Are we training too easy?

[jamesg]

This question does not apply to rowing. We do not train for rowing, we ARE rowing. So if you have say a 10W stroke, use it.

Professionals that pulled heavy skiffs every day up down and across the Thames had to be excluded from racing, the amateurs with their fancy training ideas hadn't a chance.

[jcross485]

You are at a very different point in your life and potential to me JC so I would expect you to still have aspirations to build to new PBs (PRs in the US?) as well as maintain a generally healty lifestyle. My goals have always been about remaining fit enough and strong enough to do everything else I want/need to do. The aging process does take its toll - especially post 65! - and just maintaining, at best, some decent times is hugely important in my ongoing motivation but, say, being good enough to do well in a race couldn't be less important to me. As such we will, and no doubt should, train differently - but there are some similarities.

I'm not prepared to put in quite so much time as you, but similar - in a typical week I'll do 50k+ on the erg and 2 Dumbbells sessions of about 30mins (3x 7 exercises with 10/8/6 reps on increasing weights). I choose to erg every day as that has made it "what I do" and I don't have that decision moment where any number of excuses might come forward as to why today should be a night off. 50k+ a week over 6 or 7 sessions isn't enough to worry too much about recovery. Nevertheless only two days are hard - sprint intervals (typically Tuesdays) and then competitions, TTs, or endurance intervals (typically Saturdays). The rest is my steady state - long to me, but short sessions compared to most on here ranging from some 10ks, mostly 8ks, but occasionally just 6ks like I did tonight. These sessions are often at r20 (r18 tonight) and slow enough that my HR drifts towards my supposed UT1 cap by the end. They could be slower and I'd stay in UT2, but I've never believed that that would make me better on any other day. Its hard enough going from a 180w r20 session to a 300+w r35 session - any bigger gap and the mind games definitely win. Its a bit like the rest day "myth". For many its an essential element of the week, but for me any session I have following a rest day or worse 2 days in Brum watching BRIC has an RPE at least 2 or 3 higher than the same session would in an unbroken run.

You appear to be saying you're looking for a year round keeping fit regime. What I do does that...but what it doesn't do is "peak" at any time for any specific event. If you're still going for PBs, you'll do better to periodise and adjust to hit specific goals at specific times. The other way is likely to leave you closer to mid table obscurity and not quite ever realise your full potential on the erg - but may suit your overall goals as it does mine.

We're at different points age wise but seem to have similar goals in a way - staying pretty good at everything but not necessarily great or peaked for anything specific. I do acknowledge it might be shaving a bit off the top but at the same time, I think it would keep me within a relatively short peak towards anything I feel like taking on.

With what I am laying out for myself, I don't think I'll be much over 60k - 65k a week consistently and I'll have some strength work in there 3x a week as well. I just don't know that, at that kind of volume, I need to be ultra conservative with the aerobic work and keeping intensity low.

Long story short: since I started erging, I do 3 hard gym sessions per week, so I need to really have an eye on my recovery.
First full season had an average of 45k/week, but volume increased in the second half of the season, so less in the first half. Long sessions often at about 80% HR max.
Second full season averaged 50k, more or less evenly distributed. Long sessions still mostly at about 80% HR max.
Current season averages 60k, but last 3 month or so I get 80-90km per week in. Since I do this high volume, I reduced the load to ca. 70% HR max, sometimes 75%. Otherwise recovery would not be possible. The pace at these 70% efforts is equal or faster than the pace I had half a year ago at my 80% efforts. And even doing longer sessions, eg. for 2 hours, my HR drift is lower or not existent.
Conclusion: higher volume on lower load, less volume on higher load - both worked for me to get gains and improve. It is difficult to say which approach gave the better results. Another factor is the training in the gym, which also has effects on the results on the rower. This changed as well over time.

Thank you!

I think we're saying similar things - as total volume goes up, you have to be more mindful of intensity, especially on the days that are not designed to be "hard" with intervals, sprints, etc. I just don't know that the total volume I'll be training at will be that which I need to intentionally keep things that all that low but I will know more as I get further into it. If I was getting a consistent 10+ hours in per week, I likely would have a different take, but that kind of volume is just not something I think I will be hitting consistently. Like you, I am going to be doing strength work 3x a week and the big focus is building my deadlift back up (I've got a number in mind); the strength volume won't be that high but what I am doing will be intentional and is 100% focused on supporting the deadlift. My strength work is going to be along the same lines - quality over volume and intentional.

This question does not apply to rowing. We do not train for rowing, we ARE rowing. So if you have say a 10W stroke, use it.

Professionals that pulled heavy skiffs every day up down and across the Thames had to be excluded from racing, the amateurs with their fancy training ideas hadn't a chance.

I think I understand what you mean and am interpreting it correctly - essentially control intensity more through stroke rate than anything?

[reuben]

An idea that's floating around these days is that for the average person training in almost any physical activity, it's quite likely that their easy days are too hard (remember LSD running?) and their hard days are too easy (see: HIIT) - they (we) work too hard in recovery or baseline workouts, and not hard enough in high intensity workouts. This idea suggests that we should take more of a barbell approach. I'm not in the medical field, and I don't know how widespread or accepted this idea is, but it seems to be in vogue based on my scattered reading on Ye Olde Internete. Of course there are exceptions such as the elderly or those recovering from an injury - when I had two broken arms I wasn't going to ride my bike or lift weights, and if my 94 year old mother walked, that was enough.

I also think that it depends on one's goals. Do you want to compete - locally, nationally, internationally? Just get outdoors and put a smile on your face? Stay reasonably fit without killing yourself? Sleep better at night? Lower your cholesterol?

Other variables are current fitness and where you are in a cycle - just starting, or well trained? Establishing a base, or peaking for an event?

Long term goals (years, decades, lifetime) aren't necessarily the same as short term goals (3 -12 months).

On the flip side, overuse injuries and burnout are real.

[Dangerscouse]

More of an auto-regulated approach based on RPE it seems? It probably is the most ideal way to do it, if you're honest enough with yourself and disciplined enough with yourself to make that happen. I don't know that I am quite there yet myself. I feel like I am still in a position where I need some kind of structure (ie. two aerobic sessions, two threshold sessions, one VO2max session, one sprint / power session per week) just to hold myself accountable. If I am honest with myself, I have no issue with the aerobic work, more threshold type work, and even sprint / power work; its the VO2max type work (ie. 2k race pace intervals) that I avoid and I know that's what I need and would benefit from the most.

I tend to forget that it's not natural to everyone to auto regulate their sessions, but it's something that is very worthwhile mastering. This morning's session should have been SS after yesterday's wrestle, and this week's general stresses and strains, but it just didn't happen that way at all, which is counterintuitive and why it's important to grab it when you can.

If you need the 2k, and preferably sub 2k, race pace sessions you just need to start at a slightly slower pace and shorter distance and keep adjusting them. Something like one min / one min off or 8 x 500m will be an ideal way to get you used to them.

I have noticed that you don't do any 'transport' level sessions, so i do agree that this is your weakness if, and only if, you want to get faster, as there's no general need for you to do them

[alex9026]

Mike Caviston's Wolverine Plan

That's it, thank you

[jcross485]

I tend to forget that it's not natural to everyone to auto regulate their sessions, but it's something that is very worthwhile mastering. This morning's session should have been SS after yesterday's wrestle, and this week's general stresses and strains, but it just didn't happen that way at all, which is counterintuitive and why it's important to grab it when you can.

If you need the 2k, and preferably sub 2k, race pace sessions you just need to start at a slightly slower pace and shorter distance and keep adjusting them. Something like one min / one min off or 8 x 500m will be an ideal way to get you used to them.

I have noticed that you don't do any 'transport' level sessions, so i do agree that this is your weakness if, and only if, you want to get faster, as there's no general need for you to do them

The auto-regulation skill is not something I have mastered, rowing, running, or even in the strength stuff which I've done for a long time. Maybe because I tend to be more of a numbers and data person so having a plan / structure with goals seems to resonate more than the art of training, being auto-regulation.

You are correct that I am not really doing much if any of that transport or VO2max work; its something I know I need to be able to put down a good 2k but avoid it. That's one of the reasons I am putting a plan in place that has these about once a week - to be accountable to myself and the plan in actually doing them as I know they are needed for a fast 2k (or anything 1k - 5k for that matter).

[nick rockliff]

Bait-y title acknowledged.

I don't think there is much question that the training of the higher performers and elites works for them.

That said, I can't help but think the sheer volume of their training more or less necessitates that their easy work is as easy as it is; it's to make sure they can do the hard work as hard as they do.

I had one week once where I managed 140k with strength work added; I needed to do a bulk of that volume at a relatively easy effort or intensity just to get through the amount of work.

That's definitely not the norm for me though. I'm more of a 6ish hours per week person on the average; some weeks get away from me with work and other commitments and at other phases, I can put in 8-10 hours consistently. I would still base my plan around ~6 hours a week as it's fairly sustainable for me year round.

So back to training - what about those who are training more along the lines of 4-6 hours per week like myself? Do we really need to do 80% (or more) of their volume "easy" or at such a low effort, HR, etc.? By "easy", I'm referring to Zone 1 / 2 HR's or UT2 type efforts on the erg.

Surely the harder stuff needs to be in there (thinking sprint intervals, harder "race pace" intervals, threshold work) but would we be better served doing "easy" work more in the realm of UT1 or LT1 type effort (ie. Z3-ish)?

Just some of my thoughts as I build out my next block a bit more formally now that I'm home and travel has calmed down a lot.

You have outlined twice above the main problem in people's understanding of aerobic zone training.

IMHO and in very simple terms and without quoting reports and papers from Google searches and more from my own experiences.

Aerobic training is from when we sit on the erg up to AT. I always used three zones UT3, UT2 and UT1.

You have called UT2 and UT1 "easy" but never mention UT3. In my book, UT3 is "easy" UT2 if correctly defined is not "easy" and UT1 is even more not "easy"

I think all the various descriptions of "slow SS" and "easy UT2" send out the wrong interpretation of aerobic base training. Especially if people are only doing 4 to 5 sessions per week.

If people think something needs to be "easy" they will work "easy" and probably never fulfill their potential.

I've been doing this silly sport like many on here for over 20 years from my mid 40s and can honestly say, I had never done a session with a split starting with a 2 until I was 63 (apart from when I had a serious illness in my early 50s) which was the point I realised I was getting old.

Even now as i approach 68 and only train Mon to Fri about an hour a each of those days, none of my sessions are "easy" they all have meaning and purpose.

So, in answer to the title of your question, yes, I think people do train too "easy"

[H2O]

I second Nick Rockliff that no session should be so easy that it feels negligible. With say 6 hrs per week, 80% of this time is 36 mins.
Let's assume you are targeting a 2K, where you need TR sessions (2K pace). Timewise the most economical way is to do the 2K in one piece (say 7 mins), once a week. This gives you almost 30 minutes for high paced rowing (AT or higher).
It should be enough.

Personally I am now doing a lot of volume of really easy stuff (because of the Holiday challenge, I am at 180K) combined with steep hikes (where I am at least at UT3 level for 90 mins without interruption and then some more to add up to about 2.5 hrs UT3 in all).
Very little TR (at most once every two weeks), longer AT sessions (5K-6K in one piece) a little more than once a week,
high end UT1 more often.
UT1 or higher probably 35%.

Effect: good enough for distances >= 5K but the 2K has likely suffered, but not too much. I think I should be able to pull 7:16
(about 2 months ago 7:12 with more TR workouts).
The biggest effect that I am noticing is the following: I used to feel like already working hard when keeping the split at 2:00.
This is also my 1hr maximum pace, i.e likely the anaerobic threshold. This has become much easier.

[JaapvanE]

I second Nick Rockliff that no session should be so easy that it feels negligible.

That is called a Zone 1 training in my book. Zone 2 is actually pretty tough due to its length. You still feel tired, but not due the peak intensity.

With say 6 hrs per week, 80% of this time is 36 mins.

AFAIK, this is NOT how polarized training works. It is 20% of your sessions, and then with a bunch of restrictions. First of all, 20% of 6 hours is 72 minutes. Roughly 10 2K's at full race pace. See what happens if you do a TT 2K each day for over three weeks. You will not recover.

See a professional coach talk about the use of Zone2: https://youtu.be/1GYZW1bjfcA

[H2O]

First of all, 20% of 6 hours is 72 minutes.

I seem to get Alzheimers. Thank God that I can still find the rowing machine!

But let's go with the 72 minutes per week: TR: four times 1K (14 mins), one 5K (19 mins), 39 mins UT1.
Seems very doable. jcross485 puts UT1 into the hard category.

[Tsnor]

With say 6 hrs per week, 80% of this time is 36 mins.

The polarized 80% rule is for workout sessions for people doing 12 session/week (morning and night most days) like college teams, Olympians, etc. It doesn't work for cyclists (they do one session a day, not two), or for people working out 6-10 hours/week.

Many people ask Seiler about 80% of 6 hours. The net of his response is for someone doing 6 hours/week "2 to 3 hard days/week, 1 day of rest and long slow zone 1 of 3 on the remaining days." With minimum time to get long/slow benefits (mitochondria, capillaries, etc) of about 45 mins per long slow session, longer is better.

If you then ask about people training 12-20 hours a week you get the same answer with the extra time spent on longer long/slow days. So net is the 80% doesn't make a lot of sense, and you should train at most 3 hard days.

If you believe in training seasons (base, build, competition) during base the training prescription drops one hard session, so only do one or two hard sessions vs two or three.

FWIW after 25 years of data Seiler said that "go slow or hard, nothing in between" was wrong. Instead the data shows that for hard days threshold level workout (like those in pyramid training) work just as well has the hard max sessions of polarized. The concept of separating hard days from long/slow days held up well.

[H2O]

Instead the data shows that for hard days threshold level workout (like those in pyramid training) work just as well has the hard max sessions of polarized.

I like to hear that. "threshold level": does this mean that I only have to be slightly faster than anaerobic threshold pace?

[jcross485]

You have outlined twice above the main problem in people's understanding of aerobic zone training.

IMHO and in very simple terms and without quoting reports and papers from Google searches and more from my own experiences.

Aerobic training is from when we sit on the erg up to AT. I always used three zones UT3, UT2 and UT1.

You have called UT2 and UT1 "easy" but never mention UT3. In my book, UT3 is "easy" UT2 if correctly defined is not "easy" and UT1 is even more not "easy"

I think all the various descriptions of "slow SS" and "easy UT2" send out the wrong interpretation of aerobic base training. Especially if people are only doing 4 to 5 sessions per week.

If people think something needs to be "easy" they will work "easy" and probably never fulfill their potential.

I've been doing this silly sport like many on here for over 20 years from my mid 40s and can honestly say, I had never done a session with a split starting with a 2 until I was 63 (apart from when I had a serious illness in my early 50s) which was the point I realised I was getting old.

Even now as i approach 68 and only train Mon to Fri about an hour a each of those days, none of my sessions are "easy" they all have meaning and purpose.

So, in answer to the title of your question, yes, I think people do train too "easy"

I agree with you that UT1 - UT3 is all aerobic; it just seems to me that most people are talking about UT2 as their predominant aerobic work or effort but with 6ish hours of training, I'm hypothesizing that I can push my aerobic work a bit harder and more in the UT1 area. And your thoughts seem to reinforce what I am thinking and the way my next block is shaping up. I appreciate your insights!

I second Nick Rockliff that no session should be so easy that it feels negligible. With say 6 hrs per week, 80% of this time is 36 mins.
Let's assume you are targeting a 2K, where you need TR sessions (2K pace). Timewise the most economical way is to do the 2K in one piece (say 7 mins), once a week. This gives you almost 30 minutes for high paced rowing (AT or higher).
It should be enough.

Personally I am now doing a lot of volume of really easy stuff (because of the Holiday challenge, I am at 180K) combined with steep hikes (where I am at least at UT3 level for 90 mins without interruption and then some more to add up to about 2.5 hrs UT3 in all).
Very little TR (at most once every two weeks), longer AT sessions (5K-6K in one piece) a little more than once a week,
high end UT1 more often.
UT1 or higher probably 35%.

Effect: good enough for distances >= 5K but the 2K has likely suffered, but not too much. I think I should be able to pull 7:16
(about 2 months ago 7:12 with more TR workouts).
The biggest effect that I am noticing is the following: I used to feel like already working hard when keeping the split at 2:00.
This is also my 1hr maximum pace, i.e likely the anaerobic threshold. This has become much easier.

I was doing a lot more training when away from home, albeit no erging, so my aerobic sessions (incline treadmill walking) were much easier to account for the volume. The one thing you mention is how your harder paces seem easier to hold now and clearly that would be something I would want to see out of my training.

AFAIK, this is NOT how polarized training works. It is 20% of your sessions, and then with a bunch of restrictions. First of all, 20% of 6 hours is 72 minutes. Roughly 10 2K's at full race pace. See what happens if you do a TT 2K each day for over three weeks. You will not recover.

See a professional coach talk about the use of Zone2: https://youtu.be/1GYZW1bjfcA

I think (personally anyways) one thing that ends up getting lost in the 80/20 or polarized training message is the total volume of training. If I was consistently training 10-12+ hours a week across all sessions and all modalities, I would probably take a different approach than what I am planning on. I do think I will be training plenty to make progress, but I am also looking to maximize what I am doing with those 6ish hours.

I seem to get Alzheimers. Thank God that I can still find the rowing machine!

But let's go with the 72 minutes per week: TR: four times 1K (14 mins), one 5K (19 mins), 39 mins UT1.
Seems very doable. jcross485 puts UT1 into the hard category.

I don't think I would classify UT1 as hard training per se; certainly harder than UT2 and what I perceive as a lot of people's aerobic work but not hard unless you're pushing it for something like a marathon type distance or time. I am just looking at potentially using UT1 more frequently.

The polarized 80% rule is for workout sessions for people doing 12 session/week (morning and night most days) like college teams, Olympians, etc. It doesn't work for cyclists (they do one session a day, not two), or for people working out 6-10 hours/week.

Many people ask Seiler about 80% of 6 hours. The net of his response is for someone doing 6 hours/week "2 to 3 hard days/week, 1 day of rest and long slow zone 1 of 3 on the remaining days." With minimum time to get long/slow benefits (mitochondria, capillaries, etc) of about 45 mins per long slow session, longer is better.

If you then ask about people training 12-20 hours a week you get the same answer with the extra time spent on longer long/slow days. So net is the 80% doesn't make a lot of sense, and you should train at most 3 hard days.

If you believe in training seasons (base, build, competition) during base the training prescription drops one hard session, so only do one or two hard sessions vs two or three.

FWIW after 25 years of data Seiler said that "go slow or hard, nothing in between" was wrong. Instead the data shows that for hard days threshold level workout (like those in pyramid training) work just as well has the hard max sessions of polarized. The concept of separating hard days from long/slow days held up well.

This seems to line up more with what I am thinking but with only 6 hours, I am still wondering whether or not slow zone 1 (UT3 / UT2) on 3 of the days is going to be best as opposed to harder, yet still, aerobic work (UT1). I can understand it a bit with running because of the physical toll it can take, running is ultimately what led me to rowing (my body just didn't like the volume needed to keep making progress).

[Tsnor]

.. but with only 6 hours, I am still wondering whether or not slow zone 1 (UT3 / UT2) on 3 of the days is going to be best as opposed to harder, yet still, aerobic work (UT1). I can understand it a bit with running because of the physical toll it can take, running is ultimately what led me to rowing (my body just didn't like the volume needed to keep making progress).

This video (target for cycling, works for rowing) is perfect for setting up a 6 hour training program. Just add in strength training on hard days. Starting about a minute in https://youtu.be/H9SvLGv2c1E?si=dtNuZGFQOt3yaz5f&t=76 first minute is content free. remainder is great.

You can try hard workouts more than 3 days/week. It works for some people. Not many. Doing 120 minutes of hard/week works if you do it 40 mins/day on 3 days. If you do 20 mins/day on 6 days it is the same 120 minutes/week, but it doesn't work well in practice when people try it. Same for lifting -- very few people would propose working the same muscle group hard on consecutive days because people tried it and it didn't have a good outcome compared to giving the muscle group a rest day or two.

[Tsnor]

Instead the data shows that for hard days threshold level workout (like those in pyramid training) work just as well has the hard max sessions of polarized.

I like to hear that. "threshold level": does this mean that I only have to be slightly faster than anaerobic threshold pace?

Terminology here is a killer.

The long/slow stuff is measured in lab by lactate levels, and has indicators normal people can use: stay below 70% max heart rate, be able to talk conversationally while exercising, etc. If you work up to it you can row at this pace for 90 mins or 2 hours and your HR and splits will stay constant (no drift). This is called zone 1 of a 3 zone model. This is zone 1 or 2 of a 5 zone model. It's what I mean by long/slow.

Threshold is a workout level harder than long/slow. Your lactate levels rise, but stabilize. You can row steady state with constant (but elevated) lactate. Normal people indicators -- your HR is 70-90% of max on long pieces. You can't talk in sentences. Longer intervals can be done at this level as can long pieces. Marathons are run in this zone. If asked, you'd say "that was a hard workout". This is zone 2 of a three zone model. Zone 3 or 4 in a 5 zone model.

The next zone up lactate keeps rising, no steady state. It's still aerobic. This is short, hard intervals. Race level 2Ks are in this zone. Pieces done at this level have to be short - the rising lactate levels eventually force you to shut down. This is zone 3 of a 3 zone, zone 5 of a 5 zone.

"slightly faster than anaerobic threshold pace" would be flat out sprint with less than 20-30 seconds duration that started after at least a 4 minute rest period. It uses a different energy system than is mainly used during a rowing 2K, but does have training value. Max 30 seconds on, 90 seconds off are maybe in this bucket, but I lump them in the previous.

Originally some training schemes said training in threshold <zone 2 of 3 zone model> or <zones 3 and 4 of a 5 zone model> was "bad", counterproductive. They said avoid it. Later research showed it wasn't bad. So now best practice (per some exercise scientists) is to do a mix of long/slow and hard workouts, where the hard workout can be in threshold or higher zone.