Help me break 6:45 within half a year.

[Ted209]

Hey everyone.

My current 2k time is 7:03.9 (rate 35 avg), and I weigh 63Kg's, I'm 16 years old and I'm not sure exactly how tall I am but it's somewhere short of 6 foot.
Next season I'm hoping to get a lightweight four together, and for that I'm hoping to have my 2k time sub-6:45 by the start of the season which is about half a year away (the last one just ended).

I am hoping to train 6 times a week at the minimum and I have thought about following this training program:
http://alexkrupp.typepad.com/sensemakin ... owing.html
But I am not sure of its effectiveness nor am I sure if I would have the time to do 2x45' each day as I am at boarding school. Do you think that this would be an effective training program assuming I had the time to do it?
I typically have plenty of time over the weekends to do 2x45' however during the week this part of the training plan may have to be replaced with something such as a 60 minute erg, would this still be effective?

Finally, if you disagree with the training program I have supplied, could you please state why, and it would also be useful if you could suggest an alternative method of training.

Thanks all.

ALSO: I have tried the 2x45' already. I managed to pull a 2:10 average for each, with my heart rate at 158 BPM (I was trying to keep it at 70-80% MHR). Is this a good score considering my 2k time and weight?

[Carl Watts]

Not to be negative but I would say probably not. Your a bit young and a bit light and rating up is not going to be an option either to help you get there.

I would give it another couple of years to put on some mass and develop some strength to enable you to drop the rating.

Nothing wrong with your current time by the way but there is a huge difference between this and a 6:45.

[Cyclingman1]

People with experience know how hard it is to drop 18 sec for 2K, but it is not out of the realm of possibility. I dropped 17 sec in 60 days time in early 2012. But I did not do it rowing 2x45min for sure. I stressed shorter, harder workouts (intervals) and 5Ks. That was expressly for improving 2K. If one is interested in rowing fast 10Ks, then what I did is inadequate.

Rowing 2:10 pace for 90min, regardless of how it is broken up, is not terribly relevant for wanting to row 1:41 pace for 2K. I have not read the plan and don't intend to. But if it does not have some 300m and 500m intervals from 1:36 to 1:40 pace, it is the wrong plan. 2K training should be about quality workouts, not slogging through mega-meters. And 6 days a week seems way too much. I can see 4 days. Why workout semi-tired.

I could see you putting on 10lb or so in the next 6 months. Interval training is far more effective in building muscle as well CV capability.

[hjs]

Your time is very good for your weight, but there you can make the most progress, building lean usefull muscle, so eat plenty, lots of protein and greens, start doing weights. Rowing is a power endurance sport, just doing long slow stuff will build a good endurance but zero power.
So focus both on endurance and strenght, eating and rest should be very important. You can only grow if your body can process the training you do. That takes time and good nutricion.

[Yankeerunner]

Ah Geez.....

"What follows is a comprehensive guide on going from being a complete couch potato to an Olympic-level athlete in six months. How is this possible? After all, normally this would take several years."

Let me take a stab at that: Short of science fiction, it is NOT possible. I almost stopped reading there, but actually read through the whole piece. My take on it is that an experienced athlete would have great difficulty accomplishing that program, let alone a 'couch potato' or a 16-year-old. I respectfully disagree with Cyclingman (who is very good, and is very knowledgeable) about the need for aerobic endurance work in order to do a lwt 6:45, but even so this program is off the charts in its recommendations.

The Interactive Program from the UK site offers an excellent program that can be adapted to different abilities and training time availability. It was developed by UK Olympic Coach Terry O'Neill. I used it successfully 10 years ago to get over the hump from 7:04 to 6:55 as a 55-year-old lwt at 145lbs who had been erging for three years up to that point. At age 16 you should be able to make faster progress than I did. It is here:
http://concept2.co.uk/training/interactive

The Wolverine Plan is also excellent, and you can find different threads discussing it. It was developed by Mike Caviston, former World-Record holder for lwt 40-49 men at 6:18.2, and used both by him and the University of Michigan to achieve elite results. There is a wealth of information and training philosophy that is worth reading whether you choose to follow the program or not. It is here:
http://www.concept2.com/files/pdf/us/tr ... nePlan.pdf

Good luck. If you weren't intimidated by the Alex Krupp program neither of the above programs should trouble you.

[Cyclingman1]

Yes, yes, Cyclingman is out of the mainstream regarding Erg training. [thanks for comments Yankee.] I reiterate that I am addressing 2K performance, nothing longer. I am not an expert by any means, although I have had some successes as an athlete using my shorter, harder methods. For those who may not appreciate it, it is extremely difficult for a 195 lb, 76" man to compete against race-lite competitors in duathlons (run/bike). I was able to do that by training to get my AT so high that I could nearly red-line it over a race taking around 2 hrs. Long, slow training will not get one there.

#1: I actually think the OP may be a good candidate for substantial improvement. The two types that have trouble are the already highly trained and the couch potatoes. The OP is neither. A highly trained rower usually has little room to improve. A couch potato can improve a lot, but not to a high level.

#2: I don't disregard a certain amount of endurance training, but I sense that the OP is not completely deficient in this regard. I averagd 20K meters a week when I trained to go from 6:57 to 6:40 at age 66. I felt then and still feel that my performance at 5K was the key. Of course, the faster than race pace intervals were also quite important. I never rowed further than 30 min - 8K. I did 4 rows a week. Some have tried to say that my cycling background is the reason for my improvement. Actually, it has been years since I was a great cyclist. I think my cycling came into play more in my initial weeks of rowing where I went from 7:12 to 6:57 in about 5 weeks. After that, I feel that my hard rowing was the key.

#3: As I've stated, I am not an advocate of slow rowing regardless of being able to pull hard due to the increased resting time. Good 2K rowing performance requires strokes per min in the 30s. That is how I train. Again, I am simply advocating to train as one wishes to race.

[Yankeerunner]

Sorry for ruffling feathers. That wasn't my intent.

I was addressing a 16-year-old with a year to prepare to make the team. Yes, you eschewed distance rowing and made big improvements. Another guy (now banned) burst on the scene 12 years ago having done nothing but 1-hour rows (no hard intervals) with the monitor set to 'calories burned' and did a 6:27.5 in his first race to win a free trip to Boston for CRASH-Bs. Both of you had spectacular results upon taking up the rower using completely different non-standard training strategies. So far I count one (1) rower with great results using your plan and one (1) rower with great results using his. If I had to suggest to a new rower to follow one program or the other based on yours and his results I'd have no idea which one to pick.

On the other hand there are large numbers of rowers who have successfully improved using the two programs I linked to above. My input only. It won't hurt my feelings if he reads them and chooses to not follow either.

As the guy from Michigan (who has never beaten that 6:27.5 since, despite 'knowing it all.') has said, "To each his own."

[Cyclingman1]

No feathers ruffled at all. I've seen most of the plans, digest them, try to assess how they would work in practice. In fact, I think virtually all of them would work. I also think they are overkill - full of unnecessary rowing, especially for 2K results.

The only way I could assess the 1hr per day training is to know some particulars. Age, weight, pace, etc. If the pace was well above 2K race pace, I would be a big skeptic. Now that I think about it, I believe the person in question is completely unreliable. I've read some stuff by him - if I have the guy right - that is preposterous. I definitely would not like to be compared to him in germs of legitimacy of what we did to accomplish something. We have to be aware that there are relatively few people on these forums commenting on training. I suspect that there are many who train in ways that are similar to what I do. Course, can't prove that.

[Ted209]

Cyclingman, could you please give some examples of the workouts you did?

I think it would be a good idea for me to mix endurance training with shorter intervals. Does anyone else agree?

I think I will also do strength training with weights.

[Bob S.]

I think it would be a good idea for me to mix endurance training with shorter intervals. Does anyone else agree?

The Pete Plan has been reported of doing an excellent job of just that. I can report good results with it for myself, what doesn't mean a heck of a lot since I am much too old to be typical. It was originally designed by an erger who wanted a plan that could be done in his lunch hours, so, obviously, it did not have any really long pieces in the original plan.

Pete Plan

http://thepeteplan.wordpress.com/the-pete-plan/

Bob S.

[Cyclingman1]

All workouts are done based on current 2K race pace - not future race pace. As one gets fitter the current 2K race is adjusted downward.

All workouts have 1.5K/2K warmup with a couple of 100m accelerations towards the end, and 1K cool down.

Workouts:
1. 8/10 x 35 sec at 4/5 secs below race pace; rest 1:10.
2. 8 x 300m at 2/3 secs below race pace; rest 2:00.
3. 4/5 x 500m at 0/1 secs below race pace; rest 3:00.
4. 1 x 5K at 6-8 secs above race pace.
5. 1 x 30min at 10 secs above race pace.

6. Every 2/3 wks, 2K time trial at 95%.

I usually do 3 of the above one week (M,W,F) and 4 the next (S,T,T,S). The mix is based on effort and pace. Alternate harder, easier, longer, shorter, etc.

[hjs]

Sessions like this are for people who are relative good at the longer distances. For a guy like me the 5k and the 30 min for instance would be very hard. And the shorter stuff would be a relative walk in the park.
Younger people do often relative better on the shorter stuff.

Volume is also very low. I won't say it can't work, but again a 60 plus guy can't be used as a example for a teenager.

All workouts are done based on current 2K race pace - not future race pace. As one gets fitter the current 2K race is adjusted downward.

All workouts have 1.5K/2K warmup with a couple of 100m accelerations towards the end, and 1K cool down.

Workouts:
1. 8/10 x 35 sec at 4/5 secs below race pace; rest 1:10.
2. 8 x 300m at 2/3 secs below race pace; rest 2:00.
3. 4/5 x 500m at 0/1 secs below race pace; rest 3:00.
4. 1 x 5K at 6-8 secs above race pace.
5. 1 x 30min at 10 secs above race pace.

6. Every 2/3 wks, 2K time trial at 95%.

I usually do 3 of the above one week (M,W,F) and 4 the next (S,T,T,S). The mix is based on effort and pace. Alternate harder, easier, longer, shorter, etc.

[Cyclingman1]

Volume is also very low. I won't say it can't work, but again a 60 plus guy can't be used as a example for a teenager.

True statement. 60+ guys don't have extra energy to burn. If the pace(s) are a walk in the park for the intervals, they should be adjusted to where they are not.

[Howard N]

Workouts:
1. 8/10 x 35 sec at 4/5 secs below race pace; rest 1:10.
2. 8 x 300m at 2/3 secs below race pace; rest 2:00.
3. 4/5 x 500m at 0/1 secs below race pace; rest 3:00.
4. 1 x 5K at 6-8 secs above race pace.
5. 1 x 30min at 10 secs above race pace.

6. Every 2/3 wks, 2K time trial at 95%.

Cyclingman1, could you tell me what lines mean 1 and 3 say? I read the first on as 10 35 second intervals at 4 to 5 seconds lower than your 2000m race pace with 1:10 rest between the intervals. Repeated 8 times. What is the rest between the 8 sets of intervals? Or am I all wrong? I'm really hoping it's more like 8 to 10 35 second intervals with 1:10 rest between the intervals. That I could probably do.

[Cyclingman1]

rest numbers are between each interval.