Noob: importance of drive-to-recovery ratio

[Tsnor]

Take comfort in that strength is quicker to build than aerobic fitness, so you're in a decent place to get better quicker

I apologize for my lack of knowledge, but it's always been my understanding that the opposite is true. Aerobic fitness would be developed faster than strength.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by this? Seems to me that strength improvements take months, aerobic capacity & endurance can be improved within weeks. Maybe I'm mistaken? Or, could it be one way with rowing, and the other way with other sports?

Rowing is like cycling, running, etc.

It is also my understanding that improving aerobic performance (measured by VO2max) takes longer than strength gains, and that a strong aerobic base does move from one sport to another.

I couldn't find a good reference, but is some supporting data:

1. In this article the athlete spent 3 years driving improvements in VO2max. Claim is they were tied to heart stroke volume changes and mitochondria density changes caused by lots of long/slow exercise. https://simplifaster.com/articles/how-t ... s-vo2-max/

2. cyclists measure FTP which is roughly aerobic wattage (1 hour power wattage). Most sources agree that raising FTP is very hard, that 50 watts per year is a max, with lower changes as you get more highly trained. But you can substantially raise FTP (say 225 watts to 300 watts) it just takes years.

3. Here is one study "Strength training effects on aerobic power and short-term endurance" where "nine men participated in an exercise program (five days a week for 10 weeks) that was designed to strengthen the quadriceps muscles. " "..Thigh girth increased significantly and muscle strength increased 40% with the training..." "..There was a small increase in Vo2max (4%, P < 0.05) during bicycle exercise (3.40 l•min-1 to 3.54 l•min-1) after training, but no significant differences were observed when expressed in (ml•kg-1•min-1). Strength training had no effect on Vo2max when measured during treadmill exercise." which says that strength changed a lot after only 10 weeks, but Vo2max didn't. https://journals.lww.com/acsm-msse/Abst ... and.6.aspx

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

2. cyclists measure FTP which is roughly aerobic wattage (1 hour power wattage). Most sources agree that raising FTP is very hard, that 50 watts per year is a max, with lower changes as you get more highly trained. But you can substantially raise FTP (say 225 watts to 300 watts) it just takes years.

I disagree with this quite strongly. I picked up cycling in 2020 during the pandemic with an already really well-developed aerobic base (1:38.2 6k split, 1:42.2 HOP split). My starting FTP done using TrainerRoad was ~320. Within 10 weeks it was 392. I did another 6 week cycle of training and I would estimate my FTP after that was in the 410-415 range.

I do agree strength gains are much faster and easier than aerobic gains. A good aerobic base takes years and years to build.

[jamesg]

Rate of increase will be inversely proportional to distance to max, but also linked to effort and age. Far too many variables to suggest general rules. Forecasting MHR, now that's an exact science in comparison.

[Tsnor]

2. cyclists measure FTP which is roughly aerobic wattage (1 hour power wattage). Most sources agree that raising FTP is very hard, that 50 watts per year is a max, with lower changes as you get more highly trained. But you can substantially raise FTP (say 225 watts to 300 watts) it just takes years.

I disagree with this quite strongly. I picked up cycling in 2020 during the pandemic with an already really well-developed aerobic base (1:38.2 6k split, 1:42.2 HOP split). My starting FTP done using TrainerRoad was ~320. Within 10 weeks it was 392. I did another 6 week cycle of training and I would estimate my FTP after that was in the 410-415 range.

I do agree strength gains are much faster and easier than aerobic gains. A good aerobic base takes years and years to build.

Both the cycling and rowing wattage are impressive. It's great to get data, thanks for posting it. Agree with you "A good aerobic base takes years and years to build.", and found your FTP gains extraordinary.

Starting from your hour of power rowing, your 1:42.2 hour split rowing is roughly 328 watts. Scaling up by 50-70 watts for difference between cycling efficiency and the way C2 measures wattage you would expect a cycling FTP around 375-400 watts, not 320w. ** not wanting to re-open the thread about difference between cycling and rowing wattage. Some say 328w rowing is more like 30% more = 426 watts expected cycling, but all agree that rowing is less efficient than cycling so at peak aerobic performance the same person will see less measured wattage on a rower than a bike.

So why did your initial cycling FTP test measure 320 watts and not 375-400 ? Possible answer -- muscle efficiency and cycling specific muscle strength because at test time you were a well trained rower and not a well trained cyclist. 320 watts cycling FTP (while outstanding for most people) is unexpectedly low for you given your rowing 1 hour power is already above 320 watts.

When you got the 90-95 watt aerobic gain in 16 weeks (320 to 410/415) measured using cycling, was there a similar gain in your one hour rowing performance? If not then what would explain the difference? One possibility -- after cycling for 16 weeks you got better at cycling (muscle strength, muscle efficiency), and this drove a large percent of the measured FTP gains rather than aerobic capacity improvements.

[ukaserex]

Good stuff. Very interesting.

[arown]

2. cyclists measure FTP which is roughly aerobic wattage (1 hour power wattage). Most sources agree that raising FTP is very hard, that 50 watts per year is a max, with lower changes as you get more highly trained. But you can substantially raise FTP (say 225 watts to 300 watts) it just takes years.

I disagree with this quite strongly. I picked up cycling in 2020 during the pandemic with an already really well-developed aerobic base (1:38.2 6k split, 1:42.2 HOP split). My starting FTP done using TrainerRoad was ~320. Within 10 weeks it was 392. I did another 6 week cycle of training and I would estimate my FTP after that was in the 410-415 range.

I do agree strength gains are much faster and easier than aerobic gains. A good aerobic base takes years and years to build.

Both the cycling and rowing wattage are impressive. It's great to get data, thanks for posting it. Agree with you "A good aerobic base takes years and years to build.", and found your FTP gains extraordinary.

…

So why did your initial cycling FTP test measure 320 watts and not 375-400 ? Possible answer -- muscle efficiency and cycling specific muscle strength because at test time you were a well trained rower and not a well trained cyclist. 320 watts cycling FTP (while outstanding for most people) is unexpectedly low for you given your rowing 1 hour power is already above 320 watts.

When you got the 90-95 watt aerobic gain in 16 weeks (320 to 410/415) measured using cycling, was there a similar gain in your one hour rowing performance? If not then what would explain the difference? One possibility -- after cycling for 16 weeks you got better at cycling (muscle strength, muscle efficiency), and this drove a large percent of the measured FTP gains rather than aerobic capacity improvements.

Coming from running and cycling to rowing, what I have learned from personal experience (during injury periods and such) as well as scientific studies is that there is a activity-agnostic aerobic component and an activity-specific musculoskeletal component to running/cycling economy. The former can be improved or maintained with any cross training aerobic activity, but the latter needs to be improved or maintained with that specific activity. The former is like fuel supply capacity (metrics like VO2Max), but has to be combined with economy or what the muscles can do with that pumped fuel to ultimately determine performance.

It seems likely that Armando’s impressive gains were due to musculoskeletal conditioning.