UT2 or UT1

[Jules]

Greetings.

I'm new to the forum and this is my first post. I will preface my question with some background information.

I'm a lightweight male in my mid 40s and I have been rowing for about three months. I would assess my level of cardiovascular fitness when I began rowing as very poor, but I have made some slow but steady progress since I started back in October. To give you a sense of where I started, I completed a 2,000 meter test as called for by the "interactive programme" and finished in 9:04. That was at a very low rate of about 22 spm. I understand that rate is far below what would normally be expected for a 2,000 meter time trial, but I simply didn't have the heart or lungs for a higher stroke rate. This speaks to just how poor my level of fitness truly was / is.

I realized then that what I need first and foremost is to improve my fitness level. Since October, I have focused primarily on distance workouts, with some intermittent interval training. A "distance workout" for me today typically consists of a 10,000 meter row with a 1,000 meter warm up and cool down. I started training three days per week, but moved up to four days per week starting the first of the year.

My question concerns the appropriate heart rate for training to build cardiovascular fitness. A beginner's interactive program includes a considerable amount of UT2 training. That pace seems quite slow to me and I am perfectly comfortable doing a 10K at UT1. The question is, given my objective of substantially improving my level of cv fitness, are there benefits to a UT2 workout over a UT1 workout? Asked a different way, if I can comfortably train at UT1, should I still do work at UT2 to build cv fitness, or should I abandon UT2 workouts all together? Another option may be to add a fifth day per week to my routine, but do UT2 on that day as a form of "rest."

Any advice would be appreciated.

[dblinden]

Hi. I started in October so we have that in common. If you are making "slow, but steady progress", what is wrong with that? Another way of asking the same question, what are your expectations for the level/rate of progress you would like to achieve by now?

Dennis L

[Bob S.]

If you used the 9:04 2k for your IP base, you probably need a n updated 2k. As you said 22spm is a very low stroke rate for a 2k time trial. It is OK for UT endurance training. A UT2 is indeed rather easy and if you can maintain it for 10k that is very good. A lot of beginners on this forum have difficulty rowing at any pace for even 10 minutes straight.

It has been said that you should be able to hold conversations while doing a UT2 piece, but need to breath heavily for a UT1. At least that is one way of gauging your level. Another is heart rate, which the IP uses, but pinning down your HR max is tricky business, unless you have it done at a qualified lab.

Bob S.

[Jules]

Hi. I started in October so we have that in common. If you are making "slow, but steady progress", what is wrong with that? Another way of asking the same question, what are your expectations for the level/rate of progress you would like to achieve by now?

Dennis L

Thank you for the reply, Dennis.

I don't believe anything is "wrong" with slow and steady progress, other than to say, if patience is a virtue, I would have a hard enough time being named "altar boy," let alone "Pope."

In all seriousness, I understand I am just beginning a life change and improvements will come with time. That said, my goal is to maximize the benefits of training. I want my routine to be an efficient use of time. I also want to train "smart," not just "hard," which is why I've asked the question here. Obviously, the posters here are knowledgable and I am hoping to tap into that vast knowledge base.

As for what level of improvement I had hoped to achieve by now, I honestly can't say because I don't have a frame of reference for knowing whether or not I am making "good" progress. I do know I am making some progress. For example, on January 1st, I tried a "benchmark" 10k. I finished in 44:56 at 24 spm. My average heart rate was 159. As I indicated in my first post, in October, I couldn't even get under 9 minutes for my first 2K. By the start of the year, I was able to maintain a better pace for 10K. Again, that's progress. As for whether or not it's "good" progress, I'm not sure. I assessed it as "slow" in my first post simply by referencing the "ranking" times posted by Concept 2.

I still have a long way to go before I am achieving even "average" times for someone my age and weight. I know the times will come with improved fitness, which is why improving my cv fitness is my first priority.

Would you be willing to share a little information with me about your progress since you started? I find the experiences of others in a similar position particularly inspirational.

Thanks.

[Jules]

If you used the 9:04 2k for your IP base, you probably need a n updated 2k. As you said 22spm is a very low stroke rate for a 2k time trial. It is OK for UT endurance training. A UT2 is indeed rather easy and if you can maintain it for 10k that is very good. A lot of beginners on this forum have difficulty rowing at any pace for even 10 minutes straight.

It has been said that you should be able to hold conversations while doing a UT2 piece, but need to breath heavily for a UT1. At least that is one way of gauging your level. Another is heart rate, which the IP uses, but pinning down your HR max is tricky business, unless you have it done at a qualified lab.

Bob S.

Speaking of inspiration, I have been lurking here for few months and you, Bob, are quite an inspiration. Congratulations on your recent world record times! Although, I have to say, it was a little depressing when I first starting rowing knowing a 90 year old could clean my clock!

As for the updated 2K, as I indicated above, I am not too concerned with times at the moment, so I don't regularly test for a 2K. I've only done 2 other 2K since I started, with the last being on 12/26. Time was 8:23.5 (drag factor 111). I do wear a heart rate monitor. I had warmed up, so my heart rate at the start of that 2k was 138. Heart rates at minute intervals thereafter were:

154/164/166/169/171/175/176/178 at 8 minutes. End at 177.

Using some of the standard formulas, my maximum heart rate should be about 176 for someone my age. I appreciate your point about the potential for error in determining max HR using those formulas. I would say the 178 toward the end of that 2K was pretty close to my maximum, given how I was feeling.

In any event, I have been using 178 as a maximum benchmark for determining my UT1 and UT2 paces.

Any more insight you have would be greatly appreciated.

[dblinden]

In your first note you identified your objective as "substantially improving my level of cv fitness" and later indicated that you wanted to maximize your training benefit. I am responding because we are similar in our start dates and I am a lwt at 150 lbs. I am much older turning 63 soon. I used to have high cv fitness from cycling and running, but not recently. Advice can be invaluable, but it can also be contradictory or just confusing. Two things I would suggest: 1.) Learn as much as you can about physiology, fitness and training strategies. You need to ultimately find your own path and what works for you. Best, finding one person you trust and who gets what you're doing so that you can have feedback as you go about your journey. 2.) Be honest about what you are willing to commit (time, effort, discomfort, diet, etc). For example, to substantially improve level of fitness and maximize your training benefit, you will have to substantially commit and maximize your training.

I can share some of things I am doing. I am fortunate in that I have time to do what I wish. I am rowing on the erg 6 days/wk. The vast majority is steady pace and high volume (12,500-20,000 meters each session). Effort level is ability to talk if I choose. Hard efforts are 1 day/wk (might change to 2 soon). These are full out intervals. I am starting with brief efforts, eg 7 X (30"/30"rest) and doing three of these with 2-3 min breaks. I feel it the next day. The goal is to be well rested so the intervals can be done hard. Additionally, I am riding a watt bike 3 days/wk for one hour and doing weight training for 1 1/2 hrs (legs and back) 3 days/wk. Last comment, trying to be disciplined to not race all of my daily exercise sessions. Slow is slow and hard is hard.

There will be many others who will state that this is a poor way to go. But this is what I am doing to reach my goals.

Best, Dennis L

[rhr]

There is an interesting thread on the Free Spirits forum:

http://www.freespiritsrowing.com/forum/ ... 744a5cf77e

Essentially we have discussed / debated the merits of what training should be done within the 80 / 20 split - below lactate threshold and above. Many believe that the vast majority of the 80% should be done at UT2 in order to improve / grow the capillaries and mitochondria, the transport and use of oxygen to the muscles.

I agree with what Dennis says, learn about physiology. Having done lots of long UT2 rows and run marathons / ultras over the 2 years before I returned to the rower in June last year I personally feel I get better bang for my buck rowing most of the 80% at closer to my lactate threshold (i.e. UT1 and AT). So I prefer to improve my ability to clear lactate rather than try and delay its onset as I don't feel I can improve my efficiency at lower heart rates by much. You on the other hand may benefit greatly from slow, steady rowing at UT2 to build your base fitness. It is important to be sure that you can recover from your training and stay motivated.

Determine your objectives, try and figure out where your strengths and weaknesses are, pick a plan and stick to it. Monitor your progress, if you are getting the desired results great, if not try another plan. There is no one size fits all and everyone is different.

[Jules]

Dennis and rhr:

Thanks for the suggestions and for the link, rhr. I agree I need to do more homework on physiology.

As for time commitments, Dennis, it sounds as if I'm in a different position from you in that I currently work full-time (at least 50 hours per week). Even if I had the desire, adopting a training routine similar to yours would involve too many family sacrifices, ones I am not willing to make at this point. That is why I indicated I am looking to make my workouts as maximal / efficient as possible when it comes to achieving my fitness goals. Another issue is, I truly started at ground zero in terms of fitness and most of what I have read suggests it would be a mistake for someone in my position to train hard six days per week (this touches on your point, rhr, about recovery). Avoiding injury was indeed part of my rationale for training only three days per week to start. Still, with that schedule, I felt capable of doing more (as I did feel fully recovered), which is why I switched to four days per week as of January 1. I think I need to give that schedule a little more time and figure out how successfully I am recovering with this new training load. At this point, staying motivated is not an issue for me.

As for the initial question of UT1 versus UT2, as you both indicated, I need to figure out what works best for me. I need to experiment with different approaches and measure my progress. As I indicated above, I have been making some progress, so I'll do a little more experimenting and see what routine results in the most significant gains.

Thanks again for the advice.

[DanielJ]

For many of us who are still in the honeymoon period I suppose it's quite difficult to tell which is better, because we're improving anyway. And then because of that improvement, the UT2, UT1 etc. bands shift along a bit in terms of /500m pace, maybe even before we realise it if we're not constantly keeping an eye on HR. I must admit that when picking up the Wolverine Plan I opted for a "standard" pace of 1:51 (one picks one's 2k PR /500m pace), despite never having gone that fast, because I'm still improving, it's my first real season and I didn't want to have to keep shifting my numbers along so much, especially for Level 4's sake. I just made the assumption that I could probably do it, or that I'd be able to do it in about a month. Yet still, much of the 16- and 18-spm work in Level 4 is UT2 for me, and that's a very large bulk of the metres. Perhaps half of my total Wolverine metres are done at either 16 or 18 spm. At 20 spm+, I'm entering the UT1 range...

There is an interesting thread on the Free Spirits forum:

http://www.freespiritsrowing.com/forum/ ... 744a5cf77e

Essentially we have discussed / debated the merits of what training should be done within the 80 / 20 split - below lactate threshold and above. Many believe that the vast majority of the 80% should be done at UT2 in order to improve / grow the capillaries and mitochondria, the transport and use of oxygen to the muscles.

I agree with what Dennis says, learn about physiology. Having done lots of long UT2 rows and run marathons / ultras over the 2 years before I returned to the rower in June last year I personally feel I get better bang for my buck rowing most of the 80% at closer to my lactate threshold (i.e. UT1 and AT). So I prefer to improve my ability to clear lactate rather than try and delay its onset as I don't feel I can improve my efficiency at lower heart rates by much. You on the other hand may benefit greatly from slow, steady rowing at UT2 to build your base fitness. It is important to be sure that you can recover from your training and stay motivated.

Determine your objectives, try and figure out where your strengths and weaknesses are, pick a plan and stick to it. Monitor your progress, if you are getting the desired results great, if not try another plan. There is no one size fits all and everyone is different.

Super link.

(Interesting point in there about maxing out one's HR. My 191 was done on the rower. The highest I've managed to get on the bike and the treadmill is 186, on both machines! And I've had 188 from climbing stairs.)

[Jules]

For many of us who are still in the honeymoon period I suppose it's quite difficult to tell which is better, because we're improving anyway. And then because of that improvement, the UT2, UT1 etc. bands shift along a bit in terms of /500m pace, maybe even before we realise it if we're not constantly keeping an eye on HR. I must admit that when picking up the Wolverine Plan I opted for a "standard" pace of 1:51 (one picks one's 2k PR /500m pace), despite never having gone that fast, because I'm still improving, it's my first real season and I didn't want to have to keep shifting my numbers along so much, especially for Level 4's sake. I just made the assumption that I could probably do it, or that I'd be able to do it in about a month. Yet still, much of the 16- and 18-spm work in Level 4 is UT2 for me, and that's a very large bulk of the metres. Perhaps half of my total Wolverine metres are done at either 16 or 18 spm. At 20 spm+, I'm entering the UT1 range...

Hi Daniel.

I agree it is difficult to determine which is better. I did do a little more reading on physiology and decided I would incorporate more UT2s into my routine. In fact, I have opted to do UT2 work for 2 out of 4 training days per week. What I am finding is the slower pace allows me to concentrate more on form and, at the end of the workout, I can definitely feel the difference in the large leg muscles. As such, I feel it has already been beneficial, even in this very short time.

As for the Wolverine Plan, I did try it. I had some difficulty selecting the correct pace. I think this is a function of the fact that, as a new rower with poor starting fitness, I have never done a "true" 2K. That is to say, I don't have the endurance yet to crank out 30 spm for almost 8 minutes with any real power. I have only done three 2ks so far and they averaged less than 25spm. Because I don't have a true 2k reading, I wasn't sure what pace to use. I started with the pace for my PB 2K, but when I tried "176s," for example, my heart rate never even got out of the 120s (which isn't even UT2 for me). In any event, I decided the Wolverine Plan wasn't for me at this point. Not because of this issue (I could have kept playing around with it until I figured out which pace got me into the right heart rate zones), but because the focus seems to be more on rowing as part of a crew (with heavy emphasis on controlling strokes per minute, target distances, etc.). I don't expect to ever row OTW or with a crew, so that apparent focus is less important to me.

That said, I have adopted some of the plan's general philosophy, such as slower pace work with longer, continuous effort (Level 4) should be the bulk of one's training. I also prefer the Wolverine Plan's approach of interspersing interval work into the routine every week or so over the interactive programme's split approach of mostly endurance work for the first 8 weeks and then mostly interval training / high heart rate work in the second half of the training period. As they say in the WP, "It is not possible to completely isolate and separate different aspects of physiology, training them separately and sequentially, expecting gains in one area to persist when moving on to another area. This would be analogous to expecting an infant to grow first by maturing its skeleton, then its muscles, and then its vital organs. In fact, their growths are interdependent and each must mature in conjunction with the others." That philosophy strongly resonates with me, and I have structured my weekly routine accordingly. Only time will tell if this approach will work for me. Right now, I am taking it on faith.

[DanielJ]

Great post.

I haven't yet done a 2k @ 30 spm either! 28-29, maybe. (Sorry, Henry!) (My plan for this evening's row is 6 x 1333m intervals, so I'll try that at higher rates and see how it goes.) But, yes, I think if we're still making rapid gains in terms of pace, a precisely prescribed Wolverine Plan might not be appropriate yet. But perhaps after a diet of Level 1, 2 and 3 stuff, maybe a million metres of it, as well as some (at least) weekly rows at controlled lower spm rates to get one adapted to it (technically, especially), one should then be sufficiently prepared to do the Wolverine Plan.

(Slight segue: I have parked the Wolverine Plan for the moment due to work commitments, but still I'm trying to keep the proportions more or less the same: in terms of metres and not including warm-ups, probably 40%-ish UT2, probably 40%-ish UT1, and the rest higher. We'll see how it goes.)

[jackarabit]

As a rower who has worn himself down on 44K per week and too much of that in AT and TR bands, I discovered that I can wear myself out on 200K per week and have little trouble staying in UT2 and even favoring the low end (120bpm in my case). The pace is of course dismally slow but the context of the C2 seasonal challenges places a premium on accumulated distance rowed. You don't go fast but you go pretty far, to paraphrase Melanie Safka. The problem of daily recovery is the same in either case.

Also possible to maintain a race or test-directed schedule and kick in only those training meters to the challenges. But if you want steady state in terms of stroke to stroke watts output and HR, there's nothing like a slomo endurance contest. I have no idea where the the greatest fitness or performance benefits lie altho I suspect that in the short term, I got more from the approach suggested by Rodney and Dennis. But then again, all about that base (volume). Yardage challenges a way to encourage or enforce the patience for LSD. Jack

[Jules]

Great post.

Thank you, Daniel.

I haven't yet done a 2k @ 30 spm either! 28-29, maybe. (Sorry, Henry!) (My plan for this evening's row is 6 x 1333m intervals, so I'll try that at higher rates and see how it goes.) But, yes, I think if we're still making rapid gains in terms of pace, a precisely prescribed Wolverine Plan might not be appropriate yet. But perhaps after a diet of Level 1, 2 and 3 stuff, maybe a million metres of it, as well as some (at least) weekly rows at controlled lower spm rates to get one adapted to it (technically, especially), one should then be sufficiently prepared to do the Wolverine Plan.

(Slight segue: I have parked the Wolverine Plan for the moment due to work commitments, but still I'm trying to keep the proportions more or less the same: in terms of metres and not including warm-ups, probably 40%-ish UT2, probably 40%-ish UT1, and the rest higher. We'll see how it goes.)

I saw this post in the training thread...

Today was a 6x1333m intervals, with 5:30 rests. It was my first honest try in a long time at upping the SPM, so again I was unsure of how to pace it. So I went 1:58.2, 1:58.2, 1:57.9, 1:58.3, 1:58.2... and 1:49.5 . After the first five I felt I might have had a 1:53-ish in me, but I managed to hold 32 spm for most of it, and then even push up to 34 and 35 in the last 100, so with that I was very happy. The intervals all felt like a genuinely good, honest workout, but I fear that managing to pull the pace down by 9 seconds in the last interval suggests the rest of the workout was a bit of a waste of time.

But these are the perils of being a novice, I suppose. Next time I'll shoot for 1:56.5 or so.

Well done! Sounds like you felt pretty solid at the higher spm. Congratulations!

I too attempted some intervals last night, with mixed success. I did a 4 X 1,000 with 5' rest. Times for the first two were pretty solid at 1:59.1 (23spm) and 1:57.2 (24spm). The second 1K was a personal best for me, but I had mixed emotions about it; it was a fly and die, with my form breaking down horribly in the last 100 meters (spm for that section actually hit 28). The good thing about it was I passed a mental barrier for me for the first time, hitting 10 watts per stroke during the row. The bad thing, in addition to pacing it all wrong, was I recognize I still need a lot of work on my form when I attempt to apply race power. I felt as though I was sliding too far forward on the recovery, which forced me to use my calf muscles too much on the drive, robbing me of power. I guess the positive there is I know I can improve my form greatly, which should result in better times.

As for the last two 1Ks, they were abysmal. I was gassed after the pb, even with 5 minutes rest (although my heart rate was back to twice rest pace with an active recovery). I simply had no power. The last two were done in 2:04.9 (23spm) and 2:07.3 (22spm). It was more like I did a 2 X 1,000 interval with a few 1ks thrown in at the end for the hell of it.

Ah, well. The lessons continue. You're signature says it all for me, too..."still very much on the steep side of the learning and improvement curves."

[Jules]

As a rower who has worn himself down on 44K per week and too much of that in AT and TR bands, I discovered that I can wear myself out on 200K per week and have little trouble staying in UT2 and even favoring the low end (120bpm in my case). The pace is of course dismally slow but the context of the C2 seasonal challenges places a premium on accumulated distance rowed. You don't go fast but you go pretty far, to paraphrase Melanie Safka. The problem of daily recovery is the same in either case.

Also possible to maintain a race or test-directed schedule and kick in only those training meters to the challenges. But if you want steady state in terms of stroke to stroke watts output and HR, there's nothing like a slomo endurance contest. I have no idea where the the greatest fitness or performance benefits lie altho I suspect that in the short term, I got more from the approach suggested by Rodney and Dennis. But then again, all about that base (volume). Yardage challenges a way to encourage or enforce the patience for LSD. Jack

Jack, do they run those challenges often? For some reason, I thought they ran it just once a year in January.

In any event, I think I would probably tap out at 80k or so per week with my full-time work schedule. The meters some of those folks put up are astounding to me. 200K would be very tough, especially for recovery. I suspect the challenges are as much mental as they are physical.

[jackarabit]

Jules, the C2 challenges without a stipulated minimum meters for completion are IIRC around 4 or 5 per calendar yr. I realize that the time commitment makes these an unlikely choice for those of us who must work a standard or additionally demanding work week and raise children. Not a good fit to your circumstances, I fear. Jack