Relationship Of Work Volume To Potential Fitness

[[old] MarcusLL]

A question I'm suprised doesn't seem to be asked more often is is there a rough limit to the level of aerobic fitness that can be reached given a certain volume of weekly training? I get the impression that in running this is kind of taken for granted, I seem to remember a rule of thumb that doubling your weekly mileage would leverage you the potential to run about 10% faster.<br /><br />Very obviously much depends on the intensity of your training, things are going to vary depending on your own genetic potential, and the more you train the more likely you are to get injured - but all that aside, would you imagine a similar rule of thumb applies to rowing?<br /><br />I ask because my fitness or lack thereof seems to have remained almost exactly the same over the last 18 months or so, and I'm beginning to wonder if this is just as far as I personally can get on 40k/week, which is what I've averaged since I first started about 3 and half years ago. <br /><br />On the other hand I notice the Stop The Madness plan only involves this volume of rowing, and guys like Graham Benton and Nic Fleming sound like they don't do more than 5 or 6 hours a week?

[[old] jamesg]

This would need a reliable measure of "absolute fitness" if such a thing exists, and comparison with differing work-out levels, presumably over many years.<br />My personal measurement is the time of HR drop from say 150 to 120 after stopping work. It drops as fast as ever, if not faster; however I go slower, so I'm afraid other effects, not least the march of time, tend to cancel any improvement due to training.<br /><br />For rowing, the muscular load seems to be so high that CV capacity governs performance, for any given technical ability. So I'd say that if we want to row faster, let's row better, more relaxed and efficiently. Doing it enough will take care of CV fitness anyway. After all the fun is in the doing as A said to B.

[[old] jfisher]

<!--QuoteBegin-MarcusLL+May 23 2005, 07:52 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(MarcusLL @ May 23 2005, 07:52 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I ask because my fitness or lack thereof seems to have remained almost exactly the same over the last 18 months or so, and I'm beginning to wonder if this is just as far as I personally can get on 40k/week, which is what I've averaged since I first started about 3 and half years ago.  <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />How do you test your fitness? What type of work are you doing in those 40K/wk sessions? What are you fitness goals, just get in good shape or compete?<br /><br />A few things:<br />1. The 80/20 rule and the law of diminishing returns - You'll spend 80% of your time trying to gain the last 20% of your fitness. And past a certain point the more you train the lower the gains you get from that training.<br /><br />2. The body responds to stress by getting stronger. If the stress is not varied or increased, then no more gains will be made.<br /><br />3. You need a big aerobic base to get to your highest peak fitness.<br /><br />4. Nobody keeps peak fitness continually.<br /><br />5. Your body only understands intensity for a duration. It doesn't understand distance.<br /><br />At the very least you should alternate between longer and shorter workouts. You may already be doing this, you didn't say. Don't just row the same distance and pace each day. A 1 hour row at just below AT and then no row the next day would be better than 30 minute rows at a low hr for both days.<br /><br />Row at your AT or close to it to get the most gains. This is pretty painful, but it creates the stress your body will need to adapt and increase your fitness. Then rest and recover.<br /><br />By varying your time and intensity levels you should get some good results.<br /><br />Jeff<br />

[[old] akit110]

<!--QuoteBegin-MarcusLL+May 23 2005, 07:52 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(MarcusLL @ May 23 2005, 07:52 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->A question I'm suprised doesn't seem to be asked more often is is there a rough limit to the level of aerobic fitness that can be reached given a certain volume of weekly training?  I get the impression that in running this is kind of taken for granted, I seem to remember a rule of thumb that doubling your weekly mileage would leverage you the potential to run about 10% faster.<br /><br />Very obviously much depends on the intensity of your training, things are going to vary depending on your own genetic potential, and the more you train the more likely you are to get injured - but all that aside, would you imagine a similar rule of thumb applies to rowing?<br /><br />I ask because my fitness or lack thereof seems to have remained almost exactly the same over the last 18 months or so, and I'm beginning to wonder if this is just as far as I personally can get on 40k/week, which is what I've averaged since I first started about 3 and half years ago.  <br /><br />On the other hand I notice the Stop The Madness plan only involves this volume of rowing, and guys like Graham Benton and Nic Fleming sound like they don't do more than 5 or 6 hours a week? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Interesting question. I have been wondering the same thing recently. I started erging back in the beginning of Feb and my times for the most part are not on average any faster than they were say a couple of weeks into training (though I was reasonably fit to begin with and had rowed in the past). <br /><br />My volume has dropped from 5-6x/week to 3-4x/week due to personal factors (new baby in the house). And I tend to be more strict in terms of form (e.g. shins vertical, controlled recovery, flat foot on drive, less upper body, lower damper etc). In fact, I set a couple of (unplanned) PBs in March and April in the 10K and 5K respectively, but they seem almost like anomalies now. I am sort of surprised I didn't see any significant increases in average speed on my normal training rows that I thought I would be seeing by now.<br /><br /><br />

[[old] Mike Caviston]

Well, I have a very clear picture of what volume of training I need to reach certain levels of performance. I’ve mapped it out over the last 10-15 years. My optimal volume is around 180K per week. 200K per week doesn’t show any improvement and begins to show signs of decreased performance. 160K per week has given good performances but less consistent, so I feel more comfortable with 180K. (I generally start a new training season at around 120K and gradually build up over several weeks.) With as little as 120K I could still race within about 8 seconds of my full (180K) potential, though weight management is more difficult (at 180K per week I can make the lightweight cutoff with only minimal adjustments to my normal diet).<br /><br />But all of this only makes sense within the context of my own particular training program. For a typical week, my meters break down to roughly 17% warm-up, 3% Level 1, 7% Level 2, 23% Level 3, and 50% Level 4 (using Wolverine Plan terminology). The paces for each training band are appropriate for the stage of the season in which I am training. The overall pace for a week may be something like 1:52, but that is averaged from a range of paces that may go from 1:34 to 1:59. This is certainly not the same thing as rowing 180K at a steady pace of 1:52. <br /><br />The short answer to the original question is, certainly there is a ceiling effect for a given volume of training. Increasing the intensity of a given volume will induce further improvements, but of course there will be physiological and psychological barriers for intensity as well. So still further improvements will require more volume. The trick (for the individual with enough time to train and the will to maximize performance) is to find just the right combination of volume and intensity before pushing things too far.<br /><br />Mike Caviston<br />

[[old] Jim Barry]

I'm certainly no one producing great times, but I do log everything I do and create some metrics around it. I have a training budget that allows about 50k to 70k per week when I'm dedicated to rowing. I've gone through 5 training periods in the last 5 years and there is just one "great period" when I set just about all my PB's. At the end of the period I was steady at 50k per week, but had grown my average weekly pace from 2:06 to a 2:00 pace. (about the pace I do an hour test row). My commitments do not really allow a volume knob, so I basically turn the intensity one. A few times I've actually done well on 70k per week too and enjoyed to easier paces. But I have yet to ALSO put in the hard sessions AND the relatively larger volume. Maybe I'm just lazy. I do see myself there one day. 70k and 1:58 avg pace would be a good way to phase my training goals at this point. I still see it as a challenge to get back to 50k and 2:00 pace. It is not something I can just jump into.<br /> <br />I've experimented with intensity only and dropped the easier distance rows. It was remarkably good rowing (relatively) for just 15k/week, but ultimately not sustainable psychologically. I think I put it best here when I posted the concluding workout: "You can only yell "Charge!" for so long, before it is meaningless" <br /><br /><br />--Jim<br /><br />