What's so bad about AT training?

[PaulG]

I've been following the Interactive Plan for several years and finally decided to total up the number of minutes in each training band. For a Level 4 athlete training 5 days a week I come up with the following percentages based on minutes for a 26 week plan:

UT2: 12%
UT1: 61%
AT: 18%
TR: 7%
AN: 2.3%

On a meter basis there is probably a greater percentage in the TR and AN bands because you are going at a a faster pace and less in the UT1 and UT2 bands.

If you pool the UT1 with UT2, and TR with AN, you end up with about 73% aerobic and 9% anaerobic with still a substantial percentage (18%) in the AT band. The most recent training philosophy based on Seiler's work recommends about 80% aerobic and 20% fast anaerobic work. However, many successful programs such as the Pete Plan and the Wolverine Plan have substantial amount of time in the AT band (even if they don't call it that). I have seen on the board people state that not only is AT training a waste of time, it can actually be bad for 2k training. That's hard to believe because a 2k time trail feels like you are in the AT zone most of the time, even though I recognize that most of the power is provided by aerobic metabolism.

Lately I have been doing my AT pieces fast and transitioning into the TR band 25-50% through the interval and ending with my heart rate up in the high TR or low AN bands. These are not fun. When I do TRs I typically end up in the AN zone anyway and for ANs my heart rate never responds in time to reach that band but I do them as fast as I can and still finish the workout.

So, what's so bad about AT training and should I shift this effort into either the aerobic or anaerobic bands?

[gregsmith01748]

I guess the real question for me is: What is AT Training?

If I am doing short intervals, long intervals or hard distance pieces whether it is on the Interactive plan, Pete Plan, Wolverine Plan or even Rojabo, the AT HR band is basically something I go through on the way to TR where I end up spending most of my time. If I am doing UT2 or UT1 work, then the AT band is the dreaded "black hole".

The issue with aiming training at the AT band is that is neither fish nor fowl. Aerobic training, UT2 and UT1 must be done at an intensity range where fat metabolism is still active or else it really doesn't have it's desired training effect. Above the top of the UT1 band, fat metabolism much smaller than it is at lower intensities and then the training session really does nothing to increase the rate at which you can metabolize fat in you exercise. Think of this as the foundation that the other training goes on top of.

https://www.colorado.edu/intphys/Class/ ... ssover.pdf

And if you are doing hard sessions but keeping the HR in the AT zone, then I think you are not really causing sufficient training stimulus to have the desired training effect on V02max, lactate threshold, or even neuro-muscular adaptation.

There is a lot of benefit of doing some longer sessions at higher than UT1 intensity (sweet spot training), but when I do them, I drift pretty quickly into the TR zone and stay there.

When my training is going well (and it isn't right now, but that another story), I spend between 8% and 12% of my training time in the AT zone. I try to keep it under 10% which is about the right amount to account for increasing HRs in the early part of the high intensity sessions. Anything beyond 10% is usually low intensity sessions that start to fall into the black hole.

[NavigationHazard]

The short answer to the OP: it's complicated and mileage may vary.

Seriously, people are enormously varied physiologically/genetically and there's absolutely no reason to assume that any one training program is going to be optimum for everyone. Second, an awful lot of the literature that's out there is based on studies of well-trained college and/or national-level OTW rowers (I might add, the overwhelming majority of them male) who've been at it systematically for years. If you don't resemble the subject population, including competition goals towards which the training is directed, you should not automatically expect to respond similarly.

If you have time and can read boffin-speak, it's worth taking a look at the meta analysis in https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4621419/.

For my 2 cents' worth, simpler is better for a lot of recreational/club rowers who lack the time for higher-volume, longer duration sessions and/or full recovery from high-intensity work. If the goal is a faster 2k erg score under competition conditions, many people will do just fine on a steady diet of 5k or 6k rows (they're going to be self-limiting to roughly threshold intensity) and the occasional sprint session. They might bore their socks off in the process, but that's a rather different issue....

[Balkan boy]

There is a bit of research showing that recovery from the AT-type workout is the same (or longer, depending on duration) as is for the TR-AN hard interval workout. There is a general acceptance that higher intensities around race-pace provide more adaptation, so why stay at lower (AT) intensity for so long?
As usual, this was shown by elite (or near-elite) athletes with years and lifetimes of endurance training.

For the past year the only time I've spent in AT zone was on the way up to higher intensity. Basicly 0% and no dedicated workouts.
So far it's been a difficult year without improvements in pace, and even some regression. There were too many variables fogging the final conclusion, but I'll be re-evaluating the whole AT thing come next year.

The short answer to the OP: it's complicated and mileage may vary.

Seriously, people are enormously varied physiologically/genetically and there's absolutely no reason to assume that any one training program is going to be optimum for everyone. Second, an awful lot of the literature that's out there is based on studies of well-trained college and/or national-level OTW rowers (I might add, the overwhelming majority of them male) who've been at it systematically for years. If you don't resemble the subject population, including competition goals towards which the training is directed, you should not automatically expect to respond similarly.

Very important point.

[bisqeet]

i guess how you define your HR bands is also an important factor:

is it just based off your HRMax and using the established % for the different bands - or using lactate testing.

the former is a good basis for starting out and the hobby fitness useage, for more serious training a lactate testing is required...

there is some difference:

Paula Radcliffe c 2003. Max hr 197.
UT2 ceiling - 181 hr
UT1 - 182 - c190 hr
(lactate testing)

based on % of HRMax
UT2 ceiling - 157
UT1 158 - 171

so while you might think you're training in AT - you may not be..

[hjs]

i guess how you define your HR bands is also an important factor:

is it just based off your HRMax and using the established % for the different bands - or using lactate testing.

the former is a good basis for starting out and the hobby fitness useage, for more serious training a lactate testing is required...

there is some difference:

Paula Radcliffe c 2003. Max hr 197.
UT2 ceiling - 181 hr
UT1 - 182 - c190 hr
(lactate testing)

based on % of HRMax
UT2 ceiling - 157
UT1 158 - 171

so while you might think you're training in AT - you may not be..

Paula is a very extreme example, very slow fiber dominant, lost every sprint, and Wr holder marathon for a long time and still counting.

[jamesg]

Quite, how do we know we are at or near the AT inflection point? Is it our 2k or 8 minute best pace or whatever? Or do we rely on Conconi theory?

If the purpose of training is to move the AT inflection point to the right, it'd have to be tested every so often. Anyone do that?

[PaulG]

Thanks for the interesting responses and references to the literature. I'm at the part of the IP where the AT sessions start to kick in and I think I will continue to do them hard with the goal of getting rather quickly into the TR band and ending up in the AN. The TRs I will try to do at race pace and ANs will be as fast as possible. I will take the rest necessary between intervals that I need to finish. These fast intervals will probably be extremely unpleasant but that should not be surprising with erging. On the pleasant side I hope to get out OTW as long as the weather holds for a 1 to 1.5 hour session on the weekend. Interestingly, I am doing the AT sessions at the same pace that I did in 2013 right before my 2K PB. That's encouraging, but my HR is higher now than then. At least I can still do them.

Also, as suggested by NavHaz a few years ago, I think there is real psychological value in doing hard intervals that are around 2k in length. It convinces you that a 2k piece will eventually END.

[strider]

Pretty simply:

The fitter and stronger athletes are, the higher their max HR, and training bands.

Just using the Borg scale is very informative, since if a calculated max HR 60 second interval does not come remotely close to exhausting someone, their max HR is a lot higher than they estimate. A super hard set of 10 strokes, on the water or an erg, mimics a weight lifting set of 10 repetitions, but for multiple muscle groups. One can not hold that pace for 200 strokes, not even for 20 strokes.

Years ago, gas exchange testing has shown that individuals go over their Anaerobic Thresholds at a range of about 55% to 93% of their calculated maximum heart rates. With good training habits, Max HR increases, as do the training bands. The low values are of course for people with very poor fitness. The very high values for people with extremely good fitness levels. A few years ago, in 2012, my fitness level was much higher than now (and I had a minor heart attack three and a half weeks ago), and my heart rate during 30 minutes of basketball was 183, using a chest belt and wrist watch/computer for monitoring. Very good for someone 59 years old. With no shortness of breath or even panting, I am sure I was well below my AT. I am sure my calculated Max Hr, using any formula, was under 170. 220 - age would put it at 161, obviously incorrect.

There are physiological responses one can use to identify training levels. Pay attention to the bodies response. Do not just be slaves to numbers.

To row very fast, do it. A lot. The four minute mile was once considered unreachable. To get faster, the mile athletes did shorter interval training, with diminishing rest intervals. Rowing 6Ks and marathons will not give great boat speed, because it trains slow twitch muscles. Usain Bolt did not waltz, or do miles of jogging, to become an insanely fast record setting sprinter, faster than anyone on the planet.

The Pete Plan and others include excellent interval training to row fast, very similar to what top track athletes do, which will build speed and endurance.
Unlike in Track and Field, where rest is understood well, a lot of rowers think rest is a sign of weak training, not wise training.

Better eyes and minds on the water can help improve boat speed. But excess time on the erg ignores the physics of propelling a boat with people using oars on rolling seats.
Heel vs foot pressure ? IMHO, trivial. There are bigger things to look at that offer far more speed. Oar blade shape matters, but so does shortening the stroke. Some teams have nearly as much blade travel from Catch to Finish in the air as in the water. What part of an air stroke propels the boat ? But what would be air strokes on an erg, DO turn a flywheel. Using erg testing first, may be hiding otherwise excellent oarsman who can move a boat better, but whose erg is a little below a cutoff.

Its time for C2 to enhance the erg so that handle height is set for people using ergs. That way an "air stroke" on the erg, gives no energy to the flywheel. Maybe even add a high pull brake, stopping the flywheel, just like a crab in a boat. Also a very low pull, as when washing out a stroke, should not turn the flywheel, but it does.

[hjs]

Pretty simply:

The fitter and stronger athletes are, the higher their max HR, and training bands.

Just using the Borg scale is very informative, since if a calculated max HR 60 second interval does not come remotely close to exhausting someone, their max HR is a lot higher than they estimate. A super hard set of 10 strokes, on the water or an erg, mimics a weight lifting set of 10 repetitions, but for multiple muscle groups. One can not hold that pace for 200 strokes, not even for 20 strokes.

Years ago, gas exchange testing has shown that individuals go over their Anaerobic Thresholds at a range of about 55% to 93% of their calculated maximum heart rates. With good training habits, Max HR increases, as do the training bands. The low values are of course for people with very poor fitness. The very high values for people with extremely good fitness levels. A few years ago, in 2012, my fitness level was much higher than now (and I had a minor heart attack three and a half weeks ago), and my heart rate during 30 minutes of basketball was 183, using a chest belt and wrist watch/computer for monitoring. Very good for someone 59 years old. With no shortness of breath or even panting, I am sure I was well below my AT. I am sure my calculated Max Hr, using any formula, was under 170. 220 - age would put it at 161, obviously incorrect.

There are physiological responses one can use to identify training levels. Pay attention to the bodies response. Do not just be slaves to numbers.

To row very fast, do it. A lot. The four minute mile was once considered unreachable. To get faster, the mile athletes did shorter interval training, with diminishing rest intervals. Rowing 6Ks and marathons will not give great boat speed, because it trains slow twitch muscles. Usain Bolt did not waltz, or do miles of jogging, to become an insanely fast record setting sprinter, faster than anyone on the planet.

The Pete Plan and others include excellent interval training to row fast, very similar to what top track athletes do, which will build speed and endurance.
Unlike in Track and Field, where rest is understood well, a lot of rowers think rest is a sign of weak training, not wise training.

Better eyes and minds on the water can help improve boat speed. But excess time on the erg ignores the physics of propelling a boat with people using oars on rolling seats.
Heel vs foot pressure ? IMHO, trivial. There are bigger things to look at that offer far more speed. Oar blade shape matters, but so does shortening the stroke. Some teams have nearly as much blade travel from Catch to Finish in the air as in the water. What part of an air stroke propels the boat ? But what would be air strokes on an erg, DO turn a flywheel. Using erg testing first, may be hiding otherwise excellent oarsman who can move a boat better, but whose erg is a little below a cutoff.

Its time for C2 to enhance the erg so that handle height is set for people using ergs. That way an "air stroke" on the erg, gives no energy to the flywheel. Maybe even add a high pull brake, stopping the flywheel, just like a crab in a boat. Also a very low pull, as when washing out a stroke, should not turn the flywheel, but it does.

Lots f flaws, max hf does not increese due to training, it even can lower a bit, due to a higher pump volume of the heart, which takes a bit longer. Rest hf does get lower, this gives a larger hf range. (Max minus min). The fitter one is, the more we can use from this reserve. Extreme example Paula R.

And Bolt, a guy who does 10/20 second races has zero relation with a 2k rower.

The best rowers are slow fiber dominant, certainly no sprinters and training is often 80/90% slow long work, speed is relative less important. 6 weeks is often enough to get the anaerobic system working.

The aerobic and anaerobic system work against eachother, improve one and the other gets worse.