Thank you for this! I do 2*60 a week with target BPM of 131 and have been tracking my sessions by 1) ignoring the first 10 mins 2) taking the workout pace average and heart rate average after this and then translating to a ratio. I'm two months in and am not seeing much improvement after an initial increase fron 2'30 > 2'20 pace but now I understand it's a long game!
I would suggest ignoring the HR data. It's not going to be an effective tool when used in this manner. So long as you keep your spm at 18 or lower, your drag 10 or more less than your ideal 2k race drag, balance your hard days and easy days, and keep the average volume for each session around half of your capacity, you can work quite hard and the improvement will come slow and steady.
@@TravisGardner Thanks Travis. I watched your video on UT1 today and will start ensuring that some of the non-UT2 work in the week is done at UT1. This tends to be the 'speed endurance' intervals I do. So my week of 4 sessions breaks down into 2 * UT2, 1 * UT1 - typically 4 x 2k / 5 * 1500m etc - and 1 * speed intervals such as 8 * 500. I'm not trying to break any records except my own, and find this is a nice way to keep things varied and interesting. Thanks again for all the videos!
So helpful. Looking forward to part 2! I am wondering if an athlete sets a UT2 target of, say, 1:54 like in your video, how long to stay at that level (with the normal scatter-plot workout-to-workout variability that you demonstrate) before "upping" the target to 1:52? Stay at a plateau for a week, a month, more? I would guess the answer will be in video 2 from what you are describing. Thank you, coach Travis.
I will talk about that in part 2, but in short targeting a split is the problem. You should target the effort. With consistent effort over time, the split will decrease.
Are there UT# workouts where # > 2? If so, is there a video where you discuss these types of workouts and when they are appropriate? So far I've only encountered UT1 and UT2.
Long slow distance (conversation pace) would roughly be a UT3. You could probably consider active recovery to be UT4. I would just call those LSD and AR though.
I have watched a number of your videos. A thing I find difficult to having the big picture that is in your mind is that videos talk about UT1, UT2, AT, etc. but even at this stage I couldn’t say what "UT" stands for and, secondly, it is hard to understand all of the ‘zones’ and how they compare and relate to one another. I piece together that UT1 is a greater effort than UT2 and AT is greater than either of these. But I don’t have a picture of what all the categories are, including oxygen transport. Zone 1 - 5 is quite simple to understand, comparatively. I think it detracts a bit to develop a custom nomenclature and talk so often about ‘UT’ and ‘AT’ and not at least state or refer to a video that discusses all of the categories and what the abbreviations stand for. Sincerely providing constructive feedback.
![UNDERSTANDING UT1 STEADY STATE [FOR ROWING] and How to Execute a UT1 Training Session](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/gaZudbfGjmQ/mqdefault.jpg)
The TH-cam algorithm knows I needed to hear this. Thanks!!
Thank you for this! I do 2*60 a week with target BPM of 131 and have been tracking my sessions by 1) ignoring the first 10 mins 2) taking the workout pace average and heart rate average after this and then translating to a ratio. I'm two months in and am not seeing much improvement after an initial increase fron 2'30 > 2'20 pace but now I understand it's a long game!
I would suggest ignoring the HR data. It's not going to be an effective tool when used in this manner. So long as you keep your spm at 18 or lower, your drag 10 or more less than your ideal 2k race drag, balance your hard days and easy days, and keep the average volume for each session around half of your capacity, you can work quite hard and the improvement will come slow and steady.
@@TravisGardner Thanks Travis. I watched your video on UT1 today and will start ensuring that some of the non-UT2 work in the week is done at UT1. This tends to be the 'speed endurance' intervals I do. So my week of 4 sessions breaks down into 2 * UT2, 1 * UT1 - typically 4 x 2k / 5 * 1500m etc - and 1 * speed intervals such as 8 * 500. I'm not trying to break any records except my own, and find this is a nice way to keep things varied and interesting. Thanks again for all the videos!
So helpful. Looking forward to part 2! I am wondering if an athlete sets a UT2 target of, say, 1:54 like in your video, how long to stay at that level (with the normal scatter-plot workout-to-workout variability that you demonstrate) before "upping" the target to 1:52? Stay at a plateau for a week, a month, more? I would guess the answer will be in video 2 from what you are describing. Thank you, coach Travis.
I will talk about that in part 2, but in short targeting a split is the problem. You should target the effort. With consistent effort over time, the split will decrease.
Are there UT# workouts where # > 2? If so, is there a video where you discuss these types of workouts and when they are appropriate? So far I've only encountered UT1 and UT2.
Long slow distance (conversation pace) would roughly be a UT3. You could probably consider active recovery to be UT4. I would just call those LSD and AR though.
I have watched a number of your videos. A thing I find difficult to having the big picture that is in your mind is that videos talk about UT1, UT2, AT, etc. but even at this stage I couldn’t say what "UT" stands for and, secondly, it is hard to understand all of the ‘zones’ and how they compare and relate to one another. I piece together that UT1 is a greater effort than UT2 and AT is greater than either of these. But I don’t have a picture of what all the categories are, including oxygen transport.
Zone 1 - 5 is quite simple to understand, comparatively. I think it detracts a bit to develop a custom nomenclature and talk so often about ‘UT’ and ‘AT’ and not at least state or refer to a video that discusses all of the categories and what the abbreviations stand for.
Sincerely providing constructive feedback.