UT2/Polarization (trying to move this from PB thread)

[jackarabit]

Required reading for those who believe they are non-responders (or maybe "fried" responders) to the continuous HIIT, HIT, LIT cycles of the Caviston/Marston training programs:

http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=99467

[bisqeet]

I've noticed better condition on HM (now sub 1:20) 10k and 5k are a doddle.

doodle? Meaning? I seem to be falling ever deeper in the generation gap with regard to language.

Quaint British English....



http://dictionary.cambridge.org/diction ... ish/doddle

I lived in Yorkshire for the first 17 years, before studying and living in Germany for the rest 30.
Some phrases still stick in my mind although it's not my primary language anymore...

[hjs]

I feel like you've got to realize everyone is different and responds to training differently.

I raced bicycles professionally back about 15 years ago. For years I was never finding my potential because I trained how I thought I should train. Big hours (20+ a week) and then add some more hours on top of the big hours. I trained with a lot of roadies that were Pro Tour guys ( I was a mountain bike racer) and the volume they would do was mind blowing. 30+ hour weeks for several months in a row during their base phase. They weren't just soft pedaling either.

It wasn't until I figured out that I was different that I toned down my training and saw way better results. I did best with 12 to 14 hour weeks in the offseason and 8 to 11 hour weeks during the race season. Basically, I could have held a full time job and train every bit as well as if I had no job at all.

A lot of people are convinced that they'd improve drastically if they could train twice as much. I'd be willing to bet that just as many people would get slower with that extra volume as there would be that got faster. Being able to endure high volume mentally and physically is a talent that you kinda have or don't have. Most people don't have it.

I never had it! I did finally realize that and reached a much higher level of fitness by listening to my own body and leaving my ego at the door when it came to volume.

The question of whether all those years of overtraining with massive hours made it possible for me to move to a lower volume load and find success is interesting. It probably didn't hurt.

Chris

Chris, you only talk about volume, nothing about intensity. We can pull ourselve apart, on the erg, with 1 hour or less.

Volume without other context says nothing. And cycling and rowing erging are very different in ways. Cycling is very divers, with all kind of different sub fields. And the fields often are miles apart. The guys good in the one day flat races often are nowhere in the multiday mountain races, have very different builds etc.

Rowing is just that. Its 2k, a 5/7 minute effort, flat. Rowers are very much alike, tall, very fit, not fast, strong, but not overly so. Just one kind.

And looking at volume, for rowing, if you would do 200 km a week, you need around 12/13 hours to do so. Nothing more.

[hjs]

Though this would fit in here, from:http://www.c2forum.com/posting.php?mode ... 3&p=331365

I posted something not dissimilar a couple of months ago. Since then I have attempted perhaps one 2K (7-06) and really haven't even thought about my 2K time. I have instead actually listened to the comments and acted on them RE: creating a polarized program. In addition, I have massively built up my weekly meters. Some of my longer pieces will be in the 16/18K range at UT1 and UT2. Yes, I still do hard intervals: 6x500 or 8x500 but I do them as part of a longer piece usually, rather than as standalone workouts. The results -- from a stamina perspective -- have been amazing. I took 24 seconds off my 5K PB last night and the reason for that was the longer work I've been doing. When I got to 2K out in a 5K piece, knowing I had to continue at 1.53, I knew I could do it because I'd done the work. So, I'd say to anyone relatively new to rowing that they should forget about the 2K most of the time. Yes it's the yardstick, but the keys to improving it lie elsewhere in your wider program -- principally in the stamina work. These longer pieces. Just my thoughts anyway.

[Balkan boy]

Henry,
Did I understand correctly that you think that rowing long pieces (4x2000, 5x1500k) at Lactic Threshold isn't very useful?

My understanding is that you should target every system: Creatine Phosphate, Anaerobic Glycolysis, Aerobic Glycolysis and Aerobic Lipolysis at least once every 10 days or so.

Looking at it strictly physiologically, UT2 and UT1 offer same results for recovery.
Runners prefer to do UT2 because it's less stress and wear.

I finally read this:
http://magstraining.tripod.com/training.html

[hjs]

Henry,
Did I understand correctly that you think that rowing long pieces (4x2000, 5x1500k) at Lactic Threshold isn't very useful?

My understanding is that you should target every system: Creatine Phosphate, Anaerobic Glycolysis, Aerobic Glycolysis and Aerobic Lipolysis at least once every 10 days or so.

Looking at it strictly physiologically, UT2 and UT1 offer same results for recovery.
Runners prefer to do UT2 because it's less stress and wear.

I finally read this:
http://magstraining.tripod.com/training.html

They are usefull. They will build a strong form is a relative short time, but we will plateau pretty soon if we do them. Also for people who train not very much they will be handy. They can be very demanding, ofcourse depending on how hard you do them, I talk about close to max/max sessions.
Its not needed to do them all year round I think now.

I don,t think you need to train all systems all the time, certainly the lactic anaerobic system not. You should train all fibers though, but thats something different. And depending on ones goals we work more on the one or the other. Both the aerobic system and alactic system are very natural for us and not overly demanding. Without trouble we can use the whole year round.
The lactic system, which I like to call the emergency system not so, its very demanding, think max efforts between 45/90 seconds. In natural life we never use it fully unless we are forced to, or force orself in sports. Its super demanding and will burn us out pretty rapidly.

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

I am particularly interested in the shortest path to improving VO2 max for responders. In part, because I am a responder, but most importantly because I have found compelling evidence that higher VO2 max later in life is associated with better cognitive function and central nervous system health.

Keep in mind out of all your physiological parameters/measurements, VO2max is the one you can have the LEAST impact on through training. The majority of your VO2max component is genetic/hereditary, and while you can improve it through training, the ceiling for that improvement is quite low.

What's great as an athlete is that VO2max is almost never the limiting factor in someone's performance. The whole point of AT training is to push your lactate curve as close to your VO2max as possible, so that you can work at higher and higher intensities without accumulating excess lactate.

So for you, I understand you're looking for some of the other benefits that come from an increased VO2max capacity, but keep in mind no matter how much you train, or how you train, you're not going to have all that great an impact on the number.

[Cyclingman1]

The whole point of AT training is to push your lactate curve as close to your VO2max as possible, so that you can work at higher and higher intensities without accumulating excess lactate.

Exactly. LSD does not do that. You can do LSD all day long and you will not improve your anaerobic threshold. That is precisely why I do lots of AT training.

[hjs]

The whole point of AT training is to push your lactate curve as close to your VO2max as possible, so that you can work at higher and higher intensities without accumulating excess lactate.

Exactly. LSD does not do that. You can do LSD all day long and you will not improve your anaerobic threshold. That is precisely why I do lots of AT training.

Ahh still around, you proberly missed this one.

Can you provide any research to back up that claim. Any at all?

Common sense?

Why dont ever anwser a question, never concrete.

Maybe try this. If you where my coach and I would pull a 2k next winter. How would you me train on the erg?

[jackarabit]

In fairness to Jim, he left a specific suggestion (in the kudzu strangling the PB thread) to build (or was it test?) comp pace endurance on short intervals, high reps, short rest.

Broadly speaking, a training plan has to have sufficient parts to it to get you comfortable with a rate at the power that produces the pace wanted. 1:44 [311 W] produces 6:56. Can you do 1:44, 10x30 sec with some rest at 31 SPM? Can you do 8x45sec. Can you do 6x1min? Start small, keep building. Not a plan, just some ideas. I'm not against getting in the meters, but doing a whole bunch of 2:00 rows is not going to yield 6:56, unless you are unusually talented and strong and can pull a fast time out of a hat most any time.

This resembles just a bit what Terry O'Neill has been saying to masters ergers recently about not bothering with aerobic base building. Jim presumably had, as Henry is fond of reminding him, a pre-existing aerobic base from cycling, whether sport touring, weekend warrior, or TT stuff. Ergo the bias toward the short and sharp following the discovery that little more was needed.

In my fifties, I averaged over 4k miles a yr. for just shy of a decade, lot of group rides. Century rides, commercial tours on two continents, a couple of unsupported 5 day tours of DelMarVa, and a few Sr. Olympics TTs at Dover Downs. I also smoked right thru that decade, had pneumonia in Y2k, and worked for 35 yrs. in an industry that believes in dust collection by broom and lung. My level of aerobic fitness is merely a holding action against stuffed alveoli so I'm not the best test bed for super short HIIT work but I might try one of Jim's gaspers once a week to complement my L4 hour and my 30'r20 into the black hole. What doesn't kill me makes me less wary of what probably will!

[left coaster]

I am particularly interested in the shortest path to improving VO2 max for responders. In part, because I am a responder, but most importantly because I have found compelling evidence that higher VO2 max later in life is associated with better cognitive function and central nervous system health.

Keep in mind out of all your physiological parameters/measurements, VO2max is the one you can have the LEAST impact on through training. The majority of your VO2max component is genetic/hereditary, and while you can improve it through training, the ceiling for that improvement is quite low.

What's great as an athlete is that VO2max is almost never the limiting factor in someone's performance. The whole point of AT training is to push your lactate curve as close to your VO2max as possible, so that you can work at higher and higher intensities without accumulating excess lactate.

So for you, I understand you're looking for some of the other benefits that come from an increased VO2max capacity, but keep in mind no matter how much you train, or how you train, you're not going to have all that great an impact on the number.

This thread lumbers on without any actual evidence provided, just opinions.

Peace out, I'm done.

[Papy]

Some extracts from a book I am currently reading : "The Complete Guide to Indoor Rowing" by Jim Flood and Charles Simpson. Chapter "Training for Health and Performance"

http://www.amazon.co.uk/Complete-Guide- ... oor+rowing

[Cyclingman1]

From "Indoor Rowing Training Guide, version 2"

"The Anaerobic Threshold (AT)

The anaerobic threshold is measured at 4mmols. At this point the lactic acid production is at the maximum
level at which it can be metabolised and so it starts to accumulate in the working muscles, greatly
reducing their efficiency. Anaerobic threshold is frequently measured as a percentage of aerobic capacity
or VO2 max and can be anywhere in the range of 50% to 85% of VO2 max depending on fitness.

Because the heart has a limit on how fast it can beat there comes a stage where any further increase in
demand for oxygen cannot be met. At this point there is a deflection in the heart rate/work rate graph (see
below). The rate of increase slows down and eventually plateaus out at heart rate maximum. Many
physiologists identify this point of deflection as the anaerobic threshold and exercise carried out above this
level is anaerobic.

Training in this band has a greater effect on the development of the heart than training at a lower intensity.
The development of muscular efficiency continues at a higher intensity but because training in this band is
more physically demanding than aerobic training it cannot be sustained. Consequently although muscular
efficiency is being trained at a higher rate it is for less overall time and therefore may not yield the same
benefits.

For people with limited time to train, exercise within this band will have the greatest short-term effect.
"

[Shawn Baker]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BBodPOujW8m/

This from former Olympic rower Sam Loch- just to further stir the pot

[hjs]

https://www.instagram.com/p/BBodPOujW8m/

This from former Olympic rower Sam Loch- just to further stir the pot

Looks like can deadlift a whole crew and sink the boot while doing so