Looking for tips to get faster

[Dangerscouse]

I’m gambling on that approach too.

I’ve just done a 15k at 2:04 and 19 rate and still found it challenging. My HR finished up at 165 even though I was only averaging 184 watts. When I started my abs were already sore from similar session on Sunday, when I finished my abs and back were aching badly. I suspect it’s the added load of improved technique. I’m really focusing on a good catch, a drive and then a slight tilt before finishing.

About a week ago I did a ~40 min 20 rate session, very steady. Felt good so straight after had a crack at 5km in addition and ended up doing my all time PB of 18:35 at about 29 rate.

Felt (relatively) easy after doing so many low and slow sessions.

Carl

Have you been quite sedentary until recently? Aching abs makes me think you've got a weak core/glutes from sitting down for much/most of the day.

Rowing will work your abs, but not your glutes and they are essential to protect your back. I'd recommend you do Pilates, or at least some regular core exercises e.g plank variations, lunges, squats dead bugs, bird dogs etc

[jamesg]

get well forward

That's the second thing coach told us. The first was don't put a foot in the bottom of the boat when you climb aboard.

[CarlNY]

when I finished my abs and back were aching badly.

This suggests you need to look at technique. Even the stretcher setting can cause problems, if too high; your height suggests set this as low as possible, so that you can get well forward and the weight on your feet before the catch. In principle, all the work in rowing should be done with the legs and hips, though maybe 10-15% can be done by other bits and pieces with little risk.

5k - 18.39 is clearly a good time, but at rate 29 suggests a relatively weak stroke (250W/29 = 8.6 W.min) for your size and age; again technique.

Height 1.92 and weight 112 kg gives a BMI of over 30 (using the ancient square rule), which could also make rowing difficult by damaging length and catch posture.

What's the stretcher setting James?

Yes I am a big guy, ex Rugby player. I've actually lost about 2 stone since I started rowing again. I've been as low as 15st in the past although I struggle to stay there.

I agree I think my leg drive is perhaps less strong than it should be

[CarlNY]

You are looking to make about the same improvements I did at the same age too. So, it is possible. I think others have covered the idea of mixing in some intense pieces which are needed along with the low/slow work.

How long did it take you to make the step up in performance Keith and what did you find was the most beneficial?

Carl

[hjs]

Erg is very much, how much work you put in it, is how much result you will get. There are no short cuts, there is no luck. You need meters, you need to build a good stroke, so use a low ish rate stroke and you need patience. Giving your build, you should have good potential. Strenght is fine, but in the end, apart from the pure sprint work, no so important. Aerobic fitness is key.
At first focus on longer, low rate sessions. 30/40 min is ok. Longer is not needed and likely, at this stage, no wise. You lack fitness to go longer.
Rough guide is, use 2k pace plus 18/22 and rate 18/22 ish. In your case 2k is 1.44 so aim for 2.02/206. Only go faster, if your 2k gets faster.

Being a newby, will give you good progress. But rowing is boring and training should be boring, its not a game sport. The “fun” is improving.

[CarlNY]

I’m gambling on that approach too.

I’ve just done a 15k at 2:04 and 19 rate and still found it challenging. My HR finished up at 165 even though I was only averaging 184 watts. When I started my abs were already sore from similar session on Sunday, when I finished my abs and back were aching badly. I suspect it’s the added load of improved technique. I’m really focusing on a good catch, a drive and then a slight tilt before finishing.

About a week ago I did a ~40 min 20 rate session, very steady. Felt good so straight after had a crack at 5km in addition and ended up doing my all time PB of 18:35 at about 29 rate.

Felt (relatively) easy after doing so many low and slow sessions.

Carl

Have you been quite sedentary until recently? Aching abs makes me think you've got a weak core/glutes from sitting down for much/most of the day.

Rowing will work your abs, but not your glutes and they are essential to protect your back. I'd recommend you do Pilates, or at least some regular core exercises e.g plank variations, lunges, squats dead bugs, bird dogs etc
[/quotI'

I've averaged 6,200m per day this season. Limited rowing before that since about 2014

The sore abs only seem to have started since I dropped my rate to 18-20 on long rows and brought pace down sub 2:00 - before that seemed ok

[KeithT]

You are looking to make about the same improvements I did at the same age too. So, it is possible. I think others have covered the idea of mixing in some intense pieces which are needed along with the low/slow work.

How long did it take you to make the step up in performance Keith and what did you find was the most beneficial?

Carl

The first time I ever tried a 2K all out was at a comp and I did a 7:03. Then, a week later did a 6:56 at another comp. A year later I did 6:43 and another year later a 6:29. Since then my 2K has been sort of the same but have went much faster on most other rows. You get a lot of "newbie" gains when you first start dedicating more time to rowing. To me that is what was most beneficial, just rowing more and mixing up the training. At first I was still heavily involved with CrossFit so I didn't need as much interval work and rowed mostly long steadier sessions. Now I still do mostly steady sessions but have a day a week set aside for intervals and then randomly will do hard pieces/tests. Biggest change was prioritizing rowing over CF and weights - still do those but only once/twice a week while rowing at least 4 days a week.

[iain]

... Some studies show better results from very short intervals (say 10-14 reps of 30 seconds at absolute max followed by 15 second recovery), others say longer intervals (say 4 reps of 2K at highest output you can sustain and still complete all four 2Ks) are just as good... All intervals have up to 2 min rest between work. Studies show more than 2 mins rest does not help.

Sorry coming back so late to an earlier point, but this is new to me. Would be very interested in the studies concerned as it is contrary to many of the common rowing plans. Either I do my intervals at too high an intensity (which is unlikely given the refrain that amateurs don't go hard enough) or I am missing something. I agree that a complete stop for longer may not bring any benefits, but an easy recovery to keep the blood moving definitely helps, but as a very slow and week rower I am in no place to judge the efficacy of a plan for serious rowers.

[CarlNY]

You are looking to make about the same improvements I did at the same age too. So, it is possible. I think others have covered the idea of mixing in some intense pieces which are needed along with the low/slow work.

How long did it take you to make the step up in performance Keith and what did you find was the most beneficial?

Carl

The first time I ever tried a 2K all out was at a comp and I did a 7:03. Then, a week later did a 6:56 at another comp. A year later I did 6:43 and another year later a 6:29. Since then my 2K has been sort of the same but have went much faster on most other rows. You get a lot of "newbie" gains when you first start dedicating more time to rowing. To me that is what was most beneficial, just rowing more and mixing up the training. At first I was still heavily involved with CrossFit so I didn't need as much interval work and rowed mostly long steadier sessions. Now I still do mostly steady sessions but have a day a week set aside for intervals and then randomly will do hard pieces/tests. Biggest change was prioritizing rowing over CF and weights - still do those but only once/twice a week while rowing at least 4 days a week.

Your approach sounds near identical to mine

[Tsnor]

... Some studies show better results from very short intervals (say 10-14 reps of 30 seconds at absolute max followed by 15 second recovery), others say longer intervals (say 4 reps of 2K at highest output you can sustain and still complete all four 2Ks) are just as good... All intervals have up to 2 min rest between work. Studies show more than 2 mins rest does not help.

Sorry coming back so late to an earlier point, but this is new to me. Would be very interested in the studies concerned as it is contrary to many of the common rowing plans. Either I do my intervals at too high an intensity (which is unlikely given the refrain that amateurs don't go hard enough) or I am missing something. I agree that a complete stop for longer may not bring any benefits, but an easy recovery to keep the blood moving definitely helps, but as a very slow and week rower I am in no place to judge the efficacy of a plan for serious rowers.

Hi, glad you are interested. Think we both agree some hard intervals should be in training plans, and are both talking about how long to rest between the hard intervals. For example, if you are doing four hard 2K rows, will 3 or 4 mins rest give you a better workout than 2 minutes rest? Conceptually it seems 4 mins would give you more ability to go harder on the next 2K piece, however study results seem to show that (1) there are no gains from greater than 2 mins in effort for the next piece and (2) if you hide the clock and tell people to rest until they recover then people choose about 2 mins then start again.

EDIT: "rest" above means active rest - slow paddling. Complete stop would be bad. I should have used different terms. Active slow paddling also means the PM5 is recording your heart rate as it peaks then comes down - you get data on each stroke you do.

Here is the study I relied on for Studies show more than 2 mins rest does not help. The actual text is easier to read than the somewhat stilted wording from the conclusion I'm pasting here for people who won't read the source. It's here: https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Full ... nd.21.aspx (FWIW I changed from 3 mins rest to 2 mins based on this, and am looking at changing my 30 second on max, 90 second rest intervals to have a short rest based on a different study. Haven't firmed that up yet).

Results: Running velocity increased slightly (14.7 +/- 0.7 vs 14.4 +/- 0.8 km.h(-1), P = 0.02) when rest increased from 1 to 2 min, but showed no further increase with a 4-min rest (14.7 +/- 0.6 km.h(-1). Work VO(2) was slightly higher with a 2-min rest duration compared with 1 and 4 min (66.2 +/- 4.2 vs 65.1 +/- 4.2 and 64.9 +/- 4.7 mL.kg(-1).min(-1), P < 0.05). Peak blood lactate was similar (6.2 +/- 2.6, 6.8 +/- 2.9, 6.2 +/- 2.6 mmol.L(-1)) across conditions, whereas peak RPE was slightly lower during the 4-min rest condition (17.1 +/- 1.3, 17.7 +/- 1.5, 16.8 +/- 1.5, P < 0.05). With self-selected recovery time and no knowledge of elapsed time, the average rest duration was 118 +/- 23 s.

Conclusions: Under self-paced conditions, varying rest duration in a range of 1 to 4 min had limited impact on performance during repeated 4-min high-intensity exercise bouts. Approximately 120 s of active recovery may provide an appropriate balance between intracellular restitution and maintenance of high VO(2) on-kinetics.

[Tony Cook]

... Some studies show better results from very short intervals (say 10-14 reps of 30 seconds at absolute max followed by 15 second recovery), others say longer intervals (say 4 reps of 2K at highest output you can sustain and still complete all four 2Ks) are just as good... All intervals have up to 2 min rest between work. Studies show more than 2 mins rest does not help.

Sorry coming back so late to an earlier point, but this is new to me. Would be very interested in the studies concerned as it is contrary to many of the common rowing plans. Either I do my intervals at too high an intensity (which is unlikely given the refrain that amateurs don't go hard enough) or I am missing something. I agree that a complete stop for longer may not bring any benefits, but an easy recovery to keep the blood moving definitely helps, but as a very slow and week rower I am in no place to judge the efficacy of a plan for serious rowers.

Hi, glad you are interested. Think we both agree some hard intervals should be in training plans, and are both talking about how long to rest between the hard intervals. For example, if you are doing four hard 2K rows, will 3 or 4 mins rest give you a better workout than 2 minutes rest? Conceptually it seems 4 mins would give you more ability to go harder on the next 2K piece, however study results seem to show that (1) there are no gains from greater than 2 mins in effort for the next piece and (2) if you hide the clock and tell people to rest until they recover then people choose about 2 mins then start again.

EDIT: "rest" above means active rest - slow paddling. Complete stop would be bad. I should have used different terms. Active slow paddling also means the PM5 is recording your heart rate as it peaks then comes down - you get data on each stroke you do.

Here is the study I relied on for Studies show more than 2 mins rest does not help. The actual text is easier to read than the somewhat stilted wording from the conclusion I'm pasting here for people who won't read the source. It's here: https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Full ... nd.21.aspx (FWIW I changed from 3 mins rest to 2 mins based on this, and am looking at changing my 30 second on max, 90 second rest intervals to have a short rest based on a different study. Haven't firmed that up yet).

Results: Running velocity increased slightly (14.7 +/- 0.7 vs 14.4 +/- 0.8 km.h(-1), P = 0.02) when rest increased from 1 to 2 min, but showed no further increase with a 4-min rest (14.7 +/- 0.6 km.h(-1). Work VO(2) was slightly higher with a 2-min rest duration compared with 1 and 4 min (66.2 +/- 4.2 vs 65.1 +/- 4.2 and 64.9 +/- 4.7 mL.kg(-1).min(-1), P < 0.05). Peak blood lactate was similar (6.2 +/- 2.6, 6.8 +/- 2.9, 6.2 +/- 2.6 mmol.L(-1)) across conditions, whereas peak RPE was slightly lower during the 4-min rest condition (17.1 +/- 1.3, 17.7 +/- 1.5, 16.8 +/- 1.5, P < 0.05). With self-selected recovery time and no knowledge of elapsed time, the average rest duration was 118 +/- 23 s.

Conclusions: Under self-paced conditions, varying rest duration in a range of 1 to 4 min had limited impact on performance during repeated 4-min high-intensity exercise bouts. Approximately 120 s of active recovery may provide an appropriate balance between intracellular restitution and maintenance of high VO(2) on-kinetics.

I always rested (active) until my HR got to 2xRHR, which was around 1:30, rarely as long as 2 mins. 2 mins always seems ample. Then I read everything I could find by Mike Caviston and now do my 500 intervals at 5’ starts, 1k at 10’ starts and 2k at 15’ starts. For me that’s 8’ rest between for a 4 x 2k. Means I can do 4 x sub 7’ 2ks, which I couldn’t do with 2’ rest.
Mike’s view makes sense, to me. Whilst I could work hard and slow down to 7:10 or so with shorter rest I prefer the ‘quality’ of sub 7s all the way.
I guess there’s a study to ‘prove’ any number of approaches.

[iain]

Many thanks for the fascinating paper. Considering whether we would expect the results to apply directly to rowing, there is a caveat in here that the runners were not used to rests of as long as 4 min, so may have under estimated the pace they could have maintained with the longer rests. In addition, running uses less muscle than rowing, so there is a possible increase in the volume of muscle that needs to recover on a rower (I don't expect that should be a large effect as the largest muscle groups used are the same). Finally, it is possible to row to a greater state of exhaustion than running (I am sure most of us have experienced not being able to stand up after a hard session, clearly this isn't available to a runner, so they need to limit the intensity of their intervals somewhat).

I recently did a session of 30S intervals all out with 3 min recovery. I was still breathing hard at the end of the rest period in the later intervals. In the 8th I failed to get my legs to function beyond 1/3 slide after only 15S (in earlier intervals this tended to be after >20S). I did manage to do a reasonable 9th interval (although starting more conservatively), but that was in the knowledge that I was only doing 10 intervals, so only had 1 more to go (and I can usually up the pace in the penultimate interval of intervals <1k). Anecdotal I know and maybe I am effected opposite to the runners. While they believed >2min was not required and performed accordingly, I am used to 4 min rest and so may have under estimated the recovery in 3.

[Tsnor]

I always rested (active) until my HR got to 2xRHR, which was around 1:30, rarely as long as 2 mins. 2 mins always seems ample. Then I read everything I could find by Mike Caviston and now do my 500 intervals at 5’ starts, 1k at 10’ starts and 2k at 15’ starts. For me that’s 8’ rest between for a 4 x 2k. Means I can do 4 x sub 7’ 2ks, which I couldn’t do with 2’ rest.
Mike’s view makes sense, to me. Whilst I could work hard and slow down to 7:10 or so with shorter rest I prefer the ‘quality’ of sub 7s all the way.
I guess there’s a study to ‘prove’ any number of approaches.

"Means I can do 4 x sub 7’ 2ks, which I couldn’t do with 2’ rest. " Neat. So your observation is that with the 2 mins rest you would do 7:10 and with 8 min rest you are under 7... a significant difference.

The 12 trained runners in the study run the same pace with 2 mins rest as with 4 mins rest. The runners could not see the rate they were running, but could choose the rate. The study results seem compelling that the additional rest over 2 mins did not let the runners hit a higher effort level. The runners were doing 4 minute intervals.

[Tony Cook]

I always rested (active) until my HR got to 2xRHR, which was around 1:30, rarely as long as 2 mins. 2 mins always seems ample. Then I read everything I could find by Mike Caviston and now do my 500 intervals at 5’ starts, 1k at 10’ starts and 2k at 15’ starts. For me that’s 8’ rest between for a 4 x 2k. Means I can do 4 x sub 7’ 2ks, which I couldn’t do with 2’ rest.
Mike’s view makes sense, to me. Whilst I could work hard and slow down to 7:10 or so with shorter rest I prefer the ‘quality’ of sub 7s all the way.
I guess there’s a study to ‘prove’ any number of approaches.

"Means I can do 4 x sub 7’ 2ks, which I couldn’t do with 2’ rest. " Neat. So your observation is that with the 2 mins rest you would do 7:10 and with 8 min rest you are under 7... a significant difference.

The 12 trained runners in the study run the same pace with 2 mins rest as with 4 mins rest. The runners could not see the rate they were running, but could choose the rate. The study results seem compelling that the additional rest over 2 mins did not let the runners hit a higher effort level. The runners were doing 4 minute intervals.

I’m not a doctor, or a scientist and my example of taking a sample of 1 subjects could well be bull——
My main point was that if Mike Caviston says it’s a good thing, then it’s probably a good thing. Then again there are probably people who don’t agree with his methods.
Even if I could do the same times with 2 mins rest the way I see it is at worst I am wasting a few minutes of my life by resting a little longer. It doesn’t appear that I’m losing any training benefit.

[Tsnor]

... there is a caveat in here ..

Agree completely. Finding data is tough, and often the data contradicts. This was the only study I've seen on rest duration. It would not surprise me at all to find other studies done later give different results.

Good news is studies on rowers, cyclists, runners, Nordic endurance athletes all tend to get the same results - or disagree about the same things. So I would find it more likely that a second study of runners got different results for value of rest time vs. discovery that rowers and runners needed different rest times when doing intervals.

Example of conflicting report.... "what is the optimal interval length" you can find studies saying 30 seconds. You can find others saying 8 minutes.