach. I have not yet seen a listing of this year's qualifying times, so I don't know how difficult it will be. My time trial a couple of weeks ago was very encouraging, so my main concern is to be healthy when the time comes.

Weight loss? No. I had no problem going lightweight last year, but, with a combination of drinking a lot more water than I ever used to and doing some heavier resistance work, I am not even going to bother with weighing in this season.

Last year the qualifying times for my age bracket were 8:10 for HWT and 8:40 for LWT. I think that both of those were ridiculous. The first was too fast and the second was too slow. I feel confident that I can beat 8:10, if it is the same again this year, but if there are more than 4 qualifiers at L.B., it will depend on how much each one beats the set qualifying time.

Bob S.

seat5 · Post by **seat5** » November 10th, 2006, 1:12 am

I thought anyone could row at the Crash Bs. I didn't think you had to qualify! someone fill me in?? (gosh, maybe I won't be able to go, wouldn't that be just horrible.)

I am eating like a pig and staying even at around 162 (so I qualify for lightweight ha ha )

I was supposed to do 1 x 12 AT tonight, but I was up till 4AM working on a project for work and just fell like hell. (and look worse I must say) Better after dinner but still working on the project--hope to finish by 1 AM. So my 12' will have to be tomorrow.

I have my first TR workout next week...that's 1:53 or 1:52...faster than any 2K I've ever done, but slower than my 1K pb pace. this might be pretty icky

Yankeerunner · Post by **Yankeerunner** » November 10th, 2006, 5:20 am

I agree with Tom that 6' TR should be done at the slower end of the TR band. Six minutes is borderline AT duration, and should be done at borderline AT pace. That is, a bit faster than AT.

(My 2p) (Being in the UK at the moment I have to use their coinage

)

Rick

TomR · Post by **TomR** » November 10th, 2006, 10:21 am

Carla,

You don't have to qualify to row at the Crash-Bs, only to get a free plane ticket (if you live farther away).

Don't start too fast on the TR workouts. Do them at your 2k pace, or even 2k+something to start. You can do them faster as you get acclimated to higher rates and faster paces. Erging isn't a punishment.

Rick,

Best wishes for a great race on Sunday.

Tom

whaskell · Post by **whaskell** » November 10th, 2006, 3:22 pm

I did take another rest day today. It has been a long week. Now for tomorrow, should I do the AT workout that was planned or should I do the UT1 that I skipped today. I am leaning towards doing the UT1 4x10min then moving on to the next weeks workouts.

I am definitely planning on starting my next TR workout at a more reasonable pace (say 1:48).

Bob S. · Post by **Bob S.** » November 10th, 2006, 4:34 pm

TomR wrote:Carla,
You don't have to qualify to row at the Crash-Bs, only to get a free plane ticket (if you live farther away).
Tom

Carla,

Here are the details:

http://www.concept2.com/us/training/rac ... b_qual.asp

I see that the new 80-84 HWT qualifying time is 8:20, so I shouldn't have any problem if I can stay healthy — an iffy situation at my age.

Without that free trip, it would not be practical for me to go to Boston. It is expensive enough even with free air fare, counting the hotel costs in Boston and the cost of making a round trip of about 550 miles to the airport. Fortunately, I can arrange to stay with friends overnight in the L.A. area and leave my pickup there while I am away. There is a closer airport at Reno, but it is still a 440 mile round trip and I don't have any connections there. Another factor is the there is no assurance that the road between here and Reno would be open in mid-February.

Bob S.

Anne · Post by **Anne** » November 10th, 2006, 6:43 pm

LOL--my qualifying time would be 7:29, so there is no way I'll be collecting a plane ticket. I've done the satellite races in Cincinnati, and they are a lot of fun; but there is only one heat of masters women. The good part is that it included women from age 25 -83--quite inspiring and great commaraderie. If anyone wants to row in Cincinnati, they have a place to stay--kids welcome too.

The weight I've lost must be brain cells....For a TR row it says <2:03. Doesn't the < symbol mean "less than" in math?

So, I figured that <2:03 meant to row less than 2:03. Wrong?

Rowed about 11,400 today in intervals of 2Ks...slow 2Ks---kind of pointlesss except to tally up meters and justify a beer or dessert.

All in all...a good day, but quite ready for the weekend.

Bob S. · Post by **Bob S.** » November 10th, 2006, 7:14 pm

Anne wrote:
The weight I've lost must be brain cells....For a TR row it says <2:03. Doesn't the < symbol mean "less than" in math? :?: So, I figured that <2:03 meant to row less than 2:03. Wrong? :?: :?:

Anne,

Those are errors in the table. Typos, I suppose. The 2:03 is the fast end of your TR band. I assume that you are using 8:12 as your 2k base? Then your TR band would be 2:03 — 2:09.9. That had me puzzled for a long time too. But someone on this thread finally explained it and I realized that the IP document is flawed.

The paragraph on Pace guide is completely messed up. The one correct item is the sentence, “UT1, AT, and TR training bands, can be identified as lying between the figure in the training band column and the figure in the column to the left.

Some of the rest the staements of that paragraph seem to contradict that completely. It is best to ignore them.

Bob S.

NavigationHazard · Post by **NavigationHazard** » November 11th, 2006, 5:46 am

I think the main typo here is

IP wrote:The training intensities in each band are based on your current 2K time. The figures indicated are at the top end of each band. UT1, AT, and TR training bands, can be identified as lying between the figure in the training band column and the figure in the column to the left. At max pace, a 2K is carried out at around 95% of maximum heart rate which is indicated here as the top end of the TR band. The TR band is from 85%-95% of MHR which are the figures indicated under AT and TR. 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.

Replace the highlighted "AN" with "AT."

To restate this perhaps more clearly:

Find your current 2k time in the left-hand column of the table. The numbers in the row to the right will help you find the recommended training intensities for each band. Note that the training bands themselves reflect a range of paces.

* The paces in the UT2, UT1, AT, and TR columns represent the fastest you should row in each of these bands. Do your UT2 rowing at a minimum of 55% of HRR but no faster than the pace in the UT2 column. The pace ranges for your UT1, AT, and TR bands start where the bands in the columns to their immediate left leave off. They stop with the upper limit in the column itself. For example, your "TR" rowing should be done no slower than the pace in your AT column and no faster than the pace in your TR column.

* The pace in the AN column is not a maximum, it is a minimum. Your AN rowing should be at least as fast as the number given.

Bob S. · Post by **Bob S.** » November 11th, 2006, 5:05 pm

NavigationHazard wrote:I think the main typo here is

IP wrote:The training intensities in each band are based on your current 2K time. The figures indicated are at the top end of each band. UT1, AT, and TR training bands, can be identified as lying between the figure in the training band column and the figure in the column to the left. At max pace, a 2K is carried out at around 95% of maximum heart rate which is indicated here as the top end of the TR band. The TR band is from 85%-95% of MHR which are the figures indicated under AT and TR. 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.
Replace the highlighted "AN" with "AT."

To restate this perhaps more clearly:

Find your current 2k time in the left-hand column of the table. The numbers in the row to the right will help you find the recommended training intensities for each band. Note that the training bands themselves reflect a range of paces.

* The paces in the UT2, UT1, AT, and TR columns represent the fastest you should row in each of these bands. Do your UT2 rowing at a minimum of 55% of HRR but no faster than the pace in the UT2 column. The pace ranges for your UT1, AT, and TR bands start where the bands in the columns to their immediate left leave off. They stop with the upper limit in the column itself. For example, your "TR" rowing should be done no slower than the pace in your AT column and no faster than the pace in your TR column.

* The pace in the AN column is not a maximum, it is a minimum. Your AN rowing should be at least as fast as the number given.

Jon,

I think that you have hit on the key point here, but there is still the matter of the less than or equal to and greater than or equal to symbols in the chart. In the TR column, the less than or equal to signs apparently refer to the the speeds and not to the numbers displayed. The same thing seems to apply to the greater than or equal to signs of the AN column, which is consistent with your statement to the effect that the speeds are minima rather than maxima. It is also consistent with these sentences in the document: "The pace figure in the AN band is 110% of 2k pace. Training in this band should be carried out at 110% or better than 2k pace."

This still leaves a question to me. What would you call it if you are in the unnamed gap, i.e. at a pace between the figures in the TR and AN columns?

One problem is the use of the term "pace." It is not at all consistent with the usual dictionary definitions. When I hear pace, my first thought is the length of one step of walking. It can also mean the number of steps taken per minute, but in rowing the word "rate" is used for that sort of concept. The use of pace on the ergo world as something inversely related to speed is an unfortunate circumstance and was bound to create confusion.

Bob S.

TomR · Post by **TomR** » November 11th, 2006, 10:28 pm

Because I head off on a 3-day business trip tomorrow, I decided to do two sessions today, finishing this week's schedule and doing the first workout for next week. I'm still substituting AT for TR so today's sessions were:

AM: UT1/4x12/ 2.07.5 avg pace/11352 meters

PM: AT/2x8/2.00.7 avg page/ 3977 meters

Tom

whaskell · Post by **whaskell** » November 12th, 2006, 8:37 am

Saturday Morning
10min WU - 2246m
AT 2x9min / max pace 1:50 / 26-28spm
Target:- 2x9min / avg pace 1:52.0 / 27spm / 3:00min rest
Actual:- 9min / avg pace 1:51.8 / 27spm / 2414m
Actual:- 9min / avg pace 1:51.8 / 27spm / 2415m
Total session: 6094m
5min CD - 1106m

Legs still felt a little heavy and tired, but not too bad overall.

Sunday Morning
15min WU - 3333m
TR 4x4min / max pace 1:44 / 30 - 34spm
Target:- 4x4min / avg pace 1:48.0 / 32spm / 5:00 min rest
Actual:- 4min / avg pace 1:47.9 / 32spm / 1112m
Actual:- 4min / avg pace 1:47.8 / 31spm / 1113m
Actual:- 4min / avg pace 1:47.4 / 31spm / 1117m
Actual:- 4min / avg pace 1:46.0 / 32spm / 1132m
Total session: 8913m
5min CD - 1102m

This felt much better. Started out a little tentative given the past few workouts, but I felt pretty good at the start. Generally I would not do a TR workout the day after an AT but it is the weekend and my coming work week looks hectic, so I decided to get one of my TR sessions out of the way.