New to erging or wondering why you're not improving? Here's some good info.

[Gammmmo]

I also added fast sessions to my schedule which Maffetone does advocate after a ''base building'' period of aerobic development and is also backed up by Seiler and his ''Polarised Training'' so was progressing nicely

As an aside, I followed a similar principle when doing running (was training mainly for a 70.3 tri but also did the odd 10K and HM) after a well-known user 'BarryP' on the tri forum Slowtitch fleshed out a plan that adhered to all this. Alot of people never moved beyond the first phase which was in a nutshell "run slowly little and often". Obviously a slight difference here with running because of the increased likelihood for injury and I was relatively untrained at running...I've simply not done enough running personally to know whether this was the best approach for me for running but I did improve and had fewer injuries.

With erging I have found that some higher power work is essential...I seem to lose the feel for a hard effort if I don't train much at or around that level.

[uk gearmuncher]

The guy who started the thread...Rod, you may not be familiar with. He's low 60s and highly aerobic dominant. He's seen a tangible bump in performance e.g. ~15870m to ~16000m for the hour, since I think working with a coach. Whether you'd class that as dramatic or not is debateable. I'm wondering whether he's got this from the approach cited in his original post...it'd be interesting to hear of SOMEONE getting results with this approach. Suspect that more structure is partly helping. Whatever...bottom line...something has worked for him...and goodluck to him.

Yep, I read Rod Chinn's on facebook when they come up. At 60, any rise in performance is going to be unlikely - unless you're new to a sport or whose previous methods were that poor. Therefore the fact he's got such a gain is a real credit to what he's done and the instruction he's received. The trick is that I personally believe that optimised training is more science than art but having the knowledge to do this is hard to come by. The problem is we'll never truly know where his gains came from because the training puzzle is so multifaceted and complex that it's almost impossible to replicate the process from one person to another once you get beyond the superficial comparisons.

[uk gearmuncher]

With erging I have found that some higher power work is essential...I seem to lose the feel for a hard effort if I don't train much at or around that level.

......but that makes complete sense. It's about a sports specificity (or supporting the specific physiology required) but (crucially) then achieving the right distribution of it. I'm far from qualified to instruct anyone on technique but one thing I see a lot of on facebook that worries me are frequent screenshots of the same peoples training sessions with their PM units cranking out so much random and frequent high intensity that it's no wonder they can't improve.

[uk gearmuncher]

I also added fast sessions to my schedule which Maffetone does advocate after a ''base building'' period of aerobic development and is also backed up by Seiler and his ''Polarised Training''

This is actually a fundamental key difference not a similarity - Maffetone suggests intensity after the base period, Seiler actually advocates it all year round in some proportion.

[Rod]

Yep, I read Rod Chinn's on facebook when they come up. At 60, any rise in performance is going to be unlikely - unless you're new to a sport or whose previous methods were that poor. Therefore the fact he's got such a gain is a real credit to what he's done and the instruction he's received. The trick is that I personally believe that optimised training is more science than art but having the knowledge to do this is hard to come by. The problem is we'll never truly know where his gains came from because the training puzzle is so multifaceted and complex that it's almost impossible to replicate the process from one person to another once you get beyond the superficial comparisons.

Knowing what I know now I'd say my previous training methods were pretty poor so that fact and the aerobic development I've put in would I think be the main reasons for the gains I've made although giving up running to concentrate on the erg plus retiring from work and having a home gym (with his'n'hers ergs) built have also contributed.

I never used to row very far, never wore a heart rate monitor and always seemed to suffer burn out as looking back I was doing too much too fast.

I'm certainly no sports scientist and now feel I could have a got a lot more out of my running when that was my main sport as a lot of what I did back then was again...not long enough and too fast.

I had quite a range as a runner having clocked under 12 seconds for the 100 metres in my early 20's (which helped with my rugby as I was a regular player between the ages of 11 and 40) and under 3:30 for the Marathon in my late 40's so sure the bits in between those could have been better....mind you I went to a lot of parties in those days!

[Gammmmo]

giving up running to concentrate on the erg plus retiring from work and having a home gym (with his'n'hers ergs) built have also contributed.

I'm sure. Also obviously depends somewhat on your job e.g. stress, manual/deskjockey etc. When I was bike-racing at a high level I wasn't always holding down a full-time job. Do I think I could've got the same results? Yes BUT far less likely...I was much less likely to miss a training session and felt more able to give 100% when I needed to even though it was purely mental. There is nothing like building your lifestyle around competitive sport (even at the amateur level) and that 'bubble' suited me nicely while it lasted.

I never used to row very far, never wore a heart rate monitor and always seemed to suffer burn out as looking back I was doing too much too fast.

I think for some people where the volume is low but their capacity is alot higher (previously having done alot more) that going hard much more often IS the best way to optimise fitness. I do a mere 20Kish/week on the erg now [as more keen on gains for weights] but nearly every time I get on it I'm not hanging about.

[jackarabit]

—Excerpted from the Chambers Q&A:

Q Hi Bill, I am a follower of polarization training for over 4 years. I am happy with the long 18k-26k around 75% HR sculling/erging. What I am struggling about is the 10-15% red zone training. I cannot manage it without greater percent of yellow zone. What type of intervals do you use to achieve the preferable percentage? Many thanks for your help.

A So what we do (masters squad) and what I do is as follows: look at the intensity of the session first of all and count these as either low or high intensity. For the high intensity I aim to accumulate between 30 – 45 minutes in zone 4 through different interval variations. My objective is to get into zone 4 as fast as possible and therefore only transition through zone 3. ntervals are a variation of 2:1 work to rest ratio. I let the squad pick and mix to keep the varsity yet a favourite is 5 x 8 minutes with 4 minutes rest between intervals. This is comfortably hard.

The black hole is like Kansas in August—a place you don’t enter except with the intention of passing thru, no lingering.

[ampire]

Does anyone have any feedback on a ratio of training aerobic bands UT2 vs UT1? 70/30? I am doing ~100KM/ week.

[uk gearmuncher]

—Excerpted from the Chambers Q&A:

Q Hi Bill, I am a follower of polarization training for over 4 years. I am happy with the long 18k-26k around 75% HR sculling/erging. What I am struggling about is the 10-15% red zone training. I cannot manage it without greater percent of yellow zone. What type of intervals do you use to achieve the preferable percentage? Many thanks for your help.

A So what we do (masters squad) and what I do is as follows: look at the intensity of the session first of all and count these as either low or high intensity. For the high intensity I aim to accumulate between 30 – 45 minutes in zone 4 through different interval variations. My objective is to get into zone 4 as fast as possible and therefore only transition through zone 3. ntervals are a variation of 2:1 work to rest ratio. I let the squad pick and mix to keep the varsity yet a favourite is 5 x 8 minutes with 4 minutes rest between intervals. This is comfortably hard.

The black hole is like Kansas in August—a place you don’t enter except with the intention of passing thru, no lingering.

For those interested in polarised training :
Seilers polarised training approach is based on his advocated 80/20 split. The crucial thing is he bases this on sessions not time. In other words, if you do 5 sessions per week, only one is high intensity. The rest are low intensity. I know this as I’ve checked this with him personally and he states this in his many podcast interviews.

[uk gearmuncher]

—Excerpted from the Chambers Q&A:

Q Hi Bill, I am a follower of polarization training for over 4 years. I am happy with the long 18k-26k around 75% HR sculling/erging. What I am struggling about is the 10-15% red zone training. I cannot manage it without greater percent of yellow zone. What type of intervals do you use to achieve the preferable percentage? Many thanks for your help.

A So what we do (masters squad) and what I do is as follows: look at the intensity of the session first of all and count these as either low or high intensity. For the high intensity I aim to accumulate between 30 – 45 minutes in zone 4 through different interval variations. My objective is to get into zone 4 as fast as possible and therefore only transition through zone 3. ntervals are a variation of 2:1 work to rest ratio. I let the squad pick and mix to keep the varsity yet a favourite is 5 x 8 minutes with 4 minutes rest between intervals. This is comfortably hard.

The black hole is like Kansas in August—a place you don’t enter except with the intention of passing thru, no lingering.

For those interested in polarised training:
Seilers polarised training approach is based on his advocated 80/20 split. The crucial thing is he bases this on sessions not time. In other words, if you do 5 sessions per week, only one is high intensity. The rest are low intensity. I know this as I’ve checked this with him personally and he states this in his many podcast interviews.