Are we training too easy?

[jamesg]

essentially control intensity more through stroke rate than anything?

Yes, that's how rowing is done. Quality, not quantity. We can worry about anything we like, even HRR, but if the stroke is not pulled with good technique, we go nowhere and may risk injury.

Sums are very simple. If you want a 300W 2k, train a 10W stroke (eg rate 20, 200W) then use it at rate 30.

Are we training too easy?

If below 2W/kg at aerobic ratings (<24), yes.

[JaapvanE]

Terminology here is a killer.

Agreed, and a great post in clearing that up.

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.

As I always understood it, it was Zone 3 (of the 5 Zone system) that they thought you should avoid as it was more tiring/taxing than Zone 2, but didn't bring any additional benefits when compared to Zone 2. Zone 4 and 5 are also more tiring, but do create any additional benefits when compared to Zone 2. Issue with this from my personal experience is that mentally Zone 3 is much more rewarding, so the physical toll to pay may be worth the mental stimulus to keep me going again.

But that is just my interpretation.

[nick rockliff]

In all of my many sessions over 20 odd years, I've never done a session where I could hold a conversation. To me, it's just another signal for people to take it "easy"

[PleaseLockIn]

As the Erg was a new sport to me this year, I didn't go too far wrong following the good ol' generic Pete's lunch hour plan. He based a lot of his programming off a coach whose name evades me, but it had a longer term goal in mind (and is something I'd be keen to take a closer look at, should I remember the name!).

A good dose of aerobic work (I did longer distances than prescribed) and various intervals which rotated through a three week cycle. I chipped 7 seconds off my 2k over three months and although I didn't test it, I've no doubt my 4minute and 1k will have improved over that time, too. My mistake was not factoring in the odd easier week as the accumulation of cycles did start to wear me down.

If you have say 6-12 weeks (2-4 cycles) to run it, take a look, it struck a good balance for me.

Mike Caviston, the inventor of the pretty intense Wolverine Plan... 6-8 sessions a week though apparently can have more.

Personally the BPP was too long - 24 weeks to shape up for the PP or PP5k isn't necessary imo. Simply a few weeks or so to get used to technique, perhaps some weeks to get in shape, and then the PP or PP5k.

The L4 stuff is pretty intense, but if you can keep it all year round, the better!

Personally i am sticking to pete's lunch hour 5k plan in preparation for 1:59 30r20. My PB is merely 2:10 30r20 which is... peanuts. At least I only took erging serious from Nov. In 6 weeks I reduced my PB from 23:00 5k to 2:10 30r20 which is something but not great. It's pretty tough to run the Pete Plan as a normal 6 sessions/week plan, especially if you intend on keeping up some strength training.

I am in awe of the people who scoff at the pete plan 5k and find it easy, doing the British SAS plan specifically for GB team rowers. I know at least a few 16yos who go ~6:30 in 2k... and meanwhile i am already in college and i might break sub 7:45 in 2k on a good day.

This is why if i have kids and they are interested in rowing, they should start early. The standards for rowing are only going to get significantly higher to make it into a decent team.

This week... if I do a 1.5k warmup before and a short cooldown then I will be rowing ~58k a week, along with doing some strength training to balance out with other muscles. This is significantly better than my best BPP week of 25k (erg, i think)

Jumping this much volume... they warn against it. If i get away with it and scrape into a very strong East Asian rowing team... yes. All i need is 6-7 weeks intense. Let's do it!

[Tsnor]

In all of my many sessions over 20 odd years, I've never done a session where I could hold a conversation. To me, it's just another signal for people to take it "easy"

100% Hard sessions is better than no sessions. By a lot.

The low/slow stuff came from looking at how the most successful athletes trained (vs. coming up with a theory and finding data to prove it). Once published, when people tried long/slow they got faster and the people who didn't use it became less competitive, so the bulk of athletes shifted. Nothing works for everyone. Mike Caviston has been hugely successful without rest days and without low load training. Seiler has been pretty successful with his long/slow stuff. He's in his 60s with a cycling FTP above 350 watts, his daughter won bronze in the Tokyo Olympics women's marathon.

The long/slow claim is there are body adaptations that happen at low load that will not happen at higher load. The current speed skate world record holder works out 30 hours/week at low load. You'd think a speed skater would focus on higher output - and they do for part of their training. But the 30 hours/week is at conversational level.

One surprising stat is that marathon runners who mainly work out below marathon pace are faster in the marathon than runners who spend more time at marathon pace or higher.

NCAA limits coaches to 20 hours/week of coached workouts. Most elite college rowing teams use all of it.

[nick rockliff]

In all of my many sessions over 20 odd years, I've never done a session where I could hold a conversation. To me, it's just another signal for people to take it "easy"

100% Hard sessions is better than no sessions. By a lot.

The low/slow stuff came from looking at how the most successful athletes trained (vs. coming up with a theory and finding data to prove it). Once published, when people tried long/slow they got faster and the people who didn't use it became less competitive, so the bulk of athletes shifted. Nothing works for everyone. Mike Caviston has been hugely successful without rest days and without low load training. Seiler has been pretty successful with his long/slow stuff. He's in his 60s with a cycling FTP above 350 watts, his daughter won bronze in the Tokyo Olympics women's marathon.

The long/slow claim is there are body adaptations that happen at low load that will not happen at higher load. The current speed skate world record holder works out 30 hours/week at low load. You'd think a speed skater would focus on higher output - and they do for part of their training. But the 30 hours/week is at conversational level.

One surprising stat is that marathon runners who mainly work out below marathon pace are faster in the marathon than runners who spend more time at marathon pace or higher.

NCAA limits coaches to 20 hours/week of coached workouts. Most elite college rowing teams use all of it.

Who said anything about 100% flat out?

[Dangerscouse]

What I always note when this type of question comes up is that there's either no, or very little thought as to what could have been accomplished using a different method.

There's an ingrained confirmation bias at play that is hard to avoid, as we'll never know what was possible years ago with different training, especially when we've seen great progress as it then won't ever enter your head that doing something different might be even more beneficial.

However, it's always worth noting that it might have actually been counter productive as nothing is guaranteed to work regardless of what the 'accepted wisdom' is telling you.

I always advocate looking at every situation from all different angles and then making a decision on what works best. History is littered with the best option changing to something totally different as we progress.

[jcross485]

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.

I appreciate the detailed response and clarification. I know there are many models out there and plans with science / studies to support them; it seems like it then comes down to a bit of an intangible, being buy-in - finding some kind of model or plan you believe in and will commit to. I hope I'm not fully discrediting the lower intensity work as something that can work or provide value, rather I am just questioning how much value it provides when training time is more limited or capped.

essentially control intensity more through stroke rate than anything?

Yes, that's how rowing is done. Quality, not quantity. We can worry about anything we like, even HRR, but if the stroke is not pulled with good technique, we go nowhere and may risk injury.

Sums are very simple. If you want a 300W 2k, train a 10W stroke (eg rate 20, 200W) then use it at rate 30.

Are we training too easy?

If below 2W/kg at aerobic ratings (<24), yes.

Very good points and not necessarily something I have thought too much about. My "aerobic" work tends to be a bit above 2w/kg but I would still like to improve that further. A lot of my aerobic work hovers in the low to mid 9W stroke range; when I rated up a bit yesterday for faster intervals, it dropped to just below 9W stroke. More power and speed on the whole but less efficient or power per stroke. This is something I can certainly focus on moving forward.

As I always understood it, it was Zone 3 (of the 5 Zone system) that they thought you should avoid as it was more tiring/taxing than Zone 2, but didn't bring any additional benefits when compared to Zone 2. Zone 4 and 5 are also more tiring, but do create any additional benefits when compared to Zone 2. Issue with this from my personal experience is that mentally Zone 3 is much more rewarding, so the physical toll to pay may be worth the mental stimulus to keep me going again.

But that is just my interpretation.

I never quite understood why so many people avoid the "grey zone" or zone 3 training if more limited on time. I also never understoof why so many people avoid it if training for longer aerobic events like a HM or FM, esp the latter, as the race is in that area for quite a bit of it.

In all of my many sessions over 20 odd years, I've never done a session where I could hold a conversation. To me, it's just another signal for people to take it "easy"

I think modality can be a factor in the talk test as well. I tend to find that I can talk in close to if not complete sentences in the high 140's if running; with rowing, its a bit more strained at the same HR.

100% Hard sessions is better than no sessions. By a lot.

The low/slow stuff came from looking at how the most successful athletes trained (vs. coming up with a theory and finding data to prove it). Once published, when people tried long/slow they got faster and the people who didn't use it became less competitive, so the bulk of athletes shifted. Nothing works for everyone. Mike Caviston has been hugely successful without rest days and without low load training. Seiler has been pretty successful with his long/slow stuff. He's in his 60s with a cycling FTP above 350 watts, his daughter won bronze in the Tokyo Olympics women's marathon.

The long/slow claim is there are body adaptations that happen at low load that will not happen at higher load. The current speed skate world record holder works out 30 hours/week at low load. You'd think a speed skater would focus on higher output - and they do for part of their training. But the 30 hours/week is at conversational level.

One surprising stat is that marathon runners who mainly work out below marathon pace are faster in the marathon than runners who spend more time at marathon pace or higher.

NCAA limits coaches to 20 hours/week of coached workouts. Most elite college rowing teams use all of it.

This also goes back to the main point I was attempting to get at.

If I had 10-12 hours per week (or more) to commit and focus on training, I would likely take a different approach than what I am planning. The limiter for me ends up being time.

I can commit consistently a solid 6 hours a week, not 12, 20, 30+. I am fortunate that I can commit to 6 hours per week consistently as a lot of folks aren't willing or able to put that much time in.

With those 6 hours, I know I need to be intentional to get the most out of them, and knowing that the aerobic system needs attention for a good 2k, it comes back to the most effective way to train that system given the time constraint.

[Sakly]

In all of my many sessions over 20 odd years, I've never done a session where I could hold a conversation. To me, it's just another signal for people to take it "easy"

100% Hard sessions is better than no sessions. By a lot.

The low/slow stuff came from looking at how the most successful athletes trained (vs. coming up with a theory and finding data to prove it). Once published, when people tried long/slow they got faster and the people who didn't use it became less competitive, so the bulk of athletes shifted. Nothing works for everyone. Mike Caviston has been hugely successful without rest days and without low load training. Seiler has been pretty successful with his long/slow stuff. He's in his 60s with a cycling FTP above 350 watts, his daughter won bronze in the Tokyo Olympics women's marathon.

The long/slow claim is there are body adaptations that happen at low load that will not happen at higher load. The current speed skate world record holder works out 30 hours/week at low load. You'd think a speed skater would focus on higher output - and they do for part of their training. But the 30 hours/week is at conversational level.

One surprising stat is that marathon runners who mainly work out below marathon pace are faster in the marathon than runners who spend more time at marathon pace or higher.

NCAA limits coaches to 20 hours/week of coached workouts. Most elite college rowing teams use all of it.

Who said anything about 100% flat out?

Tsnor didn't say flat out, but rated a session, where you aren't able to talk, as a hard session. Based on the assumption, an easy session enables you to talk, this rating is fine, but does not mean flat out.
I wouldn't rate a session where I can't talk necessarily as a hard session, but that's me and depends on the load within the session. As a good example my HM of today - definitely a higher load and I wouldn't be able to hold a conversation or talk full sentences, but not what I would rate a hard session (except last 1-2 km, where I really ramped up).

[nick rockliff]

With those 6 hours, I know I need to be intentional to get the most out of them, and knowing that the aerobic system needs attention for a good 2k, it comes back to the most effective way to train that system given the time constraint.

When I first started in May 2003 it was all about 2k training and live racing. I didn't get my own erg until May 2005 so all my training between May 2003 and April 2005 was at my local gym which had two very old and very abused model Cs.

I only did between two and four sessions per week and probably averaged three with at a max of 1 hour per session.

First 2k was 6.59 in May 2003 and ended up at 6.20 in April 2005. Even if I say it myself, was quite an achievement on such a small amount of training time and my age of 48 in April 2005.

Back then, I didn't know anything about HR or training zones. Everything I did was progressive. I didn't do any weight training, was all only on the erg.

The problem I had was the 6.20, I finished about six races in that time with a best of 6.19.7 but couldn't progress from that doing what I was doing on three sessions a week.

I decided to do some research and get my own erg at home. Research suggested to me that I needed to know my training zones. So off I went to my local (Sheffield Hallam University) sport science department and find out.

That was the start of my next erg journey which is a whole different story.

But for you and your six hours a day with a 2k as a main focus I wouldn't go anywhere near what they call polarised 80-20 route. IMHO, you would be wasting your time.

I would base it on top end UT2, UT1 and AT. With the addition of overload sessions/time trials which i always found work best to stimulate progression and move on to the next level.

This is more like I train now.

[nick rockliff]

100% Hard sessions is better than no sessions. By a lot.

The low/slow stuff came from looking at how the most successful athletes trained (vs. coming up with a theory and finding data to prove it). Once published, when people tried long/slow they got faster and the people who didn't use it became less competitive, so the bulk of athletes shifted. Nothing works for everyone. Mike Caviston has been hugely successful without rest days and without low load training. Seiler has been pretty successful with his long/slow stuff. He's in his 60s with a cycling FTP above 350 watts, his daughter won bronze in the Tokyo Olympics women's marathon.

The long/slow claim is there are body adaptations that happen at low load that will not happen at higher load. The current speed skate world record holder works out 30 hours/week at low load. You'd think a speed skater would focus on higher output - and they do for part of their training. But the 30 hours/week is at conversational level.

One surprising stat is that marathon runners who mainly work out below marathon pace are faster in the marathon than runners who spend more time at marathon pace or higher.

NCAA limits coaches to 20 hours/week of coached workouts. Most elite college rowing teams use all of it.

Who said anything about 100% flat out?

Tsnor didn't say flat out, but rated a session, where you aren't able to talk, as a hard session. Based on the assumption, an easy session enables you to talk, this rating is fine, but does not mean flat out.
I wouldn't rate a session where I can't talk necessarily as a hard session, but that's me and depends on the load within the session. As a good example my HM of today - definitely a higher load and I wouldn't be able to hold a conversation or talk full sentences, but not what I would rate a hard session (except last 1-2 km, where I really ramped up).

Yes, reading again the meaning you give does come across. However, as you say if a session isn't easy it doesn't mean it's hard. I don't think I've ever described a training session as hard.

[H2O]

I used to train like Nick Rockliff (no conversation possible) and it worked for me. But I am getting morally weaker and weaker and now I am all too willing to lend an ear to stories in which you don't really have to and maybe even should not work out that hard while retaining all the benefits.

So my new plan is as follows: no UT1, a lot of low end AT, some high end AT, some low end TR, no high end TR.
At TR I plan on doing 2K+3, like 4x1K, rest = work.
I'll shoot for AT and higher being 30% of time rowed.
The rest will be rowed at 52% of 2K watts.
Then in a month I'll try a 2k and let you now how that worked out for me.
I'll also do a 6K to see what happened there.

[JaapvanE]

Then in a month I'll try a 2k and let you now how that worked out for me.
I'll also do a 6K to see what happened there.

Please note that the changes a Stead state training tries to trigger take months to years to pay off. For me, I trained for over a year before my pace really improved.

[iain]

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.

Interesting, I would have defined things differently but have heard many experts agree that the terminology isn't well defined!

% max HR or even of HRR is not the same experience or training effect for all rowers. That said it may well be closer for good rowers and so for most in this discussion (but not me) it may well be valid. That said, I think Rocky for one has had tested values that exceed the general levels recommended.

Personally I am confused at what people mean by the anaerobic threshold. I'm clear of what the HR is, but is all training that maintains >AT HR Tr or anaerobic? That would include all my "hard" sessions (excluding FM+) and is certainly more than the sprints. I would say 1' on, 1' off for 10+ reps is "Anaerobic" but exceeds your timescale.

I would very much like to know what you think about "sweetspot" training. This is a cycling term for staying sub Anaerobic threshold for long periods. Clearly shorter is equivalent for rowing, but is this UT1 training (as I define it)?

[Tsnor]

With those 6 hours, I know I need to be intentional to get the most out of them, and knowing that the aerobic system needs attention for a good 2k, it comes back to the most effective way to train that system given the time constraint.

I think you have a plan in mind. From the earlier posts it'll have more hard workouts that I would choose, but it will work for you. If I was your trainer I'd tell you to go with your gut and follow your plan.

ChatGPT (Microsoft copilot) doesn't get things right, but does often comes up with "conventional wisdom". This is chatGPT's take on a 6 hour/week plan designed to give you stronger aerobic conditioning (higher ftp, 1 hour power). It'll give you a feel for conventional wisdom on long/slow training. I think it's using a 5 zone model.

Sample Weekly Rowing Training Plan
Monday - Rest Day
Rest and Recovery

Tuesday - Interval Training (1 hour)
Warm-up: 15 minutes easy rowing

Main Set:

2 x 20 minutes at steady state (Threshold) with 5 minutes light rowing between efforts

Cool-down: 10 minutes easy rowing

Wednesday - Endurance Row (1.5 hours)
Steady Row: 1.5 hours at a moderate pace (Zone 2)

Thursday - Interval Training (1 hour)
Warm-up: 15 minutes easy rowing

Main Set:

4 x 5 minutes at high intensity (VO2 Max) with 5 minutes light rowing between efforts

Cool-down: 10 minutes easy rowing

Friday - Rest Day
Rest and Recovery

Saturday - Long Row (2 hours)
Endurance Row: 2 hours at a moderate to strong pace (Zone 2-3)

Include some varied stroke rates to simulate different conditions

Sunday - Recovery Row (30 minutes) or Cross-Training
Easy Row: 30 minutes at a light pace (Zone 1)

Alternatively, do some light cross-training (e.g., yoga, swimming, or a walk)

Notes:
Warm-Up and Cool-Down: Always include proper warm-up and cool-down to prevent injury and aid in recovery.

Nutrition and Hydration: Make sure to stay well-hydrated and fuel your workouts appropriately.

Adjust Intensity: Listen to your body and adjust the intensity if needed. Consistency is key, but so is avoiding overtraining.