Concept2 Forum

Is there any benefit when rowing 10K meters in doing it all in one session or 2 sessions at 5K each?

You can go harder on the two 5Ks.

A lot of it depends on the ambient temp in the gym. That break between the two to take on water can be a bonus during a hot sweaty session.

dbennett wrote:Is there any benefit when rowing 10K meters in doing it all in one session or 2 sessions at 5K each?

Define "benefit." What are you trying to get out of the workout?

If all you're doing is splitting a 10k piece into 2 x 5k with (say) 30-45 seconds' rest for a towel-down and a sip or two of water, there's not going to be much functional difference.

If you're doing a 5k in the morning and a 5k in the afternoon, you're going to be able to do each of them a lot faster than you would be able to do one continuous 10k at some point in the day. If you hold off and do them at 10k pace anyway, I think you're probably not going to be working hard enough long enough to evoke the same training adaptations that the longer row will foster. In general, endurance rowing has to last for at least 20 minutes or so to start to be particularly effective. Thus 5ks (depending on your fitness, of course) typically are more suited for working at or near threshold pace.

In general, the closer any interval workout resembles a continuous row the more any training benefits from it are going to resemble those from the continuous row. The farther apart the intervals, the more of them there are in relation to the overall work distance, the higher the rating, etc. etc. etc. the more you're going to turn a continuous row into either a power-endurance interval session or even a speed session.

I'm gonna quote the WP on this one:

"Nothing good will come of stopping a workout every time your butt itches or you want to change the CD in the boombox. We want to be mentally tough and able to focus for an entire workout, and every time you interrupt a workout before it’s completed makes it that much easier to stop the next time."

A straight 10k will definitely provide the mental toughness that Mike Caviston talks about. Giving yourself X rest in a 2x5k will most likely diminish that. Not saying that the 2x5k (or other distance interval format workouts) doesn't have a place in training, it's just better to do the longer piece. Caviston also says in describing his "steady state" pieces that the 2x6k is meant for OTW practice where you can't do a straight 12k, 15k, etc.

bloomp wrote:it's just better to do the longer piece.

I don't believe this principle is very strong and the length of the pieces should depend on the goal of the training. Otherwise, this principle could be used iteratively. Am I still allowed to have a short nap and go to the toilet?

Tinus wrote:

bloomp wrote:it's just better to do the longer piece.

I don't believe this principle is very strong and the length of the pieces should depend on the goal of the training. Otherwise, this principle could be used iteratively. Am I still allowed to have a short nap and go to the toilet?

Well you don't give me much to go on there, but here's my argument - and I'm pretty sure the science backs it up. If you're looking to improve your aerobic capacity, settling in at a certain pace will be the same regardless of distance. You will do a 2x5k at about the same pace you'll do a 10k, maybe a second faster per 500m. Yet with that break in between, you don't gain anything. Why stop? If you actually are in pain and needed the break, chances are you won't pull very well on the next 5k. If you're not tired (or in pain) then you could've just kept going.

Sure, if you're looking for a very hard threshold workout, 2x5k just above your 5k pace is great, but it has a limited use. You will gain more from a straight 10k. The majority of the training volume in the Wolverine Plan is CONTINUOUS rowing, and the most 'advanced' pieces are 15x3' or 4x10' - level 3 and level 4, respectively. Why do you think Caviston did this? It makes you want to settle in for a long distance and gets you used to slight discomfort. Sure, other plans are different but the WP is the most available source for those training without an excellent coach.

bloomp wrote:The majority of the training volume in the Wolverine Plan is CONTINUOUS rowing, and the most 'advanced' pieces are 15x3' or 4x10' - level 3 and level 4, respectively. Why do you think Caviston did this?

Do you mind if I dismiss these arguments as anecdotal. Someone benefiting from a certain program does not mean he would not benefit even more from a different program. In the end any training is probable to have a positive effect.

In my opinion 5km or about 15 minutes is not a very short piece in which aerobic capacity can not be challenged. The only problem is the volume being low so you have to do more pieces. While 10km has benefits, 5km has other benefits and if one only rows 1 sec per 500 meter split faster than one might not be doing well enough. But even if it would be only 1 sec faster than it would still be challenging the body, physiologically, a bit further compared to the other, slower, piece which will show during races.

Just to name some other anecdotal evidence: a website being posted earlier on this forum, http://crossfitendurance.com
And... why do you think so many people do interval training.

why do you think so many people do interval training.

Because, by and large, Americans prefer marketing to science. I don't blame us, it's hurts to think.

Regarding the issue of taking breaks, I can't find the paper now, but I have read one on PubMed where turning an SS workout into an interval workout while maintaining the same pace decreased improvements by, I think, ~1%. However, I believe the break was correlated to better maintenance of technique in the chosen form of exercise (hence, fewer injuries). So there is a bit of a trade off between the two and it comes down to your goals and whether you care about that little percent.

Regarding the notion of just going faster on your SS, you should read this:
Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training
Stephen Seiler1 and Espen Tønnessen2
http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm#_Toc245522387

It is a little long but written by Stephen Seiler and provides some food for thought on why working harder can be a bad idea.

"Currently, there is great interest in high-intensity, short-duration interval training programs. However, careful evaluation of both available research and the training methods of successful endurance athletes suggests that we should be cautious not to over-prescribe high-intensity interval training or exhort the advantages of intensity over duration."

I feel it is better to break up the training as much as possible.

After all, the objective of training is to train, recover, improve, and to do it again.

Doing long exhausting work every day with no breaks is not the best way.

I see the benefit of doing a long continuous row once every ten days to three weeks but not more often than this, or even a longer session with breaks. For example when training for a marathon, I liked to do 5x 8k with 7 minute rests plus some sprints at the end once a week. This gave me good marathon training, without wearing me out as much as doing a straight marathon every time would. This also gave me time for replenishment in between, and was easier on my butt.

Define "better." IMO reasonable workouts aren't objectively good or bad. They're just workouts. What makes them good or bad is how well/badly they fit your training goals.

Fundamentally all training is interval training: work punctuated by rest. In this sense long continuous rows are intervals too. They're simply one-rep sessions followed by a long rest until the next session.

Calling 2x5km interval training is really stretching it.

Why is it a stretch? Interval training doesn't have to be fast sprinty stuff to be repetitive bouts of work separated by rest.

John Rupp wrote:I feel it is better to break up the training as much as possible.

After all, the objective of training is to train, recover, improve, and to do it again.

Doing long exhausting work every day with no breaks is not the best way.

I see the benefit of doing a long continuous row once every ten days to three weeks but not more often than this, or even a longer session with breaks. For example when training for a marathon, I liked to do 5x 8k with 7 minute rests plus some sprints at the end once a week. This gave me good marathon training, without wearing me out as much as doing a straight marathon every time would. This also gave me time for replenishment in between, and was easier on my butt.

John,

The suggestion was over a much shorter distance. Agreed, doing a straight 40k every day would be miserable but over only 10km there is no harm done. Hell, you almost did a straight 10k in each leg of the interval there.

My argument - this applies especially to newer rowers - is that the focus required for 40some minutes of work as well as the inability to hold a high rate for that time would better reward good technique. Especially for the OP who hasn't really posted here before, I'd assume he would need to fix his technique and work on lower rates before anything else. The short 20' 5k is within reach for someone to just throw themselves up and down the slide if they want. For over 40', that would never work.

Then again, I hate short intervals so I'm biased!

bloomp wrote:My argument - this applies especially to newer rowers - is that the focus required for 40some minutes of work as well as the inability to hold a high rate for that time would better reward good technique. Especially for the OP who hasn't really posted here before, I'd assume he would need to fix his technique and work on lower rates before anything else. The short 20' 5k is within reach for someone to just throw themselves up and down the slide if they want. For over 40', that would never work.

You are adding a lot of circumstances here. What if these are not fulfilled. I believe we agree that 10km can be better than 2x5km but it just depends on circumstances.

sheehc wrote:

why do you think so many people do interval training.

Because, by and large, Americans prefer marketing to science. I don't blame us, it's hurts to think.

Regarding the issue of taking breaks, I can't find the paper now, but I have read one on PubMed where turning an SS workout into an interval workout while maintaining the same pace decreased improvements by, I think, ~1%. However, I believe the break was correlated to better maintenance of technique in the chosen form of exercise (hence, fewer injuries). So there is a bit of a trade off between the two and it comes down to your goals and whether you care about that little percent.

Regarding the notion of just going faster on your SS, you should read this:
Intervals, Thresholds, and Long Slow Distance: the Role of Intensity and Duration in Endurance Training
Stephen Seiler1 and Espen Tønnessen2
http://www.sportsci.org/2009/ss.htm#_Toc245522387

It is a little long but written by Stephen Seiler and provides some food for thought on why working harder can be a bad idea.

"Currently, there is great interest in high-intensity, short-duration interval training programs. However, careful evaluation of both available research and the training methods of successful endurance athletes suggests that we should be cautious not to over-prescribe high-intensity interval training or exhort the advantages of intensity over duration."

Either that or we can actually read what he has to say and notice that he uses the phrase "over-prescribe".

Regardless, pick any theory and you can find studies that show the benefits of both sides. And simply writing off the notion of interval training as some bunk marketing scam because you happened to read a some guys saying that it is important to involve long endurance sessions is a bit extreme.

For every study you've got, I can show Tabata or someone like that who's shown the opposite to be effective. I also know that it works for me. As long as I have been active, I have tried any number of ways to make myself more fit and HIT has proven to me to be the most effective. That doesn't mean that it's the only way to fly, but it certainly shows me that it's at least one of them.

In back to back summers I trained in two entirely different ways for the same MS 150. Year one, I logged 150-200 miles per week, typically in 40-60 mile sessions. I did the back to back 75 milers at about 18 mph pace.

The next year, because I didn't have nearly as much time as the previous, I joined Crossfit and basically did HIT workouts to the tune of 3-4, 1 hour sessions per week, consisting of circuits that took from 8-20 minutes of concentrated effort. That year, I actually did the 100 milers each day rather than the 75s and managed over 19mph for both days. Despite training about 10 hours a week less. I also kicked butt on the same guys I rode with the previous year who all logged the long training sessions that year as well.

Now, there are a ton of variables that could explain why this could have happened, but I should mention that we weren't lolly-gagging on the long training rides the first summer. Regardless, based on this, I'd have a hard time being convinced that HIT training was a bad idea.