Plateau Advice

[GlennUk]

Your body has no idea how far it has rowed, only for how long!

All JMHO

I agree and disagree with this. It's relevant if it's kept fairly steady, but if you rowed 17k in 60 mins, rather than 14k, your body will know all about it.

I agree re the 14 vs 17k, however I am talking about low rate/low HR exercise to increase endurance/power which takes a long time for he body to adapt, not just in terms of an individual session, but long term to reach ones peak.

Perhaps I can clarify what i am thinking.

For me at least, the improvements in endurance, i.e. the ability to row at a specific HR for long periods of time , are still coming after two years of overwhelmingly long slow rows (admittedly this is coming from a pretty low base where hadn't erged for c.10 years) and despite being 61.

Going along with the improved endurance is a better (i.e. faster) pace, resulting in longer distances rowed for a specific time period. I cannot say today that the the 75 minute session i rowed this week i perceived was any harder than when i completed the same session in April last year, but this time 598m further. An increase in pace of 5s/500m, not huge but imho, a significant improvement over the 75 mins.

So i agree, the body will recognise a different distance potentially, however foa give HR value the increments are likely to be, well incremental, rather than a quantum leap and in that sense its un.,likley the rowers body will notice the difference.

If they try to row 17k in the same time as a 14k before their body has adapted, then their body will definitely let them know.

[Tsnor]

1. Up my steady state rows to 1h, rather than a fixed distance.

Advice from excellent posts above assumes you are doing the steady state at a low load level. Steady state can't be done too hard or it doesn't lead to the right adaptations. Intensity level is the heart of the "..less incentive to push ourselves faster than is optimal for the session..." discussion. If you are not sure what this means say something. You do *NOT* want to be improving your steady state split each week - change doesn't happen that fast and low splits are not what you want. Upping intensity with steady state means increasing time.

Those steady state extended sessions really build power long term. That's what you want, but it's not immediate gratification.

Can you report back in 6 months or so and tell us what you did and if it worked?

[Dangerscouse]

I agree re the 14 vs 17k, however I am talking about low rate/low HR exercise to increase endurance/power which takes a long time for he body to adapt, not just in terms of an individual session, but long term to reach ones peak.

Perhaps I can clarify what i am thinking.

For me at least, the improvements in endurance, i.e. the ability to row at a specific HR for long periods of time , are still coming after two years of overwhelmingly long slow rows (admittedly this is coming from a pretty low base where hadn't erged for c.10 years) and despite being 61.

Going along with the improved endurance is a better (i.e. faster) pace, resulting in longer distances rowed for a specific time period. I cannot say today that the the 75 minute session i rowed this week i perceived was any harder than when i completed the same session in April last year, but this time 598m further. An increase in pace of 5s/500m, not huge but imho, a significant improvement over the 75 mins.

So i agree, the body will recognise a different distance potentially, however foa give HR value the increments are likely to be, well incremental, rather than a quantum leap and in that sense its un.,likley the rowers body will notice the difference.

If they try to row 17k in the same time as a 14k before their body has adapted, then their body will definitely let them know.

Yeah, agreed, and it's always good to clarify details, as the older I get the more I realise that interpretation of the same sentence / details can vary quite markedly, especially so for newbies.

I wonder if it's more about how your brain is wired? Is a further distance in 75 mins more rewarding than, for sake of argument, 18k in less time? It looks like you're a 75 mins advocate, and I'm 18k.

In reality, there is no discernible difference, it's just preference, much like crisp flavours, TV, programmes, music etc. Just a thought, and I'm thinking out loud more than anything else

[Joebasscat]

Your body has no idea how far it has rowed, only for how long!

All JMHO

but if you rowed 17k in 60 mins, rather than 14k, your body will know all about it.

[nick rockliff]

I'm trying to break a 7:20 2k, and have been hovering around 7:22–7:25 for a couple months. My weekly programming is:

• Monday: Alternate 2k time trial, or 5k tempo (every other week)
• Tuesday: 10k steady state
• Wednesday: 5x500 intervals, with 3:00 rest
• Thursday: 10k steady state
• Friday: 5k steady state

For times, my 2k hovers around 7:22–7:25. My 5k is around 19:35–19:40. I do the 500m intervals at 1:46.0.

Anecdotally, I feel like I hit a wall with faster paces. For example, I can do even splits of 1:51.0 for the 2k, but if I go out just slightly faster, like at 1:50.0, then I die in the last 750m and end up finishing the last 500 at ≈1:53 or slower. Similarly with my 500s, I can do even intervals at 1:46. But at 1:45, my last split falls apart to ≈1:48.

I've been training seriously for about 6 months now. I'm 33 years old, 155 lbs, 6'0".

From reading other questions on the forum, my best guess for improvement is more steady state. So I'm thinking of:

• Replacing my 10ks with 12ks
• Replacing my 5k steady state with another 12k

Is that a good plan? Any other suggestions for how to improve? Would be grateful for any guidance.

I bet you're even more confused now after all the advice given.

I would just say keep it simple. Scrap the 500s and the 5k. Keep up with the 10k sessions but try to lower the stroke rate which in turn will mean a slower pace. Put some 30min sessions in at 2 spm more than you're 10k but also increase the pace.

It's all about control and consistency. Learn to row a good strong stroke and everything else will fall into place.

[Cant Climb]

I'm trying to break a 7:20 2k, and have been hovering around 7:22–7:25 for a couple months. My weekly programming is:

• Monday: Alternate 2k time trial, or 5k tempo (every other week)
• Tuesday: 10k steady state
• Wednesday: 5x500 intervals, with 3:00 rest
• Thursday: 10k steady state
• Friday: 5k steady state

For times, my 2k hovers around 7:22–7:25. My 5k is around 19:35–19:40. I do the 500m intervals at 1:46.0.

Anecdotally, I feel like I hit a wall with faster paces. For example, I can do even splits of 1:51.0 for the 2k, but if I go out just slightly faster, like at 1:50.0, then I die in the last 750m and end up finishing the last 500 at ≈1:53 or slower. Similarly with my 500s, I can do even intervals at 1:46. But at 1:45, my last split falls apart to ≈1:48.

I've been training seriously for about 6 months now. I'm 33 years old, 155 lbs, 6'0".

From reading other questions on the forum, my best guess for improvement is more steady state. So I'm thinking of:

• Replacing my 10ks with 12ks
• Replacing my 5k steady state with another 12k

Is that a good plan? Any other suggestions for how to improve? Would be grateful for any guidance.

Lots of detailed and excellent advice before me.

But keeping it simple I'd just drop the 2k TT day and keep it as a tempo row. Start out something you can attain and then progressively improve and develop a baseline.

Then the 5x500. Good, but way too much rest. Drop it to 30 seconds rest. Again, start attainable target but progress every week.

Gently increase the SS rows.

[DavidA]

Up my steady state rows to 1h, rather than a fixed distance.

Re: Timed row vs distance

This may not apply to you, but it's something that I've found bugs me a lot:

I dislike timed rows primarily because rowing harder doesn't make the end of the workout come sooner, so it eliminates at least part of what motivates me to push a bit more for the last x% of the session, when my body's really trying to tell my brain that "this really isn't fun any more, and wouldn't it be nice to back off just a bit?"

Interesting, as I tend to prefer timed workouts - motivated by getting a few more meters in than some previous time.

David

[Ombrax]

David, I agree - if you're so inclined, just about any type of workout can provide incentive to push harder - a bit farther in a timed row, or a bit less time in a distance row. But in my case, after doing mostly distance rows for years, I tried some timed workouts and noticed the difference (for me) as far as the "please make the pain end sooner" effect goes for the two types of efforts.

[sailortodd]

Then the 5x500. Good, but way too much rest. Drop it to 30 seconds rest. Again, start attainable target but progress every week.

I've read a couple of credible authorities prescribe more rest between intervals because it allows for more recovery so you can maximize effort during each interval. The Pete Plan, for instance, calls for nearly nearly a 1:2 work:rest ratio time wise, and Mike Caviston's Wolverine Plan uses an active recovery distance equal to work distance for level 1 intervals. Probably why OP is opting for longer recovery.

What is gained by reducing the rest between intervals?

[jamesg]

In O'Neill theory (as to Interactives) long rest reduces Lactate more than short; so short rests are used to keep Lactate higher and so force our Lactate removal system to increase its capacity. Which is the essence of endurance; we can only keep going if Lactate stays down, our systems being trained to remove it fast.

Long rests were used when the aim is speed, as in tapering just before racing, when the last thing we need or want is high Lactate.

What's short and what's long? O'Neill suggested go again when HR dropped to 100 (long), 110 or 120 (short). If we use HR bands, presumably we don't want to drop too far out or get cold.

Two minutes is usually more than enough for most work. HR usually drops by about 30 a minute after any type of stiff work, so from HR band point of view, 1 minute would always be enough.

[Cant Climb]

What is gained by reducing the rest between intervals?

Respect to jamesg post above. He knows far more science than I'll ever know.

Why less rest? The guy wants to improve his 2k. It's a tough event. Rowers are known to crumble doing it, even after years of training. It's a 7 minute event. I just think based on years of athletics the OP would be better off with far less rest and training his 'lactate removal'. 5x500 with 30 seconds rest is a far better training protocol than 3 minutes rest for a 2k. It's s easy to over think training. It also comes down to individual physiology. I've never done well with long rests for intervals in a training program. Long for me for any interval is 1 minute. There is still plenty of space in seeing progression and fitness improvement.

[nick rockliff]

What is gained by reducing the rest between intervals?

Respect to jamesg post above. He knows far more science than I'll ever know.

Why less rest? The guy wants to improve his 2k. It's a tough event. Rowers are known to crumble doing it, even after years of training. It's a 7 minute event. I just think based on years of athletics the OP would be better off with far less rest and training his 'lactate removal'. 5x500 with 30 seconds rest is a far better training protocol than 3 minutes rest for a 2k. It's s easy to over think training. It also comes down to individual physiology. I've never done well with long rests for intervals in a training program. Long for me for any interval is 1 minute. There is still plenty of space in seeing progression and fitness improvement.

It all depends on why you are doing repeat 500s. I've done most with 3.30 recovery, this allows a good quality session at 2k pace and more importantly 2k rate.

The shorter the recovery the less chance of doing the reps at 2k pace and rate and probably less reps.

Like every distance, if you are going for a PB you need to practice rowing at the target pace and rate.

The best sessions for lactate control are UT2, the less produced the better.

[btlifter]

What is gained by reducing the rest between intervals?

Respect to jamesg post above. He knows far more science than I'll ever know.

Why less rest? The guy wants to improve his 2k. It's a tough event. Rowers are known to crumble doing it, even after years of training. It's a 7 minute event. I just think based on years of athletics the OP would be better off with far less rest and training his 'lactate removal'. 5x500 with 30 seconds rest is a far better training protocol than 3 minutes rest for a 2k. It's s easy to over think training. It also comes down to individual physiology. I've never done well with long rests for intervals in a training program. Long for me for any interval is 1 minute. There is still plenty of space in seeing progression and fitness improvement.

It all depends on why you are doing repeat 500s. I've done most with 3.30 recovery, this allows a good quality session at 2k pace and more importantly 2k rate.

The shorter the recovery the less chance of doing the reps at 2k pace and rate and probably less reps.

Like every distance, if you are going for a PB you need to practice rowing at the target pace and rate.

The best sessions for lactate control are UT2, the less produced the better.

^this

I did several 1ks with 1 minute rest yesterday. And I also did several 25meter sprints with 4-6 minute rests. There is no magic formula, simply different training effects with different-lengthed intervals/rests.

[GlennUk]

David, I agree - if you're so inclined, just about any type of workout can provide incentive to push harder - a bit farther in a timed row, or a bit less time in a distance row.

I was talking about low rate, low HR rows, and whilst i realise one can push, where the objective is to work to a HR value/zone then inmo, it is the HR which determines, how far one goes when combined with the individuals chosen spm/pace over the time period one is rowing but sticking to that HR value.

Or at least that's the upshot of the plan im following where HR/spm/pace are linked with HR being the critical factor. Typically, i aim to row at an average HR within the bounds and without exceeding the max recommended for any significant length of time or by a significant amount (not more than 5bpm variation is the advice i have) .

Clearly there is no reason why anyone cant use the same approach using distance as their benchmark, but as i think i said earlier, the problem with that is that over time the duraiont of exercise will reduce, whether its enough to worry about will of course depend onth eobjectives of the rower as well as how much improvement they make. Over he past 12 months for example i have improved my pace over 75mins for the same HR/spm by 6 seconds/500m., not enough perhaps for me to worry whether its time or distance.

I had assumed that the benefits of long/low rate session were gained form 30 mins upwards, cant say i have a specific reference in mind for that.

be interested to hear others thoughts on that point.

[sstich]

Wanted to thank everyone in this thread — after 2+ months of plateau, rowed a 7:19.3 today!