Training Program For Long Beach Sprints And Crashb

[old] dougsurf · Post by **[old] dougsurf** » January 10th, 2006, 2:50 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(H_2O @ Jan 10 2006, 08:34 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Xeno's program has one 1500m or 2K as a race rehearsal. This wasn't it, I am creatively altering Xeno's program slightly. If you do the prerace rehearsal as a 2K you are supposed to be 6-8 secs slower on the whole 2K (1.5 - 2 secs slower on the splits but actually because you start very evenly and do not sprint to the finish). Myself I am using Mike Cavistons pacing protokol: First 800m: target split +1 next 600m: target split next 400m: target split -1 last 200m: target split -2 Being optimistic I'll try for 1:35 splits. This would have me do the segments in 1:36, 1:35, 1:34, 1:33. I have tested this succesfully on a 1200m piece (the last 1200 of a 2K) and get this acceleration by picking up the stroke rate by one stroke each time. The 1500 was supposed to be the finishing 1500 of the 2K also so pace should have been 1:36 for 300, 1:35 for 600, 1:34 for 400, 1:33 for 200. However I made the mistake of bypassing the 1:36 and going to 1:34 very quickly. That was a mistake as I was fighting for the pace pretty soon and was not able to accelerate as indicated. This shows that I definitely should not target a 1:34 split on the 2K. This way you can discover a realistic pace for the 2K. Mike Caviston's comment about NOT taking a few ("free") powerful strokes at the start is also really important. There are guys rowing 6:30 and hitting 1:25 at the start for a few strokes. If you look at the stroke graphs from BIRC you'll see that most guys row like that. Maybe this comes from on the water rowing where it's a huge advantage to see the competition. I used to do the same but have gotten rid of that habit and am doing much better now. </td></tr></table> H2O Thanks again for the interesting discussion. This plan is quite different from Mike's, but now I'm seeing enough test pieces to get confidence in where to pace myself. Still, it's really just in two pieces, the 1500 and the 2k. All the other single 1k's, 750's etc. would be too easy to overdo. I also happened to do a (pre-plan) test piece a week ago and barely held 1:37 for 1300m. Just a month ago I was able to hold 1:35 for 1250. I really tore myself up bad this time. Don't know if I can best 1:37 for the show. My 1500 will come up in a week and a half. Stay tuned. Starts are very interesting now. Xeno seems to favor something like a traditional boat race format: 1/2, 3/4, full, high 5, power 10, if I'm not mistaken. And I've read carefully what I could from Mike C on his negative splits which you've adopted. But I sure wish Mike would share some of the physiology he says is behind his approach. I understand the physics behind even splits. And that's closer to where I stand presently. Velocity squared chews up energy fast with large deviations. The only tuning I do from a flat profile is to get out ahead, but just a little. I don't blast away at 1:25 like those BIRC guys you mention. But after the first 2 or 3 tugs at much slower than pace, I'll hold maybe 1:35 or so for 5 or more strokes to get to an average that's say 1:36, and then settle into 1:37. For me the practical benefit is that my missed strokes tend to err on the slow side just enough to use up about a 1 sec reserve over the race. And, like seeing boats behind you, it's easier to be in "hold em" mode than "catch up", to me. I honestly tried Mike's approach a couple of times, but at the end, I never found that promised reserve and could not make up the big deficit. So that's me, but I'd still be open to suggestion if Mike or anyone put some physiology behind his method.

[old] rspenger · Post by **[old] rspenger** » January 10th, 2006, 3:31 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(dougsurf @ Jan 10 2006, 11:50 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>But I sure wish Mike would share some of the physiology he says is behind his approach. I understand the physics behind even splits. So that's me, but I'd still be open to suggestion if Mike or anyone put some physiology behind his method. </td></tr></table> If I remember correctly, Mike considered it to be psychological rather than physiological. In my own experience, starting out a second or 2 slower per split than race pace gives me more confidence that I wll have the reserve to go all out at the end of a 2k. I just did some checking in my own files to supplement my unreliable memory. I found the relevant file, "the Importance of Pacing," and I see that it is much more complex than that. It is a very thorough discussion of the three approaches: even splits, negative splits and fly/die. He recommends even splits as the theoretical ideal, but uses negative splits as a practical matter in the real world - like having a long wait between your warmup time and the actual race start. There is much more, of course. I have tried to add the document as an attachment; I hope that it works. regards, Bob S. [attachmentid=117]

[old] dougsurf · Post by **[old] dougsurf** » January 10th, 2006, 6:25 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(rspenger @ Jan 10 2006, 12:31 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> If I remember correctly, Mike considered it to be psychological rather than physiological. In my own experience, starting out a second or 2 slower per split than race pace gives me more confidence that I wll have the reserve to go all out at the end of a 2k. I just did some checking in my own files to supplement my unreliable memory. I found the relevant file, "the Importance of Pacing," and I see that it is much more complex than that. It is a very thorough discussion of the three approaches: even splits, negative splits and fly/die. He recommends even splits as the theoretical ideal, but uses negative splits as a practical matter in the real world - like having a long wait between your warmup time and the actual race start. There is much more, of course. I have tried to add the document as an attachment; I hope that it works. regards, Bob S. [attachmentid=117] </td></tr></table> Thanks Bob. I had read that chapter in the Caviston Chronicals which I've been copying over myself. It is excellent, as all of Mike's writing is. But even that left me hungry for more physiology. Too much cool down makes sense. But I've heard counter arguments about bringing up the HR faster up front that make sense too. He certainly leaves wiggle room, and doesn't really deviate much from a flat profile in his ideal scenario. It is truly novice to just pull as hard as you can the whole time, resulting in obvious fly-n-die. But I'm thinking that the allowable deviation, either way, from the mechanically ideal flat profile, is narrow enough that psychology and personal preference may dominate. But on a different note, in the real real world of rowing competition, (see that chapter in "Rowing Faster") why is it that virtually every race out there on the water starts off hard 'n furious, then settles for the middle, and hopes for a sprint? I find it hard to belived that at the Olympic level the high 5 and power 10 or 20 up front is a universal mistake. Xeno?

[old] rspenger · Post by **[old] rspenger** » January 10th, 2006, 9:47 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(dougsurf @ Jan 10 2006, 03:25 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>But on a different note, in the real real world of rowing competition, (see that chapter in "Rowing Faster") why is it that virtually every race out there on the water starts off hard 'n furious, then settles for the middle, and hopes for a sprint? I find it hard to belived that at the Olympic level the high 5 and power 10 or 20 up front is a universal mistake. Xeno? </td></tr></table> My own feeling on this is that, on the water, the psychological advantge of getting an early lead is important. Perhaps there is some advantage in an erg race as well, but I haven't experienced it myself. I was all alone in my category at the Beach Sprints and the at EIRC last year and even at Boston, there were only 5 of us, with a lot of other little boats on the screen from other categories. I just ignore them entirely and try to row negative splits, starting with just a bit over my goal pace. That was the advice that I got from a fellow LBRA member. When you are racing against yourself, there is no meaning to an early lead. On the water, I have very little single scull race experience, but in a crew, the early lead was always a psychological boost. But then, gradually creeping up, seat by seat, on another boat is even a better boost. regards, Bob S.

[old] Roland Baltutis · Post by **[old] Roland Baltutis** » January 10th, 2006, 10:57 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(dougsurf @ Jan 10 2006, 05:25 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>But on a different note, in the real real world of rowing competition, (see that chapter in "Rowing Faster") why is it that virtually every race out there on the water starts off hard 'n furious, then settles for the middle, and hopes for a sprint? I find it hard to belived that at the Olympic level the high 5 and power 10 or 20 up front is a universal mistake. Xeno? </td></tr></table> The majority of Olympic rowing gold medals have been won by the crew in front at the 500m mark. On the water it is always an advantage to be in front because you can see what the other crews are doing. You can sit on them and allow them to determine the pace, hear their calls for an effort and respond accordingly, and view their technical form to see if it faulters due to tiredness. Also, if you are in front there is no boat wash upsetting your balance. It's different on the erg because you are erging and not rowing(trying to move a stationary flywheel rather than a boat over water). The monitor will tell you how far the next person is behind but you don't get to see them erging, unless they are next to you. In that way you don't have the benefit of a valuable sense like you do on the water. It's harder to get a feel for the race on the erg so you need to rely on people in the crowd yelling and screaming at you. So in most cases it is safer to erg at constant splits and just hope you have enough left at the end to put in an effort, if required. Rockin Roland

[old] remador · Post by **[old] remador** » January 11th, 2006, 10:45 am

Roland Baltutis wrote: <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>The majority of Olympic rowing gold medals have been won by the crew in front at the 500m mark. On the water it is always an advantage to be in front because you can see what the other crews are doing. You can sit on them and allow them to determine the pace, hear their calls for an effort and respond accordingly, and view their technical form to see if it faulters due to tiredness. Also, if you are in front there is no boat wash upsetting your balance. </td></tr></table> In fact, although there is a whole lot of different racing strategies, in most of the great races we see this happening. This doesn't mean that there are no other interesting strategies, depending on the rowers' characteristics. For example, Pertti Karpinnen, the northern Europe monster who dominated the single-scull scene for 3 olympic events, allways came up from the bottom of the race to the frontline at its end. Olaf Tufte, the 1x champion nowadays, also says that we prefers to be ahead of the race by its end than by its start. Of course, to even think this way at an olympic level, you must be enormously confident and - it's the same, if you're not insane - an enormous beast... BTW, when I look to Xeno's training plan, only one word occurs to me: wisdom. AM

[old] Xeno · Post by **[old] Xeno** » January 11th, 2006, 3:59 pm

Hi, On the ergo you have immediate feedback what your pace is. This is not the case in racing on the water. On the water it was by feel and race experience. On the ergo you aware of every split time and second you pull. So this is how I personally row a 2K. First I determine what I am capable of for 2k, by rowing a few race pace 1000 and 500m, and past ability and my current endurance ability for steady state. In 2004 I pushed 5:53 In 2005 6:02 ( I believe) For the sake of simplicity I will show the race plan for a 6:00 2K First eighteen strokes bring the average per 500 meters down to 1:27ish without overdoing it and using adrenaline. Be very carful not to be blinded by adrenaline, if you do that mistake you explode somwhere between 1200m and 800 meters to go. After the first 18 strokes find your race pace, which DOES not have to be 1:30, you have a head start because of the start. So I would push 130-131 occasionaly seeing 1:32. I am carfully monitoring the total average split per 500. So slowly the "start-lead" fizzels down to a total average of 1:30. This occured to me at 900 meters to go. So now it is down to buisness. I couldn't immediately adjust to maintaining 1:30 constant overall average so I lost in overall average 0.4 seconds bringing it to 1:30.4. The further you go into the piece the less the total average per 500 meters fluctuates! Once I find the pace at exactly and consistantly 1:30 I am at roughly 650 meters to go. Cool I see the end of the tunnel, yeah! I also do not feel totally tired either because I chose the right pace and only had to row the 1:30 for roughly 500 meters. So by the time I hit 350 meters to go I sprint because I know it is roughly thirty stroke. That is psycho babble of coursem, because it is going to be more like 38 strokes, but who cares about an extra 8 strokes when you only have 50 meters left. Believe me, when the sprint is set up right, for the remaining 350 meters, YOU CAN DROP YOUR OVERALL AVERGE by 0.5 seconds or even 0.8. I hope this helps. I realize that this is different from negative splitting. I am NOT a negative splitter. We should have a get together at the IRON OARSMAN one day and eat at the outback stake house down the street. XENO

[old] dougsurf · Post by **[old] dougsurf** » January 11th, 2006, 5:08 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Xeno @ Jan 11 2006, 12:59 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Hi, On the ergo you have immediate feedback what your pace is. This is not the case in racing on the water. On the water it was by feel and race experience. On the ergo you aware of every split time and second you pull. So this is how I personally row a 2K. First I determine what I am capable of for 2k, by rowing a few race pace 1000 and 500m, and past ability and my current endurance ability for steady state. In 2004 I pushed 5:53 In 2005 6:02 ( I believe) For the sake of simplicity I will show the race plan for a 6:00 2K First eighteen strokes bring the average per 500 meters down to 1:27ish without overdoing it and using adrenaline. Be very carful not to be blinded by adrenaline, if you do that mistake you explode somwhere between 1200m and 800 meters to go. After the first 18 strokes find your race pace, which DOES not have to be 1:30, you have a head start because of the start. So I would push 130-131 occasionaly seeing 1:32. I am carfully monitoring the total average split per 500. So slowly the "start-lead" fizzels down to a total average of 1:30. This occured to me at 900 meters to go. So now it is down to buisness. I couldn't immediately adjust to maintaining 1:30 constant overall average so I lost in overall average 0.4 seconds bringing it to 1:30.4. The further you go into the piece the less the total average per 500 meters fluctuates! Once I find the pace at exactly and consistantly 1:30 I am at roughly 650 meters to go. Cool I see the end of the tunnel, yeah! I also do not feel totally tired either because I chose the right pace and only had to row the 1:30 for roughly 500 meters. So by the time I hit 350 meters to go I sprint because I know it is roughly thirty stroke. That is psycho babble of coursem, because it is going to be more like 38 strokes, but who cares about an extra 8 strokes when you only have 50 meters left. Believe me, when the sprint is set up right, for the remaining 350 meters, YOU CAN DROP YOUR OVERALL AVERGE by 0.5 seconds or even 0.8. I hope this helps. I realize that this is different from negative splitting. I am NOT a negative splitter. We should have a get together at the IRON OARSMAN one day and eat at the outback stake house down the street. XENO </td></tr></table> Excellent stuff! Thanks a million. If anyone noticed an above post of mine, I race almost exactly the same way. A lot of other discussion was pursuading me to consider more negative splits, but this approach works for me very well. With Xeno's encouragement here, I think I'll stick with it.

[old] dougsurf · Post by **[old] dougsurf** » January 22nd, 2006, 5:00 pm

How do I best interpret the "test pieces" of this plan? As I mentioned earlier, I am two weeks ahead of everyone, since I am using this plan to prepare/recover for a local erg race. Hopefully it is of some interest for those looking ahead. So, this weekend I completed my own "Longbeach Test" in which I completed a 1500m test piece at my goal pace for the upcoming competition in three weeks. I think my goal pace is in the ballpark, since I was able to do the 1500m at all, and with a 0.2 split second margin. But I really had to use everything I had to do so, with the last 20 strokes being near death experiences at a much faster sprint pace. The other race pace workouts are easy at this pace since they are so short. So, is mere survival at 1500 an adequate measure of appropriate race pace, or is some further measure of "gas left in the tank" highly advised? Thanks again, Doug

[old] H_2O · Post by **[old] H_2O** » January 22nd, 2006, 5:13 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(dougsurf @ Jan 22 2006, 04:00 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> So, is mere survival at 1500 an adequate measure of appropriate race pace, or is some further measure of "gas left in the tank" highly advised? </td></tr></table> I would definitely try your 1500m pace at the race. Don't forget that the near max 1500 actually makes you faster. Next time you will already be faster. Today I did my prerace test (race is next week on Sunday) by pulling to 1700m splitting 1:35.3 and it was much easier than the 1500 splitting 1:34.7 some time ago. Something that has always worked very well for me is Hagerman's warmup: easy for some time, then 6 mins at 5K pace (say 1:43 if you plan a 6:30 2K), then 15 mins recovery pace. The 5K pace seems fast for a warmup but the point is that you want to produce lactate. I have done this several times already and it has always worked for me.

[old] dougsurf · Post by **[old] dougsurf** » January 24th, 2006, 11:59 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(H_2O @ Jan 22 2006, 02:13 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(dougsurf @ Jan 22 2006, 04:00 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> So, is mere survival at 1500 an adequate measure of appropriate race pace, or is some further measure of "gas left in the tank" highly advised? </td></tr></table> I would definitely try your 1500m pace at the race. Don't forget that the near max 1500 actually makes you faster. Next time you will already be faster. Today I did my prerace test (race is next week on Sunday) by pulling to 1700m splitting 1:35.3 and it was much easier than the 1500 splitting 1:34.7 some time ago. Something that has always worked very well for me is Hagerman's warmup: easy for some time, then 6 mins at 5K pace (say 1:43 if you plan a 6:30 2K), then 15 mins recovery pace. The 5K pace seems fast for a warmup but the point is that you want to produce lactate. I have done this several times already and it has always worked for me. </td></tr></table> Thanks H2. Right answer! (I hope) It's been great having your testamony to how this plan worked you out of a similar slump to mine. Not sure I'd have the guts to jump plans mid-stream like I did without it. But I think I'm seeing some results already. Really sounds like you're doing awesomely. Great luck on your race next week. Look forward to hearing how you did. I'll have to dig through my Hagerman records. I don't recall seeing his warm up prescription. I've always been serious about warming up. Usually for a good half hour alone. But I've never pushed it quite this far, nor understood that lots of lactate in the warmup, beyond 10 or 20 hard strokes, was a good thing. Could you elaborate a bit? Thanks, Doug

[old] H_2O · Post by **[old] H_2O** » January 25th, 2006, 5:28 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(dougsurf @ Jan 24 2006, 10:59 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> I'll have to dig through my Hagerman records. I don't recall seeing his warm up prescription. I've always been serious about warming up. Usually for a good half hour alone. But I've never pushed it quite this far, nor understood that lots of lactate in the warmup, beyond 10 or 20 hard strokes, was a good thing. Could you elaborate a bit? Thanks, Doug </td></tr></table> I read a paper by Hagerman where he reports the findings of his experiments but does not elaborate on the physiological reasons. On e of the findings was that time to exhaustion (I believe at 2K pace) was significantly increased. In the paper the prescription was "6 mins of lactate producing pace followed by 12 mins of rest". I then emailed him asking for clarification of "lactate producing pace" andreceived the answer that it should be 5K pace and that he now felt the rest could be 15 mins. I think that 6 mins of 5K pace produces just a little lactate. Myself I play it by feel and sometimes go a little faster than 5K pace and have taken rests (partially active) of up to 20 mins. I have discussed this on a running board and one guy stated that it was possibly the activation of enzymes dealing with lactate that provides the benefit.

[old] dougsurf · Post by **[old] dougsurf** » January 25th, 2006, 8:58 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(H_2O @ Jan 25 2006, 02:28 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(dougsurf @ Jan 24 2006, 10:59 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> I'll have to dig through my Hagerman records. I don't recall seeing his warm up prescription. I've always been serious about warming up. Usually for a good half hour alone. But I've never pushed it quite this far, nor understood that lots of lactate in the warmup, beyond 10 or 20 hard strokes, was a good thing. Could you elaborate a bit? Thanks, Doug </td></tr></table> I read a paper by Hagerman where he reports the findings of his experiments but does not elaborate on the physiological reasons. On e of the findings was that time to exhaustion (I believe at 2K pace) was significantly increased. In the paper the prescription was "6 mins of lactate producing pace followed by 12 mins of rest". I then emailed him asking for clarification of "lactate producing pace" andreceived the answer that it should be 5K pace and that he now felt the rest could be 15 mins. I think that 6 mins of 5K pace produces just a little lactate. Myself I play it by feel and sometimes go a little faster than 5K pace and have taken rests (partially active) of up to 20 mins. I have discussed this on a running board and one guy stated that it was possibly the activation of enzymes dealing with lactate that provides the benefit. </td></tr></table> Amazing. More and more it seems the way to avoid killing yourself in a race is to kill yourself just before the race. Will give it a go some prudent time.

[old] TomR/the elder · Post by **[old] TomR/the elder** » January 25th, 2006, 9:22 pm

Guys-- Not an expert, but .. . Regarding lactate during warm-up, somewhere I have read that it causes the capillaries to open up, thereby ensuring that you're getting blood deep into the muscle when you start the race. I also think I read that if your warm-up is challenging enough to cause some lactate in the muscles, you ensure that your heart is pumping full volume per stroke when the race begins. (Stroke volume may not be related to lactate, just a good, extended warm-up.) I might have read this on the Wolverine Thread. You could re-read what Mike says about warm-up there. He discusses warm-ups fully. Tom

[old] H_2O · Post by **[old] H_2O** » January 29th, 2006, 5:31 pm

The Austrian IRC took place today and I raced in the 40-49 age group. I took second in 6:20.7. It was a good competition as the winner in my age group pulled 6:08.8 and third place was 6:25. The winner is a truly outstanding athlete as he is at most 6 feet tall. It is a pity I could not watch him row. The company was also quite illustrious as one of the participants was a multiple world champion in the lightweight single scull. The lightweights had to compete with the heavyweights in all Masters divisions. I completely credit Xeno's plan for my time. Just before he published his plan I was in such dreadful shape that I seriously thought about not taking part in the competition, unsure wether I would be able to go under 6:30. I am now hooked on this approach to training and will stick with it. Thanks Xeno!