6.56.3 to 6.45.0

[lindsayh]

Paul's Law suggests about a 37:40 10k should be expected from a balanced athlete who can row 2k in 6:45. For someone like RAWGR, who seems to favour shorter distances over longer, I'd think sub 38 is a good target to shoot for. Sub 37 would certainly be nice, but I don't think it's a necessity at all.

I agree that everyone is different but I think you are close to the mark for my numbers - 2k = 6:46 and 10k = 37:57 are I think typical of a fast twitcher type rather than the distance profile

[RWAGR]

Thanks all. For sure I have a strength/ power profile that means I will favor short distances. But I am learning that improving the 5k, 30', and 10k will be the key to bringing down my 2k time. I will hit 6.45.0 this year.

[DNA_Rower]

Thanks all. For sure I have a strength/ power profile that means I will favor short distances. But I am learning that improving the 5k, 30', and 10k will be the key to bringing down my 2k time. I will hit 6.45.0 this year.

Well, I am about your height and a few years older, but 20kg lighter. My 2k PR time (set only a few weeks ago) is two seconds slower than yours, but my 30min, 5k and 10k are all a bit better. I'm probably still a decent benchmark for you as I don't think I am especially good for long-distance work.

[bonefixer]

I'm pretty much at your targets - took me 15 years to get from where you are to where I am! I'm sure you'll do it much quicker than that.

Like others have said, work on longer distances. My 10K is just sub-38, my 5K is knocking on the door of 18:00. I've made the most gains by putting in loads of metres at 2:00 - I regularly do 10K, 1 hour, HM at that pace. Before a 2K test I do speed intervals at the pace I need to go for a few weeks, so for me 1:40 or quicker.

[RWAGR]

Bonefixer- thanks for the advice! Maybe I need to recalibrate my time plans haha

[DNA_Rower]

I'm pretty much at your targets - took me 15 years to get from where you are to where I am! I'm sure you'll do it much quicker than that.

Like others have said, work on longer distances. My 10K is just sub-38, my 5K is knocking on the door of 18:00. I've made the most gains by putting in loads of metres at 2:00 - I regularly do 10K, 1 hour, HM at that pace. Before a 2K test I do speed intervals at the pace I need to go for a few weeks, so for me 1:40 or quicker.

This is where I sometimes find training advice confusing. You suggest doing lost of 2:00 pace work, but if that is kinda "easy" would you not get more gains out of pushing yourself a bit more? i.e. if you constantly row 1h at 1:58 isn't that better training that doing the same work at 2:00?

[RWAGR]

This is where I sometimes find training advice confusing. You suggest doing lost of 2:00 pace work, but if that is kinda "easy" would you not get more gains out of pushing yourself a bit more? i.e. if you constantly row 1h at 1:58 isn't that better training that doing the same work at 2:00?

I used to think this. What I have come to understand (although it stills often feels counter intuitive) is that slower, longer pieces at (and this is the key) a limited 20 SPM are important for two essential reasons: first, they build power in the stroke. It is (obviously) much harder to row 30r20 than 30rOPEN at the the same pace. second, they represent heart rate based training at the UT2 and UT1 bands (see this chart, thanks to Carl in an earlier post: http://www.freespiritsrowing.com/forum/ ... calculator). This is important because it builds CV engine as opposed to sprint power. As a bonus third reason, it also saves your energy so on the 1-2 days each week that you do intervals/ anaerobic work. Others please correct me if I'm wrong!

[ItalianRower]

I don't know if anyone said this already but work on technique: most non rowers don t erg well enough. With this said I will recommend doing 1 hard workout 1 long low spm and 1 all out mid distance, good example of this would be: 8x3'/3'off at race rate and race pace +3;12k rate 20 max press keeping split constant;8x1500/2:00 rate 26 5k+2-3

[bonefixer]

I'm pretty much at your targets - took me 15 years to get from where you are to where I am! I'm sure you'll do it much quicker than that.

Like others have said, work on longer distances. My 10K is just sub-38, my 5K is knocking on the door of 18:00. I've made the most gains by putting in loads of metres at 2:00 - I regularly do 10K, 1 hour, HM at that pace. Before a 2K test I do speed intervals at the pace I need to go for a few weeks, so for me 1:40 or quicker.

This is where I sometimes find training advice confusing. You suggest doing lost of 2:00 pace work, but if that is kinda "easy" would you not get more gains out of pushing yourself a bit more? i.e. if you constantly row 1h at 1:58 isn't that better training that doing the same work at 2:00?

I'm trying to work at or around my aerobic threshold, which according to my VO2 max test is HR 161. I find at 2:00 I am around this level. For example I did a HM the other day at 2:00, average HR was 155 (maxing out at 166). When I did my HM PB I maxed out my HR at 172, crossing over into somewhat anaerobic territory at about 60 minutes in. That was at 1:57.9. So 2:00 pace works for me physiologically - I can sustain 1:58 for a HM, or 1:56 for an hour, or 1:54 for 10K etc, but at these paces I'm going anaerobic. I wouldn't say 2:00 pace for me is 'easy', but it's comfortable enough that I'm not thinking about stopping at any stage. I think I've got the science right, and given the similarity between mine and the OP's performance, I hope my training suggestion helps. Doing PB pace all the time is definitely not the way to go, although with the gains I've been making I am thinking of changing my 2:00 pace to 1:59

[Gammmmo]

I'm pretty much at your targets - took me 15 years to get from where you are to where I am! I'm sure you'll do it much quicker than that.

Like others have said, work on longer distances. My 10K is just sub-38, my 5K is knocking on the door of 18:00. I've made the most gains by putting in loads of metres at 2:00 - I regularly do 10K, 1 hour, HM at that pace. Before a 2K test I do speed intervals at the pace I need to go for a few weeks, so for me 1:40 or quicker.

This is where I sometimes find training advice confusing. You suggest doing lost of 2:00 pace work, but if that is kinda "easy" would you not get more gains out of pushing yourself a bit more? i.e. if you constantly row 1h at 1:58 isn't that better training that doing the same work at 2:00?

Ideally you want to be exerting the maximum amount of training load which is a product of number of sessions, intesnity and duration. It stands to reason if you start going from 2:00 to 1:59 to ... eventually the number of sessions or their duration will have to reduce because you won't be able to complete what you've planned for the week. It's all a balancing act along with the kind of sessions you do depending on the distance(s) you want to prioritise and which facet of your physiological system you are working on e.g. AT, stroke volume etc.

[DNA_Rower]

This is where I sometimes find training advice confusing. You suggest doing lost of 2:00 pace work, but if that is kinda "easy" would you not get more gains out of pushing yourself a bit more? i.e. if you constantly row 1h at 1:58 isn't that better training that doing the same work at 2:00?

I used to think this. What I have come to understand (although it stills often feels counter intuitive) is that slower, longer pieces at (and this is the key) a limited 20 SPM are important for two essential reasons: first, they build power in the stroke. It is (obviously) much harder to row 30r20 than 30rOPEN at the the same pace. second, they represent heart rate based training at the UT2 and UT1 bands (see this chart, thanks to Carl in an earlier post: http://www.freespiritsrowing.com/forum/ ... calculator). This is important because it builds CV engine as opposed to sprint power. As a bonus third reason, it also saves your energy so on the 1-2 days each week that you do intervals/ anaerobic work. Others please correct me if I'm wrong!

How can I know my Max HR to do the calculation for this? The highest I have seen with my HR monitor is probably 185, so would it be safe to assume that my absolute max HR is 190 to use in that calculator? This is vs my resting heart rate which is about 55.

Also, is it fair to say that is someone does 10k with an average HR of 160 and I do it with an average HR of 175 (at the same pace) then from a cardiovascular point of view, they are fitter than me? i.e. should I be looking to effectively reduce my max HR and hence change all these bands?

[hjs]

Use the numbers you know now. If you have seen 185, use that, if its higher, you will see it during max rows. Over time your rest puls will get lower, if you get fitter.

[JerekKruger]

How can I know my Max HR to do the calculation for this? The highest I have seen with my HR monitor is probably 185, so would it be safe to assume that my absolute max HR is 190 to use in that calculator? This is vs my resting heart rate which is about 55.

If you feel up to it you could do a step test to determine it. Note that this test is not much fun.

Also, is it fair to say that is someone does 10k with an average HR of 160 and I do it with an average HR of 175 (at the same pace) then from a cardiovascular point of view, they are fitter than me? i.e. should I be looking to effectively reduce my max HR and hence change all these bands?

No. Max heart rate doesn't change with fitness and varies quite substantially from person to person. I remember reading somewhere that two national level rowers (can't remember the country) with similar 2k times and similar ages had max heart rates over 20BPM apart. The only thing that changes max heart rate is age: it decreases as you get older. I might be wrong, but I think the rate of decrease is slowed by doing regular exercise, and this is a good thing.

Resting heart rate on the other hand gets lower as you get fitter, though it's not really something you can compare from person to person as there's still a lot of baseline variation. However if you test your resting heart rate every few months (put on your monitor first thing and let it run for a minute or so whilst you relax, lying down in bed and the lowest reading you see is your resting heart rate) whilst doing lots of aerobic work it should decrease. Don't test it too regularly as there'll be variation from day-to-day. As this goes down you should plug it into the Freespirits calculator to recalculate your bands, and they'll also go down as a result.

[Gammmmo]

@re: max HR. Make it sport specific as per that link - running (load bearing) will tend to give you a higher max than cycling and that more than swimming. Would imagine erging fits in between cycling and running. Compare like with like.

[RWAGR]

Re max HR: see Concept2: http://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/t ... rate-range. Looks like 205.8 - (0.685 × age) is the modern version of 220-Age. For me the respective results are similar but not identical 183 (modern) 187 (traditional).