The Road to Boston 2007

TomR · Post by **TomR** » December 19th, 2006, 8:31 pm

30r20. Avg 2.03.5

I didn't have the drive to repeat last week's effort (avg. 2.01), but my HR hit 166 (95+%), so today wasn't all larks.

10-min splits:
2.03.7/147hr
2.03.6/156hr
2.03.4/166hr

About 225k holiday challenge meters, thanks to long warm-ups.

Anne · Post by **Anne** » December 19th, 2006, 10:58 pm

Gee Tom -- that workout is a bear. I tried to hold the SR at 20 yesterday and keep under 2:10 but couldn't last more than 6 minutes.

Again tonight, I had a huge variety of thoughts about quitting as I did the TR workout. Yeah, my mind went from "OK...if I stop now, would I need to re do this whole piece???? to ...."Am I allowed to take a longer rest period...and then report the results?" To..."why would anyone (in their right mind) voluntarily do a 2K???"

Anyway, I finally just rationalized this is indeed just training, so doing the piece is the important thing...not necessariy getting a PB. I don't even want to confess how long it has been since I have gotten a PB.

I did a 4x1K (3 minute rest) and the TR band is > 2:03 (but last years PB was 2:02.1)

Average 2:03.1 30spm 185HR
1,000 2:01.8 31spm 181HR
1,000 2:02.9 30spm 185HR
1,000 2:03.6 29spm 187HR -evil thoughts were entering my brain.
1,000 2:04.1 30spm 188HR- I just gave up...

When I arrived home from the gym there were three hungry college kids and a 95 year old father in law waiting in the *** DELETE - SPAM *** for me to get dinner on the table. No rest for the weary!

I went to the doctor today and she has no worries about my high HR given that I recover quickly....She thinks that middle age sleeplessness is causing the increase.
Anne

seat5 · Post by **seat5** » December 19th, 2006, 11:02 pm

Hi all,
You're all doing a great job sticking to the plan! I am still feeling a bit crummy but plan to get back on the erg Thursday. There's a RowPro 5K I am going to try for the first time--all year my Taff team mates have been doing these sessions and I usually can't join in because of the time zone--I'm usually at work when they do them, but because of the holidays I don't have work Thursday so I can do it. It's going to be a pretty bad 5K because I haven't been on the erg for a week, but then again maybe it will be good because I haven't been on the erg for a week! In any case I'm just going to cross off all the missed workouts and pretend I did them and go on. They all look pretty hellish from here on anyway.

The 200K is off the list for me this year--I'd rather get better and keep up with the IP the best I can rather than do the extra meters--200K was a challenge for me in the previous years when I wasn't following a plan and it's proving to be too much for me. Thanks for your post, RR1 Kirk!

TomR · Post by **TomR** » December 20th, 2006, 12:41 am

Anne--

4x1k w/ 3 min rest is brutal. The Wolverine Plan 4x1k uses approx 6 min rest, and 4 min rest is commonplace.

It looks to me as though you did heroically.

And on my arrival home, I would have let the young fend for themselves. Just open the referigerator door and let them turn feral.

George Dunning · Post by **George Dunning** » December 20th, 2006, 4:30 am

anne I agree with tom that the rest seems to short for where you are at in your programme, 5 min minimum and at your pace nothing wrong with 6min .... you also made a relevant comment about extending the rest mid session and there is nothing wrong with that either. if you are looking to hold a target pace and you find you are struggling then take a bit longer, all the better to maintain the quality of the session.

there is an argument for a progressive interval plan where you hold your pace and gradually reduce your rest periods till you reach a pre-determined minimum, then up your pace and increase your rest again .... however thats not the IP so take a good rest and push down the times.

really you only need a constant, either pace or rest so you can monitor progress

george

hjs · Post by **hjs** » December 20th, 2006, 6:35 am

If you take longer rest during intervals this means you have to push them harder too.
Shorter rest is not perse meant to make it harder. It will decreese the quilety of your training. The hardest pieces are the ones in which you really need the longer rests.
If you come more close to racing time you should make the rest periods longer, not shorter. This will allow you to do them faster. And as we al know that is what we want

Anne · Post by **Anne** » December 20th, 2006, 8:47 am

TomR wrote:Anne--
And on my arrival home, I would have let the young fend for themselves. Just open the referigerator door and let them turn feral.

The young don't worry me either...it was the 95 year old grandpa who drove over from the retirement home, was sitting in the *** DELETE - SPAM ***, dressed up in his red holiday sweater, enjoying a strong drink of scotch on the rocks, waiting for a family dinner. Id' forgotten that I'd invited him!

Yankeerunner · Post by **Yankeerunner** » December 20th, 2006, 9:27 am

2 X 10' AT (5'r)

2400m w/u in 11'

10' 2600m 1:55.4 26spm 149hr (recovered to 69hr during rest)
10' 2611m 1:54.9 26spm 155hr (rec. to 78hr)

1249m c/d in 6'

Standard erg, 122df, 54 degrees, 46rhr. Seemed a bit better than the AT workout of Monday. Tried to concentrate on keeping a continuous motion with the handle, "like a conveyor belt" as Xeno would say. S10MPS to boot.

Unlike yesterday's workout this one points to about a 7:12 2km. Like Tom I don't seem to be consistent across the different training bands. A lack of balance somewhere most likely.

Anne, if I make it to 95 I hope that I have a daughter in law like you. I promise to patiently drink my booze while she takes her time to unwind from her workout, and even fend for myself if necessary.

Rick

whaskell · Post by **whaskell** » December 20th, 2006, 8:41 pm

Wednesday morning
10min WU 2191m
TR 6x2min/max 1:44.0/30-34spm
Target: 6x2min/avg 1:45.0/32spm/3:30min rest
2min/1:45.3/33/570m
2min/1:44.7/33/573m
2min/1:44.5/32/574m
2min/1:44.3/32/575m
2min/1:44.2/33/576m
2min/1:44.2/33/576m
Total: 7855m

Felt good.

TomR · Post by **TomR** » December 20th, 2006, 9:25 pm

whaskell wrote: TR 6x2min . . . Felt good.

It felt good?

Tonight: UT1/3x17
2.07.1 avg, consistent w/ previous UT1 sessions.

Bob S. · Post by **Bob S.** » December 20th, 2006, 11:58 pm

My IP for today called for 8x45”AN. It went O.K., but 6’ total of erging was not much help for my HC total. More on my posting on the "Holiday Challenge — are you going for it" thread.

WU: 21’ — 3’ea@15/18/20/22/24/20/15. 4576m/2:17.6/128bpm.

45” intervals with 1:30 passive rests:

197m/1:54.2/32spm/129bpm
208m/1:48.1/36spm/157bpm
202m/1:51.3/33spm/158bpm
207m/1:48.6/35spm/160bpm
208m/1:48.1/35spm/162bpm
206m/1:49.2/36spm/160bpm
210m/1:47.1/35spm/162bpm
211m/1:46.6/36spm/160bpm
Last rest 1:00 (before cool down).

Total distance — as reported on the monitor, not the exact sum of the 8 individual interval distances: 1654m. Aves. 1:48.8/34spm/156bpm.

CD: 12’ — 3’ea@20/18/15/12. 2525m/2:22.5/134bpm

There were 197 “coast” meters that I would have liked to include just to help out my HC total, but putting in a time would have been bogus. I would have taken a longer cool down because I think that it is better practice, and also I could have used those extra meters for the HC. However, I had to keep it short since I was home alone and expecting a tech to show up to get our heater working properly. The last couple of days have been the coldest so far, so naturally our thermostat decided that it was time to act up.

The 1:30 rests might seem a bit long. My RHR is 54bpm, so the goal was to get it down to 108 before starting another interval. It took just about 1:00 each rest to get it there. In the extra 30” it got down into the 90s each time. I was just as happy to take that extra rest time.

Bob S.

George Dunning · Post by **George Dunning** » December 21st, 2006, 4:31 am

hjs wrote:If you take longer rest during intervals this means you have to push them harder too.
Shorter rest is not perse meant to make it harder. It will decrease the quality of your training. The hardest pieces are the ones in which you really need the longer rests.
If you come more close to racing time you should make the rest periods longer, not shorter. This will allow you to do them faster. And as we all know that is what we want

I disagree with the generalization of the statement that shorter rest decreases the quality of the training. The term 'quality' here seems to imply pace and yet pace is not necessarily a good measure of the intensity of the session it is just for most people a convenient measure.

I would guess that one of the objects of a TR session (as with most short intervals) is to attain Vo2max early in the session and look to sustain that physiological state. This can be done thru pace, duration, rest interval time, a combination of all three. I have read articles proposing that gradually reducing the rest interval to compensate for increasing levels of fitness is a perfectly valid premise and I see no reason to argue.

Interval Program Training

Of course you can reduce the rest intervals to the point where they do have a negative impact just as you could take the opposing position and extend the rest to allow for a faster pace which may also have a negative impact ... in all things a balance is the key

george

Yankeerunner · Post by **Yankeerunner** » December 21st, 2006, 9:33 am

3 X 15' UT1 (3.75'r)

2160m w/u in 10'

15' 3723m 2:00.9 23spm 141hr (recovered to 70hr during rest)
15' 3736m 2:00.4 23spm 147hr (rec. to 79hr)
15' 3754m 1:59.9 24spm 150hr (rec. to 81hr)

1026m c/d in 5'

Standard erg, 121df, 55 degrees, 49rhr. Meh! I've been worse. It felt like my right arm was starting to chafe so I whipped off my t-shirt for the third piece and immediately felt better. At only 55 degrees in the erging room I would have thought that cooling off a bit wouldn't matter, but it did.

Rick

hjs · Post by **hjs** » December 21st, 2006, 10:01 am

GeorgeNZ wrote:
hjs wrote:If you take longer rest during intervals this means you have to push them harder too.
Shorter rest is not perse meant to make it harder. It will decrease the quality of your training. The hardest pieces are the ones in which you really need the longer rests.
If you come more close to racing time you should make the rest periods longer, not shorter. This will allow you to do them faster. And as we all know that is what we want
I disagree with the generalization of the statement that shorter rest decreases the quality of the training. The term 'quality' here seems to imply pace and yet pace is not necessarily a good measure of the intensity of the session it is just for most people a convenient measure.

I would guess that one of the objects of a TR session (as with most short intervals) is to attain Vo2max early in the session and look to sustain that physiological state. This can be done thru pace, duration, rest interval time, a combination of all three. I have read articles proposing that gradually reducing the rest interval to compensate for increasing levels of fitness is a perfectly valid premise and I see no reason to argue.

Interval Program Training

Of course you can reduce the rest intervals to the point where they do have a negative impact just as you could take the opposing position and extend the rest to allow for a faster pace which may also have a negative impact ... in all things a balance is the key

george

Can be, but I am more in the school of thought that you take enough rest and even increese the rest close to competition. This alowing you to get used to racing pace and also racing start. If you start a race you are also rested and not tired.

This for the longer intervals not the shorter ones. Taking long breaks during short intervals would be pure sprinttraining, this we don,t need in rowing.

seat5 · Post by **seat5** » December 21st, 2006, 5:40 pm

Hi all
Had my first Row Pro experience today on a CTC 5K. My connection had a serious lag so for the whole race it looked like I was ahead of the whole field including some really strong HW men so that gave me a clue! However I think it helped me psychologically not to feel that I had to play catch up and Irowed my own race and was happy with the time. I felt very weak and tired and could not get the rate up at all (still have very bad sore throat and cough) but ended up at 19:43 with av spm of 25 (1:58.3) off my PB by a bit but still better than my last go by .5/500 m. It was really nerve wracking waiting for the start thing and we had a false start which made it more so.

So this weekend back on the IP and I've totally given up on 200K .