Age related decline

[Mark E]

Thanks for all of the good posts here (although the topic seems to have shifted toward who might pull what).

After considering different perspectives here and looking at my own training one thing occurred to me. When I was younger and faster I also trained more frequently and harder. Duh.

It's fine to bemoan lost youth but if I want to do something proactive to regain that fitness I think it may be as simple as logging more mileage (on or off water), lots of it at moderate paces, but going really hard when it's time to go hard.

For running, it's well documented that milegae is the single best predictor of speed. More so than miraculous interval workouts, tempo efforts or anything else. I'd be surprised if that isn't the case for rowing too.

[nick rockliff]

I may join the party if I can muster up the enthusiasm for another go at a 2K time.

What's the current 2K data? 6:24 @ age 54 and 6:39 @ age 65 looks like a tall task. Krum & Bone are in mid-6:30s just a yr or two short of 65. Like I say, I find it interesting to track all of this.

No recent 2k specific data at all since that last 2k 8 years ago. Training for a 2k isn't rocket science though, have done many over the years.

[Cyclingman1]

Thanks for all of the good posts here (although the topic seems to have shifted toward who might pull what).

Isn't what we can pull the marker of age related decline. If age related decline is a quantifiable phenomenon, then prediction of future rowing should be more or less possible.

For running, it's well documented that milege is the single best predictor of speed. More so than miraculous interval workouts, tempo efforts or anything else. I'd be surprised if that isn't the case for rowing too.

I doubt if that is a universally held idea. In the first place, what is the distance. 1500m training is way different than marathon training. Same thing with rowing. 2000m is a tricky distance. That's why people hate it. Intervals certainly play a huge role. Lactate threshold training may be most important of all. One is going to operate right at the AT threshold virtually the entire 2000m. Complicated subject - training that is.

[jamesg]

For running, it's well documented that mileage is the single best predictor of speed

For rowing, it's mileage, style, size and sharpening.

I just found out that I've lost 5cm height since school days, from 188 to 183cm. No doubt this is a major cause of my loss of 2k performance, from 280W 15 years a go to 165 W now. Taking a minute and a half longer doesn't help either.

[Cyclingman1]

I would have thought that aging 15 yrs would have been the primary factor in losing wattage?

[jamesg]

The many nefarious diabolical undesired but hardly unexpected effects of, certainly. Height is one I hadn't thought of.

[Cyclingman1]

Cyclingman1 wrote: ↑December 4th, 2019, 7:08 am
Focusing on what was, is probably a losing a proposition. A lot of us seem to be unable to give up on numbers as they fade away, like 6:58. Maybe 7:13 is the new me. BTW, a new man is on top 2K, +70 HWt standings as of 12/3: 7:10.

The new top of the rankings is a Steve Rogers. Isn't that Captain America?!? His time at least is bona fide and verified, but being injected with super soldier serum would appear to be unfair.

Made it below Capt America today.

2000m: 7:09.1 @1:47.2 DF/SPM 149/35 W/s: 8.1. Used an interval technique: 3x350 with 2x475 interleaved - 0.0 rest. Avg 1:44.3, 8.8 and 1:50.5, 7.4. Wanted to try different approach, since have been stuck on 7:13. SPI of 8.1 is not great, but that is at 35 SPM. There is a tradeoff that is debatable. More power at lower SPM or less power more frequently applied with higher SPM.

[Mark E]

The topic of age-related decline is definitely on my mind after getting some heart imaging done.

Haven't had a chance to review the calcium scan in detail with my doc yet, but I did get an unsettling call from her office advising to keep my exercise level "moderate" (no definition provided) until we can discuss in detail next week.

Unsettling, to say the least. I'm sticking to zone 2 workouts (70-75% of max) for now.

I'm left wondering if I'm one of the masters-aged athletes that has developed plaque deposits that may result from decades of aerobic training. Not everyone with a similar background (I've competed in rowing, cycling, running, and triathlons pretty much since my late teens) encounters these issues, but a decent percentage do.

Many of the studies in this area have been misconstrued in popular media as "hardcore exercise is bad for you," which isn't really what the researchers are indicating. But there does seem to be evidence that people on the high end of the exercise spectrum may develop some negative characteristics, along with all of the good things that go with intense cardio training.

If I'm one of them it may also explain why I'm really not responding to training the way I used to ... though of course we're all in that boat to some degree.

More reading if you care for it ...

https://ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/cir ... 116.026964

[Cyclingman1]

Well, I discovered about ten yrs ago after having suffered a DVT and a PE that I have more than normal calcium deposits around my heart. I've never really pursued it much since then - too many other medical issues to contend with. However, I don't have a sense that it has affected my exercise. At this point, I don't plan on doing anything about, if there really is anything one could do.

[nick rockliff]

Cyclingman1 wrote: ↑December 4th, 2019, 7:08 am
Focusing on what was, is probably a losing a proposition. A lot of us seem to be unable to give up on numbers as they fade away, like 6:58. Maybe 7:13 is the new me. BTW, a new man is on top 2K, +70 HWt standings as of 12/3: 7:10.

The new top of the rankings is a Steve Rogers. Isn't that Captain America?!? His time at least is bona fide and verified, but being injected with super soldier serum would appear to be unfair.

Made it below Capt America today.

2000m: 7:09.1 @1:47.2 DF/SPM 149/35 W/s: 8.1. Used an interval technique: 3x350 with 2x475 interleaved - 0.0 rest. Avg 1:44.3, 8.8 and 1:50.5, 7.4. Wanted to try different approach, since have been stuck on 7:13. SPI of 8.1 is not great, but that is at 35 SPM. There is a tradeoff that is debatable. More power at lower SPM or less power more frequently applied with higher SPM.

Nice one

[Cyclingman1]

Nice one

Thanks, Don't know if others have tried an interval technique for 2K. I'm going to experiment some more with that approach. Pretty sure I can find a few more seconds. To hell with age decline.

[G-dub]

Jim, old friend, doesn’t setting up the machine for intervals and zero rest allow for a cheat the first couple of pulls? I notice that my first few pulls at the start of each interval are faster than real. Maybe you are doing it differently

[max_ratcliffe]

<>

2000m: 7:09.1 @1:47.2 DF/SPM 149/35 W/s: 8.1. Used an interval technique: 3x350 with 2x475 interleaved - 0.0 rest. Avg 1:44.3, 8.8 and 1:50.5, 7.4. Wanted to try different approach, since have been stuck on 7:13. SPI of 8.1 is not great, but that is at 35 SPM. There is a tradeoff that is debatable. More power at lower SPM or less power more frequently applied with higher SPM.

Jim, this is staggering work. Just wow!

[max_ratcliffe]

The topic of age-related decline is definitely on my mind after getting some heart imaging done.

Haven't had a chance to review the calcium scan in detail with my doc yet, but I did get an unsettling call from her office advising to keep my exercise level "moderate" (no definition provided) until we can discuss in detail next week.

Unsettling, to say the least. I'm sticking to zone 2 workouts (70-75% of max) for now.

<>
More reading if you care for it ...

https://ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/cir ... 116.026964

Look after yourself. Sticking to moderate exercise sounds like the way to go for now. Thanks for the interesting article share, although without a background in medical research, it'll take me a couple more reads to understand it!

[Cyclingman1]

Jim, old friend, doesn’t setting up the machine for intervals and zero rest allow for a cheat the first couple of pulls? I notice that my first few pulls at the start of each interval are faster than real.

Glenn, I have no idea about that. I've never spent one second observing or analyzing the legitimacy of variable intervals. In fact, I just assume that Concept 2 wouldn't undermine people with some sort of exceptional calculation scheme for intervals. Just how certain are you about this?

Having said that, I almost always simply use standard single distance setup and keep track of any sub-distances myself by looking at the countdown distance. However, if you and/or others maintain that using actual interval setup is an advantage, then for sure I won't ever use it again for a single distance.