Tabata Results Thread

[aharmer]

It seems there is a wide discrepancy on where Tabata started. I read that it was initially done in Japan using sprinting (running) as the exercise. The source I read, which I cannot quote because I don't have the link anymore, absolutely claimed that all-out effort from the first rep was the only way to achieve the effect Tabata was after.

Either way, it's a tremendously difficult 4 minutes. If it's not, it's not being done properly. However you choose to do the workout, you'll have your own personal data to compare future efforts. I haven't done any erging for quite a while, time to get back on for some Tabata!

[ThatMoos3Guy]

Here's a review of the original article: http://www.bodyrecomposition.com/resear ... 2-max.html


Looks like the effort was meant to be maintained throughout the series, and that when the cyclist couldn't hold 85rpm the trial was ended. So yes, it'd be incredibly hard. I know I wouldn't be able to maintain that.

[goblin]

Well, they are two different sports - I wouldn't suggest you read too much into the 170% of vo2 max because top sprinting cyclists can sprint at close to 2000 watts (think low pull) while top vo2 wattages are probably around 600 watts. That's 300+ percent higher - which is quite a ways away from 170%.

I do imagine, though, there is a line to be drawn somewhere about what is an acceptable 'drop off' during a rowing tabata.

[jlawson58]

Well, they are two different sports - I wouldn't suggest you read too much into the 170% of vo2 max because top sprinting cyclists can sprint at close to 2000 watts (think low pull) while top vo2 wattages are probably around 600 watts. That's 300+ percent higher - which is quite a ways away from 170%.

I do imagine, though, there is a line to be drawn somewhere about what is an acceptable 'drop off' during a rowing tabata.

I think you might be confusing peak power with VO2max power (or maybe I just don't understand what your point was regarding the 300% difference). When you compare the differences in the power required for the two sports it isn't all that great (when comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges).

I can get about 1100w for a peak power in a bike sprint and about 900+ for a peak power during a low pull. What is more important though is VO2max power and the physiological adaptations to that stimuli.

The power you can generate for approximately 5 min is considered a proxy for VO2max. My power on the erg for just under 7 min is 314w. It would obviously be a bit higher if we used 5 min. My best power for 5 min when I was cycling was 350w and I bet if I did it now it would be 320-330. My point is that the power is very similar. What's even more important than raw wattage numbers though is the body's response to that power input. If 170% of VO2max power was required for cyclists (or speed skaters etc using a cycling erg) to produce the response that was noted in the study, I would bet lots of money that the number is very similar (if not the exact same) for rowing.

I do agree with you about there being some cut-off for how much power is acceptable as a drop-off. I would guess that it is more related to how your body is reacting to that given power. For some people a drop of 20% in power for the last intervals might not produce the intended result because their body isn't being stimulated enough at that lower power, while someone else might still get the intended result because of different physiology (more/less fast twitch vs slow twitch etc).

All I know is that I can only get 2-3 at 170% of VO2max before I start dropping. I would love to hear other people's experiences related not just to their 500m splits like most people have been posting, but to their 2k power.

[goblin]

I guess my point might have been based on an incorrect assumption. No rowers can hit 2000 watts on the erg, that I know of, while many top sprinters can (at the end of 200km races). I maybe mistakenly assumed that in rowing, vo2 wattage is a higher percentage of 'all out' wattage than it is in cycling. I have no data to support this.

But embedded in there is another point - that if the guidelines are in fact that you undertake a tabata at around 170% of your vo2 max wattage, and peak power is 300%+, then you aren't really going flat out.

I should just read the study, though, instead of shooting from the hip.

[Bob S.]

If 170% of VO2max power was required for cyclists (or speed skaters etc using a cycling erg) to produce the response that was noted in the study, I would bet lots of money that the number is very similar (if not the exact same) for rowing.

There is a catch here. The erg monitor measures only the energy supplied to the wheel. On an erg, you are also expending a lot of energy that does not go into the wheel - the energy required to accelerate and decelerate the weight of your body back and forth on the rail. I have no doubt but that it is a lot more than what is required in cycling to lift the weight of the legs. In either case, the power monitors do not take into account the energy expending in moving body parts.

Bob S.

[jlawson58]

If 170% of VO2max power was required for cyclists (or speed skaters etc using a cycling erg) to produce the response that was noted in the study, I would bet lots of money that the number is very similar (if not the exact same) for rowing.

There is a catch here. The erg monitor measures only the energy supplied to the wheel. On an erg, you are also expending a lot of energy that does not go into the wheel - the energy required to accelerate and decelerate the weight of your body back and forth on the rail. I have no doubt but that it is a lot more than what is required in cycling to lift the weight of the legs. In either case, the power monitors do not take into account the energy expending in moving body parts.

Bob S.

I agree. That is why I said similar. Looking at the literature it looks like rowing wattage is about 6-7% lower than on a bike.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3193864

[jlawson58]

I guess my point might have been based on an incorrect assumption. No rowers can hit 2000 watts on the erg, that I know of, while many top sprinters can (at the end of 200km races). I maybe mistakenly assumed that in rowing, vo2 wattage is a higher percentage of 'all out' wattage than it is in cycling. I have no data to support this.

But embedded in there is another point - that if the guidelines are in fact that you undertake a tabata at around 170% of your vo2 max wattage, and peak power is 300%+, then you aren't really going flat out.

I should just read the study, though, instead of shooting from the hip.

I love technical stuff and number crunching so don't think I am being argumentative. I just hope to shed some light on the subject.

I think you are overestimating cycling peak power and underestimating rowing peak power. In the previous post I linked a study that showed rowing power was about 6-7% lower than cycling at the flywheel (and probably nearly identical when power that is produced but not measured by the flywheel is counted).

If I understand your 300%+ statement correctly I think what you are saying is that because VO2max power is only 1/3rd of so of peak power that if you are going only 70% more than VO2max you aren't really going all out, but I think you misunderstand instantaneous peak power and how it relates to other durations, including very short ones like 20 seconds.

In cycling for example the world record holder produced power of 23.5 watts per kilogram for 5 seconds. For 1 min they produced less than half that power (11.5 w/kg). For 5 min it was only 7.8 w/kg. At any of those durations do you think the argument holds that because they were only producing a fraction of their peak power that they were not going "all out". Obviously not. That is because if you plot the power versus time you will find that it drops off exponentially. There is also the fact that with a very short 10" recovery you are starting the next interval at a deficit and each subsequent intervals has a lower capacity to produce power but it still doesn't mean you aren't going all out.

I'm not sure if you have tried these or not, but why not try them and tell us if you still think you weren't going all out. Your 2k time shows a minimum of 392w for your power at VO2max. That makes 170% for you 666.4w. See how many 20" intervals you can get over 666 with only 10" rest. I think you will find it is the hardest thing you have ever done (at least it was for me).

[goblin]

I'm not sure if you have tried these or not, but why not try them and tell us if you still think you weren't going all out. Your 2k time shows a minimum of 392w for your power at VO2max. That makes 170% for you 666.4w. See how many 20" intervals you can get over 666 with only 10" rest. I think you will find it is the hardest thing you have ever done (at least it was for me).

That's not what I am arguing at all. I have done tabatas, both in cycling and in rowing. They are no picnic. I am arguing that it is not possible to maintain 170% of vo2 max power in rowing, while it is (clearly) possible in cycling. I do not train with a power meter in cycling, so I don't have any data to support my ability to do that. However, having used a power meter once during the bike leg of an ironman I can tell you that while I can produce over 200 watts for 6 hours cycling, I could not do that in rowing. Nor do I think I could come within 6-7 percent of that wattage. I also don't think the top heavyweight rowers can pull a raw 2300 watts, or within 6-7% of that, which is the highest 6 second power figure I have seen for a cyclist. Finally, I find it much easier to recover between hard or all out efforts in cycling. Therefore, my argument is that the 170% vo2 max from the original protocol carried out on a bike ergometer could a. be much more paced, across the duration, than the tabatas that have been reported in this thread and b. perhaps, therefore, the intent is for a rower to pace similarly.

That is, of course, opinion - as this is the c2 training forum not the International Review of Sport and Exercise Physiology.

[sheehc]

Just curious, has anyone accounted for Tabata running those workouts 5 days a week as being a large part of why they were so effective as opposed to the normal person doing them fewer times per week? Just seems to me like it is being named a great workout without much regard for the original schema used.

Also regarding cycling vs. ering, I'm under the impression that cyclists in general can carry dramatically higher lactate levels than ergers/rowers due to the low muscular usage during performance. This leaves more muscle in the body to digest the lactate, where as in rowing everything is flooded and it is therefore more difficult to recover from repeated intervals. Could be off on that, but would love any citations/knowledge for or against if you have them.

Lastly, I'm under the impression that speed skaters were originally used for the study. To my knowledge, most speed skating events are shorter than rowing events and require a greater anaerobic portion of training. As such, they would be more adapted to sprint work than a rower and thus more capable of maintaining power output over repeat intervals. I know when I used to run 200m and 400m sprints, I could do repeat intervals all day and night. As an experiment I tried doing the same type of work last year (controlling for a slower top speed) and the results were not as consistent (or pretty) as when I was a sprinter. I may be wrong about the proportion of training speed skaters do, but if I'm right, could the underlying difference in energy contribution also contribute to a greater overall power production over multiple intervals?

Just food for thought. Love to hear other people's perspective and experience.

[NavigationHazard]

Personally, I fail to see the point of performing Tabatas on an erg if they're done as mad all-out thrashes. Technique and form are absolutely crucial to OTW rowing. It gains you little, if anything, if you can't translate whatever fitness you might have into smoothly applied boat-moving power. I suspect that most people doing Tabatas on an erg would get very wet very fast if they tried to row that way in a 1x. And you'd never ever ever ever coordinate a multiple-rower boat if you crewed it with, say, rowers who have done nothing but individual Tabatas.

I also agree with Goblin that 8 x 20"/10" at 170% of 2k erg power (taken as a proxy for VO2max power) is pretty close to impossible for rowers. I might be able to do it with a gun to my head - it'd mean 140-160 seconds at 1:20.5ish pace, and I have previously managed 80 seconds at that pace on zero rest. True, at the time it was an age-group WR for 500m at the time.... More seriously, I think that if you actually can do it - or even come close to doing it - you probably should revisit your 2k test time.

OTOH if you use 5k time as a proxy for VO2max power I think 170% makes a lot more sense. Nevill et all, Modelling the determinants of 2000m rowing ergometer performance: a proportional, curvilinear allometric approach, Scand J Med Sci Sports 2011: 21: 73–78 (http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 1025.x/pdf) give data for 76 current or former senior or U23 FISA Worlds finalists including average 2k times and power at VO2max. Their 33 MHW rowers had an average 2k erg score of 6:01.1 (476 watts), and an average power at VO2max of 382.6 watts (roughly 1:37 pace, or around 16:00 for 5k). 170% of 382.6 watts would be ~650w/~1:21.4 pace. I'm quite sure they could do it.

And I'd like to add that timing very short Tabata-type intervals well is extraordinarily difficult. Mistime a start countdown and your first stroke probably is going to look glacially slow. Suppose for the purposes of argument you're rating 39, and your target pace is an average 1:30. Row a mistimed first stroke at what the monitor thinks is 2:00 pace and you've got to average 1:27.5 on the other twelve to get the overall average down to target. If your target is 1:20 pace and your first stroke is at 2:00 you've got to average 1:16.7 on the other 12 to hit it...

[aharmer]

Nav, interesting point on the rate and thrashing about. I thought about this before doing Tabatas the first time. I decided that r36 was the fatest I felt would maintain solid technique. I just rated 36 for every one, pulled as hard as possible at 36 and let the chips fall where they may. It led to a fairly significant fall-off by rep 8.

The scientific conversation is interesting to me, but I have nothing to add not having any physiology background I just like having the numbers as a baseline to measure explosive power output once in a while against myself.

[hjs]

the study comes from japanese speedskaters, who are and have always been bad on the endurance front, the are great spinters, have very fast 100 meters, but even the 500 is often to long, beyond 500 meter they seldom win anything

Just curious, has anyone accounted for Tabata running those workouts 5 days a week as being a large part of why they were so effective as opposed to the normal person doing them fewer times per week? Just seems to me like it is being named a great workout without much regard for the original schema used.

Also regarding cycling vs. ering, I'm under the impression that cyclists in general can carry dramatically higher lactate levels than ergers/rowers due to the low muscular usage during performance. This leaves more muscle in the body to digest the lactate, where as in rowing everything is flooded and it is therefore more difficult to recover from repeated intervals. Could be off on that, but would love any citations/knowledge for or against if you have them.

Lastly, I'm under the impression that speed skaters were originally used for the study. To my knowledge, most speed skating events are shorter than rowing events and require a greater anaerobic portion of training. As such, they would be more adapted to sprint work than a rower and thus more capable of maintaining power output over repeat intervals. I know when I used to run 200m and 400m sprints, I could do repeat intervals all day and night. As an experiment I tried doing the same type of work last year (controlling for a slower top speed) and the results were not as consistent (or pretty) as when I was a sprinter. I may be wrong about the proportion of training speed skaters do, but if I'm right, could the underlying difference in energy contribution also contribute to a greater overall power production over multiple intervals?

Just food for thought. Love to hear other people's perspective and experience.