Interval Training : Any Real Value?

[Cyclingman1]

See here:
http://therowingcompany.com/training/interactive

One thing that is not clear about this program is whether it is meant to maintain the entered 2K time or improve upon it. There is no entry for 2K goal.

[gregsmith01748]

Given I've seen some research on things like Tabada-type intervals and the benefits of Fartlek sessions, I cannot reconcile the opposing views.

So, I'd greatly appreciate some clarification or if possible, some definitive as to what value is gained from interval work.

If you are training for a 2k, interval training is absolutely necessary to maximize your fitness and achieve your fastest possible time.

"long and slow" should be the bulk of your training, however, you should also do a couple of sessions a week that work on your anaerobic threshold. I'm not sure who these people are who told you not to worry about doing intervals. Perhaps their goal in training wasn't to get the best 2k time.

I think that you're right that intervals are the backbone of most 2K training programs. There is a debate currently running on another thread on whether short intervals, from tabata all the way up to 500m intervals actually add any value over longer intervals. I think 500s are a great way to test out higher stroke rates and pressures that you can extend over time to 1K and then 2K distances, but it appears that the are a LOT of opinions about the efficacy of the short distances.

[jamesg]

There is no entry for 2K goal

I think the nearest you'll get to this is either the L4 routines in the Wolverine, or using the Gold Standard method; maybe there's not a lot of difference between the two.

In GS you decide your target and then use any plan you like, but at the paces dictated by the target. For example if you want to do a 2k in 400s, or 5m/s, you need to produce average 350W. If your expected rating in the 2k is 35, then every single stroke except warm-up and down will have to be at around 10 W' work.

In the Wolverine L4 tables, a last 2k at 6:48 suggests continuous and repeated work cycles at ratings say 18-20-22-20-18 for two minutes each, at Paces 2:03, 1:59, 1:55 (190, 210, 230W). Very effective and there are worse cycles too. Of course the Wolverine paces can be converted to Watts, and as they are at specified ratings, the Watt/Rating ratios are soon found.

Both methods apply the idea that if we want to race at a certain rating and get a certain time, this defines a certain stroke, so we need to practice it. This we can do at any rating from 20 to 40, so long as we do plenty. I've not yet been able to demolish this logic and as far as I know it does not contradict, for example, Lactate or HR based training.

[RowKyleRow!]

I myself am new to the erg...

After reading all the differing opinions re: Interval training I came to the conclusion that I should just do whatever the hell I want to attain the goal I want. So I just do this.

Day 1: Row as far as I can in 30 mins. Pick an SPM and keep it. (for me, 23)
Day 2: Choose split time to achieve (i.e., now mine is 1: 57)...try to maintain this the whole 1:45, repeat 5 x (I don't hit 1:45, I'm usually dead by 1 minute)...repeat 5 times.
Day 3: Row as far as I can in 30 mins. (23 spm).
Day4: Repeat day 2.

Day 5: Row one hour. Practice good form whilst maintaining spm.

So far I'm constantly achieving distance PBs at least once a week. For the splits, about once per fortnight at first, now it's to a month (I expected this since the initial getting used to the erg , better form would "jump start" my training...etc). When I hit the split the first rep of the 5 sets...I decrease by 2 seconds for the next time. I don't think I'd ever hit the "target" five times a row in one set. Intervals sure are pains in the bum. I do believe in their efficacy for increasing vo2 max in a short time though. I used to have to breath 2 times on a pull and another 2 times during recovery, at first!

I guess once I get to a competitive point, I'll try to read through on what will work best in terms of more focused training that I see others do. But the whole debate does remind me of my job (by trade I'm a cancer researcher working on tumour metabolism, of all things - one colleague (COUGH funding COUGH competitor) says cancer cells like x, another says they prefer y. I usually stand in the middle and say, well maybe they prefer both dependent upon the circumstances. I do believe there's an argument to be made that the training modality should fit the rower, not the rower the modality. And even when two rowers would both benefit from interval training, the kind of interval training to attain the same goal may be different.

[gregsmith01748]

Ah, a researcher. Here, try this on.

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

[gregsmith01748]

Also, as for fitting the rower, I think that is true to a point. The physiological demands of a 2k race are roughly the same for participants of a similar sex and weight class, but they may come from different backgrounds with different strengths and weaknesses. Training should target improvement of the weaknesses.

The other angle is that, long term, most people will not continue a training modality that they don't enjoy, so to a large extent, doing what you like is an important part of success. One of the main things that I like is figuring out what training works best for me by taking data, doing analysis and seeking feedback. I am having a lot of fun recently with a plan that tries to balance 3 sessions of long steady distance rowing (basically 4x20' intervals at aerobic intensity) and three more intense session. One us short intervals, like you 1:45 session. Another is longer intervals like 2kx4 with 5' rest. And the last intense session per week is a hard distance row, like a 5k,6k or 10k.

The intense sessions are drawn from the Pete Plan. Which is a good simple program that let's you track progress by repeating workouts in a cycle 3 weeks long.

[Cyclingman1]

First of all, great article: http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm

Kyle, your post points to the complexity of training, especially for a beginning rower. There are so many variables.

How long has one been rowing? What kind of rower does one want to be? What is the age and fitness of the rower? And then what kind of training is compatible with the first three?

When one is first starting or the goal is to simply enjoy rowing, then the training plan matters little. Spending time on the rower is what is required. I’ve seen beginners row 500,000 m a month from the start, enjoying every meter and not worrying about time.

Wanting to be competitive changes all of that. Some kind of plan is needed to maximize performance. But sorting through all the plans with widely ranging mixes of low, moderate, and high intensity workouts is daunting. And I agree, it would be just luck for any of them to be a good fit for any particular athlete. One is faced with trying to change the plan so that it is of benefit. But how to do that is not clear. What does one change? Volume? Days? Intensity? The mix? And it is virtually impossible for Joe Blow rower to find coaching help.

One rule that I do know about plans, is that if one cannot do the plan then either the plan is a bad one or it is being misinterpreted. For example, rowing 5x1:45s at some pace: If one cannot complete the interval(s), then the pace is too high. If one cannot do the distance that a plan calls for, then either the distance is too much or is being rowing at too high intensity.

You have to be aware that many rowing plans have their origins in on-the-water rowing. Rowing programs are notorious for mega-meters, as well as intensity. What gifted college athletes can do is pretty much irrelevant to the rest of us. I don’t feel that most indoor rowing plans are well targeted for particular individuals, taking into account age, athletic background, and the like.

Often, one is left grasping for some suggested perfect workout: 8x500m, 6x4min, 4x1K, 4x2K, 3x20min, etc. Maybe one of those is the magic workout, but it is doubtful.

Also, no personal data has been given: age, wt, ht, etc?

[RowKyleRow!]

Cyclingman1 and Greg

Thanks for the reply! And it was a very thorough article, to the point I took notes!

(That should be 1:54 too...lol)

My ultimate goal is weightloss, for starters. I am enjoying the erg and am starting to look at what people do competitively, but that's a year off I've told myself. But I prefer not to look at scales (even when I get proud that pants that didn't fit me 3 weeks ago fit (just!)). Hence why I looked into "training" plans initially. Losing 4kgs over, say, two months is less impressive to my competitive nature than hitting a PB twice a month (even if I only beat the previous record by 5 minutes). I guess I find that's what keeps my motivation. Looking at the clock at work, I don't think "I'm going to go to the gym and kill 500 calories", it's usually excited or keen to test myself against the distance,or interval. Hence why I chose to do intervals in such a way. I have something to "beat".

Thanks for all the advice and things to think about though, I shall certainly put some thought into changing my program.

[jamesg]

Often, one is left grasping for some suggested perfect workout: 8x500m, 6x4min, 4x1K, 4x2K, 3x20min, etc. Maybe one of those is the magic workout, but it is doubtful.

They can all be of use, but the magic or silver bullet is the stroke itself: long, strong, quick, relaxed and stylish, so the boat or the flywheel go fast and easy.

This "ideal" stroke, which is a characteristic of rowing as a sport and that we must have, makes polarized training for 2k rowing very simple on the erg: 80% volume at full stroke and 60-80% of race power and rating; 20% at full stroke and >120%.

[Cyclingman1]

I failed to mention a particularly pernicious aspect of competitiveness, and that is that it is fun as long as performance steadily improves. It doesn’t take a genius to know that there is an end to steady improvement. Then what? That’s when frustration can set in and the search for the perfect plan or perfect workout. Some handle getting to the peak better than others. One thing is certain, a reassessment is necessary. I suggest that not getting the positive feedback (whatever that is) that one is used to could cause one to quit rowing.

World class athletes use periodization training. They know from experience that performance will peak and then decline and has to be built back up. It takes a lot of patience and self-confidence to accept the valleys, hoping/knowing that the peak is ahead. Few average rowers have that kind of discipline. There is much more to be said on this subject, but I just throw this out there.