Anaerobic Threshold Training Frequency

[sentinal93]

I'm in the process of creating a training schedule, and have been looking at training bands. Specifically, I'm unsure as to how many Anaerobic Threshold workouts per week I should perform. I'm hoping to do 7 or 8 sessions per week at the beginning, and maybe even 9 or 10 in the two or three months leading to competition.

If I've reviewed it correctly, the Wolverine plan's Level 1 workouts are the Anaerobic Threshold workouts. In the writeup of the wolverine plan, Mike Caviston states that in an 10-11 sessions-per-week plan, he included only one level 1 workout. Is one AT workout per week sufficient, or should more be included?

[ranger]

That depends on your goals and where you are in your training.

With respect to the Wolverine Plan, _gains_ in your 2K time come from levels 4 and 3; "re-gains" from levels 2 and 1.

Use levels 4 and 3 to build a new training base; use levels 2 and 1 to sharpen that base up before racing.

ranger

[sentinal93]

I'm planning on training for CRASH-Bs, and I intend to get back into erging 'full-time' in July. So that means from July until November I'd be in a pre-competitive period, and from November until February I'd be in an early competitive period.

Would it be necessary to include AT training before November? After that, maybe one or two AT sessions a week would suffice?

[TomR]

There seem to be two schools of thought on including faster workouts early--yes and no.

The Wolverine Plan includes either a level 1 (race pace) or level 2 (5k pace) workout every week early in the season. As race seasons gets closer, the WP includes both a L1 and a L2. The training follows a linear progression.

Other plans focus first on building a base and then getting ready to race. They tend toward 3- or 4-week cycles. Many tend to include more than 2 fast workouts per week as race season approaches.

Unless you are a world class rower, it doesn't matter what training plan you follow. Pick a plan. Be consistent. The difference in the result you get following Plan a versus Plan b will be inconsequential. Your performance will simply depend on how disciplined you were while training.

Ignore ranger. His explanations of training plans are no more than inadvertent comedy.

[ranger]

I'm planning on training for CRASH-Bs, and I intend to get back into erging 'full-time' in July. So that means from July until November I'd be in a pre-competitive period, and from November until February I'd be in an early competitive period.

Would it be necessary to include AT training before November? After that, maybe one or two AT sessions a week would suffice?

If you want _gains_, increase the number of level 4 and level 3 sessions.

If you just want to _re-gain_ some level that you have already reached, increase the number of level 2 and 1 sessions.

In sum, this:

_Gains_ don't come from level 2 and level 1.

Rowing is technical, the 2K is 85% aerobic; and everyone gets about the same benefit from a couple of months of sharpening (rowing at levels 2 and 1).

Rowing is all about effectiveness (level 4) and efficiency (level 3), both technical and physiological.

Your 2K is only as good as your 60min row.

60min is done at 2k + 10.

ranger

[sentinal93]

If you want _gains_, increase the number of level 4 and level 3 sessions.
If you just want to _re-gain_ some level that you have already reached, increase the number of level 2 and 1 sessions.

When you talking about "re-gaining" some level, are you saying that level 1 and 2 workouts only get you to a level at which you already where? Additionally, are you saying that level 3 and 4 are the only workouts that will let you reach beyond previous maximums? So, if I'm currently out of shape, are you suggesting that I should perform level 1 and 2 until I've reached my previous maximum level, and then switch to level 3 and 4?

Your 2K is only as good as your 60min row.
60min is done at 2k + 10.

I do agree that long distance pieces are important, but why do you choose the 60 minute piece? Also, where did you get your formula from?

[Carl Watts]

This lines up perfectly with my results for PB's

60min is 1:56 pace and my 2K is 1:46 pace.

See....

http://www.freespiritsrowing.com/conten ... -predictor

[bloomp]

This lines up perfectly with my results for PB's

60min is 1:56 pace and my 2K is 1:46 pace.

See....

http://www.freespiritsrowing.com/conten ... -predictor

Yeah but you still haven't tried a 2k at 28spm or higher! You would be a lot faster if you did...

To Sentinal93:
The WP works that way because intervals on top of the distance work makes for very exhausted athletes. It is difficult to recover from multiple all out interval sessions in one week - especially when you have 7-9 other sessions of erging on top of that. Going all-out for a 4x1k is very demanding on your body, and the results are only better in the short term. You have 9 months until the B's, take your time with a lot of L4/L3. Keep the rating low on the L4 (16-20) and try to hold 24spm on the L3 pieces.

And there is a HUGE difference between L1 and L2. L1 is going to make you suffer as much as a 2k test. L2 is done at about 5k pace, maybe 5k-2 if you are pushing it. But you won't be able to complete 5x1500m if you are suffering as much as you are in 4x1k. Trust me, one of each per week is well enough.

[Carl Watts]

Cheers for that, my 2K PB was at only 24 SPM so I do need to rate up. Finished the 62min the other day with a few strokes at 1:30.

Looking good for a 2:00ave/500M or better first ever HM on Monday at 05:00 GMT on RowPro if anyone wants to join me. Any final result is going to be a PB !

Yes the problem is fitting in the PB's with your regular training as well, am usually wasted after a PB it takes me out for days. The 10K late last season for example was a bad one, I needed 5 days to recover fully so really wouldn't recommend one more than once a month for someone at my current level of fitness.

[JohnBove]

As has already been suggested, ignore "Ranger," and anything he advises.

[jamesg]

Rowing is technical, the 2K is 85% aerobic; and everyone gets about the same benefit from a couple of months of sharpening (rowing at levels 2 and 1). Rowing is all about effectiveness (level 4) and efficiency (level 3), both technical and physiological.

What's wrong with this? Got me plenty of medals when I bothered to race, together with an Interactive.

What should be said is that a 10' L4 at 18-20-18-20-18 is different to 22-24- etc.

Maybe an Interactive would be easier to follow, if we can't do 11 Wos/week:
http://concept2.co.uk/training/interactive

[ranger]

I do agree that long distance pieces are important, but why do you choose the 60 minute piece?

No special reason, other than experience and convenience.

Do more or less if you would like, but an hour of rowing (running, swimming, etc.) is a good bit of exercise without being too drawn out or time-consuming.

Therefore, I think it is a good norm for a session.

60min is long enough to be flexibly performed in a variety of ways, long enough to let you warm up gradually and naturally, long enough to let you hit your most natural and relaxed rowing for quite a while, long enough to build endurance and encourage good technical habits, and long enough still for you to work as hard as you want near the end.

Across a 60min piece, if you just relax and let your body do the rest, I think you will find your pace slowly picking up, just naturally, without any special effort, perhaps as much as 10 seconds per 500m by the end.

For instance, you might begin a 60min piece at 2K + 18 and end at 2K + 8, perhaps for as long as a couple of Ks.

The "forumulas" I am using to predict 2K results from distance rows are just general rules of thumb, statistically supported in many ways, I think, but not true for everyone, especially those with skewed training of various sorts or those with specialized abilities and interests.

FM is done at 2K + 14.
HM is done at 2K + 11.
60min is done at 2K + 10.
10K is done at 2K + 8.
30min is done at 2K + 7.
6K is done at 2K + 6.
5K is done at 2K + 5.

Yes, I am exactly suggesting that you only _gain_ time over 2K, relative to some pb, by improving your Level 4 and Level 3 rowing, which work on effectiveness and efficiency over long distances, establishing a technical and physiological training base that you can then bring up to speed with Level 2 and Level 1 training.

If you have established pbs, you are not going to get better by doing a lot of Level 2 and Level 1 workouts.

To get better, you need to improve your base.

It is a pretty odd situation, but in rowing, you don't need to row fast in order to get _very_ good over 2K, and those that do a lot of fast rowing, in the end, become bad.

You also don't need to row fast in order to know, pretty much, what you can do for 2K once you sharpen up your base.

Just do a distance trial or two and use the formulas above.

If you don't like what the formulas predict for 2K, keep working on your base until you do.

On the other hand, when you are pleased with what you are doing with your basic training, switch gears and put the pedal to the metal.

Sharpen up (with a lot of level 2 and level 1 training) and then race.

Usually 2-3 months is enough sharpening to get to some peak of 2K performance, given your base, whatever that might be.

BTW, both as sessions and as a training regimen all its own, 60min rows are especially effective, I think, if they are done twice a day.

ranger

[ranger]

Yes the problem is fitting in the PB's with your regular training as well, am usually wasted after a PB it takes me out for days.

Yep.

So, if you race your training enough, you can get to the point where can't train at all.

You can only rest.

Usually, this point involves the endgames of this sport--staleness, sickness, injury, and low spirits/disappointment.

Nice!

_Permanent_ rest.

If you indulge all of these endgames fully, the only thing you can do, in the end, is sell your erg and take up backgammon.

ranger