Realistic improvement in older athletes?

[RBFC]

That 6:42 is AMAZING! At this rate, you'll get the WR! Good luck!

Lee

[Cyclingman1]

I think my getting faster with my rowing times is due to both adapting to rowing in all of its aspects and in getting fitter specifically for rowing. I am a bit unique with a good fitness base from cycling. But that only goes so far.

As far as technique, I have had one individual with some rowing experience comment that my rowing seems effortless. Of course, that is not true, because I'm usually dying. I suppose the lack of awkwardness can't be a bad thing. I also try to have good awareness of what I am doing when I pull. The time per 500m on a stroke by stroke basis is a great indicator of when something is going well or falling apart. I try to keep that number steady.

The question of whether a lot of miles is necessary can be turned around to ask whether a lot of miles prevents quality workouts. I'm happy with my mix of workouts. For the most part they are not easy. I have to guard against overdoing reps such that I cannot complete the number that I want to. If I set out to do 8x250m, I need to do 8, not 7.

I see that 100,000m figure out there that top rowers do per week. I just don't see it. If I ever do more than 10K I'll write it down here. And I have yet to even do one 10K. I don't see a platueau looming. It takes time to develop strength. I do feel that my 250, 500, and 1000 m rows will and are giving me the capacity to row faster in longer rows - 2K, 5K, and 30 min. I'm not prepared to say where that will end. I am quite confident that I'm going to blow right through the world's best time for 65+ 2K and then my sights will be on 60+ best times.

Thanks to all for looking at this series of posts. It is an experiment. I am the lab rat.

[Bob S.]

Thanks to all for looking at this series of posts. It is an experiment. I am the lab rat.

I'm afraid that rats who are at the far end of the bell curve do not qualify for laboratory experiments. For most people, a lot of long distance early in the game is needed to build up endurance. You already had it from the beginning and didn't need to go through that period of buildup. You are doing great and certainly have a good shot at WRs. But I don't think that there are many that can get by with the same kind of training.

Since the indoor rowing season is just about over and a 2k WR has to be done at a public competition, it is going to be 8 or9 months before you can get a shot at it, unless you can find one that is still listed in the next 6 weeks. Otherwise it comes down to figuring out the best strategy to prepare for the next racing season.

Bob S.

[Cyclingman1]

Bob, I suppose I am a bit of an odd bird when it comes to this rowing business. I think in the future that there will be any number of Cross-fit athletes coming to rowing who will do very well due to good over all fitness. The 6:41.4 for 65+ is a soft record. I predict that it will be below 6:30 in the next couple of years. A 63 yr old has 6:30.7 this year. The 6:23.7 for 60+ will probably go below 6:15.

It is hard to talk about records before they are done - bad luck and all. I know that I cannot be officially recognized but at Crash-B or a satellite erg event. If I were to set an all-time best time in the next few weeks, I obviously would have to maintain or ramp back up for Jan/Feb, 2013. Which would hardly be a given. I would hate to drop back too much.

RE: the topic of mega miles. I recall numerous studies conducted by exercise physiologists decades ago that showed that interval (high intensity) training of relatively lesser cumulative miles could accomplish as much as slogging through mega miles. Maybe others are aware of those experiments and can fill in what I may be leaving out.

I do appreciate the encouragement that I have gotten from several quarters on my quest. I think old farts know it is hard to blast through the pain.

[rjw]

RE: the topic of mega miles. I recall numerous studies conducted by exercise physiologists decades ago that showed that interval (high intensity) training of relatively lesser cumulative miles could accomplish as much as slogging through mega miles. Maybe others are aware of those experiments and can fill in what I may be leaving out.

You will improve on your training regime. But will you get the most out of yourself? Current researchsuggests that all intervals all of the time or all fast all of the time is not the way to go. Sure, you will have gains but you will be missing out on training the complete system, even with bringing in a great CV system. Even at 25k a week, I would structure one longer, one harder and one interval row. As far as increasing specific strength, maybe tabata intervals would be a benefit.

But what do I know, I am not 66

[RBFC]

Current research states that high-intensity interval work (i.e. Tabata, etc.) will provide benefits for approximately 6 weeks, then plateau. At that time, it's suggested to re-integrate the higher work tolerance back into your steady-state distance training, albeit with a higher average speed.

Lee

[Nosmo]

As far as technique, I have had one individual with some rowing experience comment that my rowing seems effortless. Of course, that is not true, because I'm usually dying. I suppose the lack of awkwardness can't be a bad thing. I also try to have good awareness of what I am doing when I pull. The time per 500m on a stroke by stroke basis is a great indicator of when something is going well or falling apart. I try to keep that number steady.

Despite what someone told you, it is very unlikely that you have perfect technique, and cannot make improvement with good technical coaching. Olympic gold and silver medalist Xeno Muller, just made some comments about the crash-B's, and pointed out a technical flaws in a picture of several rowers. Unbeknownst to Xeno, one was Mike Cavistion--long time coach, former world record holder and author of the Wolverine Plan. If someone that good can make improvements--it is highly unlikely that you would not. Xeno claimed Mike might pick up 10 seconds on technique alone (personally I think one to two seconds is more likely but what do I know.) It is very common for technical mistakes to creep in unless you are regularly coached.

I have no doubt you will get the world record soon. You are very likely to get it just by pounding a way on the erg. You could also very likely get it with just some technique improvements--but it will will take thought and concentration. Steve Gladstone (one of the great crew coaches) said "it is easy to find people willing to work very hard, but much more difficult to find those who are willing to think at the same time" (paraphrased). Those who don't want to think can do very well on the erg, but they could do better with good coaching (a boat is another matter entirely).

[Cyclingman1]

This article addresses interval vs Long Slow Distance (LSD) training:

http://jp.physoc.org/content/575/3/901.full

Nosmo, at this point I'm comforable with my rowing. I'm making improvements fairly quickly. I'm certain my fitness and strength are my main limitations at this point. Maybe I will consult a coach someday, especially if I plateau prematurely.

I would like to emphasize that I do not suggest that I am only doing 250, 500, 1000m intervals. I've done a couple of 30 mins and plan to bring in 10K. But that is a far as I'm going. 30min or 10K on a rower is not an interval. I really like 3 and 5 K rows.

[gregsmith01748]

Interesting article.

One question, the period of the study was 2 weeks. I had thought that the improvements related to endurance training were slow and steady, taking significant period of time to show benefit through improvements in capillary density, mitochonrial density, etc. Whereas the impact of short interval training was more immediate. The thing I am not sure I understand is whether the imrovements seen from the ET group versus the SIT group would continue along these trends over the long term.

[Cyclingman1]

Greg, I agree. I'm certain there are some studies for several months. I'll try to find them.

http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/44/Suppl_1/i19.1.abstract


The thing that I find compelling is that the reduced training time has to cut down on the over all fatigue, although the high intensity is more tiring on a per unit of time basis. Fatigue is a big factor for older athletes.

[rjw]

The thing that I find compelling is that the reduced training time has to cut down on the over all fatigue, although the high intensity is more tiring on a per unit of time basis. Fatigue is a big factor for older athletes.

I agree about the fatigue factor for older athletes. Here is another article that may be of interest:

http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm

[Mike Caviston]

Despite what someone told you, it is very unlikely that you have perfect technique, and cannot make improvement with good technical coaching. Olympic gold and silver medalist Xeno Muller, just made some comments about the crash-B's, and pointed out a technical flaws in a picture of several rowers. Unbeknownst to Xeno, one was Mike [Caviston]--long time coach, former world record holder and author of the Wolverine Plan. If someone that good can make improvements--it is highly unlikely that you would not. Xeno claimed Mike might pick up 10 seconds on technique alone (personally I think one to two seconds is more likely but what do I know.) It is very common for technical mistakes to creep in unless you are regularly coached.

Far be it from me to suggest my technique can’t be improved or that Xeno is not the person to do it; however…

My job is developing fitness, and one of the least pleasant aspects of my job is sitting through presentations and sales pitches by various “experts” and gurus with revolutionary programs or equipment guaranteed to develop fitter and more resilient warriors. I’ve been analyzed and critiqued and put through various workouts, and told I lack speed, power, core strength, flexibility, agility, stamina, muscular strength, balance, coordination and all-around athleticism. I have poor lifting mechanics, poor running mechanics, and bad posture. In short, I am one sorry physical specimen at great risk of a variety of injuries. BUT! The experts and gurus all assure me that with their unique product or program, I can be “fixed” (for a reasonable fee, of course). Meanwhile, over the past couple years I’ve been competing in a variety of events at the rate of about three per month. These include road and trail runs of various distances from 5K to HM; tower runs (stairclimb races) up to 103 floors; track and field (discus, 800m, 3K steeplechase); obstacle courses; cycling TTs and a double century ride; snowshoe; sprint triathlons; even strongman and Highland games, not to mention the occasional indoor rowing race. I’m currently in a stretch of 17 races in 15 weeks, which so far has included 2nd place in a 10K, my fourth indoor rowing world title, a victory in a prestigious two-day tower climb event in Las Vegas, and a strong showing in a large half marathon. I’m performing well consistently and managing to stay healthy. I may have to listen to the gurus make their sales pitches, but I don’t expect to buy into what they’re selling.

Xeno has a product to sell – his coaching. It is in his interest to emphasize and even exaggerate a need for coaching. He might consider backing off on the medical diagnoses based on photographs. For example:
Caption: Zero heel connection at the finish, puts a lot of strain on the shoulders, and leaves the lower back vulnerable to injury. Such technique leaves glut and hamstring muscles underdeveloped.

If he had said, “This guy will never move a boat”, well, I sure don’t have any recent evidence to the contrary. I’m not sure what constitutes “heel connection” or “shoulder strain” in this picture. Lower back vulnerable to injury? Xeno writes “Over the years of Olympic training and coaching, I have never had a back injury. This is not due to ‘luck’.” Over more than twenty years of erging and 160 million meters, I have never had a back injury. This is also not due to “luck”. “Such technique leaves glut[e] and hamstring muscles underdeveloped.” I was recently put through a testing protocol designed to determine the injury resistance of members of the community where I work, in a state-of-the art research lab run by a major university. The testing included aerobic capacity, lactate threshold, anaerobic power and capacity, body composition, biomechanical analysis of different types of jumps, various measure of flexibility and posture, and strength measures for trunk, upper body, and lower body. My values were almost all well above the average of guys 15-30 years younger than me. My trunk extensors were off the charts, and my hamstring torque is 80% of my quads. I am pretty much a poster child for injury resistance.

Regarding the discussion of performance and older athletes, and the question of the role of volume and low intensity, as I enter my 50s I find I rely even more on large amounts of moderately-paced sessions for active recovery as a bridge between intense sessions. Total rest leaves me achy and lethargic. More activity doesn’t cause fatigue, it reduces it. But YMMV.

[Cyclingman1]

rjw: great link.

There is a difference between top elite athletes and the rest of us, regardless of our relative degree of accomplishment. I used to be a great cyclist and still am pretty good. Having said that, my cycling was/is nothing compared to anyone who has ever been a member of a Tour de France team. 500+ miles a week is pretty much norm for those guys. If they don't ride 50 miles on an OFF day, they feel sick or something - mentally and physically. I wanted to be a really good 40 K cyclist - and I got there. I won a time trial series in the Atl, GA area at age 40. I got there by riding my usual 150 miles a week with high intensity twice and longer/brisk rides twice. I was/am no illusion that I was ever at TDF level.

The same thing with you, Mike. You seem to be a superior athlete [all facts point to that]. You're like the TDF guys. Rowing 150,000m a week is like falling off a log for you. You need it - mentally and physically. You've been doing this a long time.

I, OTOH, am not ever going to get the huge rowing base that Mike has and all the benefits that can bring to performance. In some sense, I'm forced to adopt higher intensity rowing as a catch-up mechanism. In addition, I'm not ever going to row a marathon, let alone compete at that distance. I want to row first of all a fast 2K and secondarily a fast 5K. I know I can get to a good level for those distances without ever rowing over 10K in one session. Probably not at the level Mike is at for his age group and will undoubtedly get to when he is 65.

I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid regarding HIT vs LSD training. I just brought that subject up because a large percentage of commenters seem to think that mega-mileage is the end all, be all of training. I merely point that there is ongoing debate about the proper mix of training. I'm really not all that interesgted in putting a number on my VO2max or AT or any other fitness parameter. The only facts I'm concerned with is rowing 1:40m/500m 4 times with no rest: 6:40. I have to overload my system in terms of speed and endurance to get there, with sufficient rest. I have to do it my way because I cannot magically call upon a five mega-mile background. 100,000m a week would exhaust me, if not cause injuries.

It is interesting that Xeno commented on Mike's rowing. I wonder what that says about an outside observer truly appreciating the effectiveness of someone's style of performance. Look at runners. How many marathon winners have a quirk where an arm flaps around or something else. I'm just saying don't put too much emphasis on textbook, picture-perfect style. Results do count.

[rjw]

I'm not drinking the Kool-Aid regarding HIT vs LSD training. I just brought that subject up because a large percentage of commenters seem to think that mega-mileage is the end all, be all of training. I merely point that there is ongoing debate about the proper mix of training. I'm really not all that interesgted in putting a number on my VO2max or AT or any other fitness parameter. The only facts I'm concerned with is rowing 1:40m/500m 4 times with no rest: 6:40. I have to overload my system in terms of speed and endurance to get there, with sufficient rest. I have to do it my way because I cannot magically call upon a five mega-mile background. 100,000m a week would exhaust me, if not cause injuries.

I don't know Cyclingman1 but something just doesn't add up here. You use the term mega-mileage but IMHO, even a solid 45' row once a week would help your erging! As I said, you will improve with the style of training that you do and you will likely have a good run at the WR which will be fantastic. But I think that you are selling yourself short to reach your potential but so be it.

I am very interested in your training and will be watching as I think I can learn a thing or two from you.

[Yankeerunner]

Good thread. I have nothing to add at this point, but I find it interesting reading. Keep it coming.