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

[christopherregisryan]

Maybe we can continue the debate over here. BTW, I think that everyone involved has a lot to contribute to this discussion. One aspect that is important is to consider the condition in which one comes to indoor rowing. Folks with a heavy aerobic background from running, rowing, cycling, etc., seem to need much less work on their aerobic systems than folks with more of a power lifting or even CrossFit background. I think of Jim G., Damien, Henry, Greg S., Tom Phillips as members of the former group. I am very much in the latter group. After about a year of training I finally cracked a 7 minute 2k in 2012. At that time, I could pull about a 1:24 500m sprint. Today my numbers are 6:38 and 1:23. I believe that the improvement in my 2k mainly came from training my aerobic system (and to a lesser extent to improved technique). For me the UT2 training time has been worthwhile. I am still hitting PRs in most of the distances and feel that I have upside as my aerobic system improves. I think that the rowers with a better aerobic base will get less benefit from the UT2 work. So for Jim to say that he doesn't see much benefit to a lot of UT2 meters makes sense to me given his cycling background. I say, "to each, their own." Best. - Chris

[Cyclingman1]

I basically never do UT2 rowing and very seldom UT1, at least as defined by pace based on my 2K times. I seldom row beyond 5K. I tend to do those at a pace a few seconds slower than SB. My weekly totals don't even constitute one row for many of those I "compete" against. I freely admit that that hurts me when it comes to TT rows over 30min or 10K. But I don't really care. I do what I do.

[G-dub]

Chris, you have touched on something. If those with good aerobic backgrounds get less benefit from UT2 work, why does the research regarding world class athletes say something else when it is packaged in a polarized approach? Possibly the dividing line between UT zones could be mooshy but certainly there is lots of long aerobic work going on at the highest levels of aerobic sports. Its not all high intensity work. But there is also strong support for high intensity work at manageable doses. The reasearch is there in terms of what people at high levels are actually doing. And there is research about if it was relevant for those not at the highest levels. Is it the assumption by some that they are really not doing the long work and only doing the high intensity work and that the research is bogus?

[christopherregisryan]

I basically never do UT2 rowing and very seldom UT1, at least as defined by pace based on my 2K times. I seldom row beyond 5K. I tend to do those at a pace a few seconds slower than SB. My weekly totals don't even constitute one row for many of those I "compete" against. I freely admit that that hurts me when it comes to TT rows over 30min or 10K. But I don't really care. I do what I do.

Makes sense, Jim. There are also the questions of what is the objective of the training and how much time one has to devote to training for indoor rowing.

[christopherregisryan]

Chris, you have touched on something. If those with good aerobic backgrounds get less benefit from UT2 work, why does the research regarding world class athletes say something else when it is packaged in a polarized approach? Possibly the dividing line between UT zones could be mooshy but certainly there is lots of long aerobic work going on at the highest levels of aerobic sports. Its not all high intensity work. But there is also strong support for high intensity work at manageable doses. The reasearch is there in terms of what people at high levels are actually doing. And there is research about if it was relevant for those not at the highest levels. Is it the assumption by some that they are really not doing the long work and only doing the high intensity work and that the research is bogus?

As I understand it, the top athletes are willing to put in substantial time doing UT2/UT1 work (benefiting from their shorter recovery needs) to make relatively small incremental gains during the base building period. These athletes can also withstand massive training loads especially at UT2. D1 collegiate athletes also do significant UT2 work at most schools. A good amount of this work is done OTW focusing on technique, balance, blending with pair partners, etc.

[hjs]

Chris, I see you put me in the group with a serious aerobic background, not so, my background was more general. Gamesports and track (jumping/trowing).
Its think being general fit gives you right away a good 2k. Runners or cyclers lack upperbody strenght at first.

The polerised method is really beyond question atm, the base is simply to train the aerobic system without using the anaerobic.

General point, what people say and do (or think they do) is often not the same. Without actually seeing the whole picture of a persons training we easily get a wrong impression. See my firs point.

And ofcourse, very important, our natural strenght, you seem to be a natural sprinter, Shawn is one, very high raw power. On the other hand a guy like Jim, very much the other side of the spectrum. Slow fibers in abundance. Nomatter what that won,t change.
I myself am very much in the middle, not very good at anything, no super power, no great endurance. Looking back I was best as a goalkeeper. So I do react on any training, only never get very good at anything. Major weakness, easy injured. Weakness in the mind, not overly patient.

Pitty you guys don,t follow speekskating. A sport which involves distances from 35 seconds to 13 minutes. And most athletes do several distances. And nomatter how try train, there natural strenghts always stay in place.

Two examples of last weekends WC.

1000 meter. Took toughly 68 seconds for the first three, very close together.

Number one a Russian. Worldrecord holder 500. A freak, starts fast, last round he really slows down. Won both the 500 and 1k.
Number 2 a Russian. Another freak, in the lactic anaerobic front. 500 he will never win, but he can keep pace for a few laps with hardly loosing ground. He did win the 1500 easy. Almost unbeatable their.
Three dutch, guy, no freak, just very good. Will never win the 500, on the 1k and 1500 he is always is a contender.

Number two and three do ok on longer work also. The 500 meter guy will start take coffee breaks.

Proberly a bit pointless for you guys these examples, but for me they are very telling. In cycling there are also good examples sorts of talents.

[Balkan boy]

Here's a tidbit for you:

Eric Murray:
That means trying to hit 80 per cent in my UT2 zone, at around a heart rate of 160-165. Then I’m looking at 1.44s on the machine.

http://www.worldrowing.com/news/eric-mu ... oor-rowing

I think that 1:44/500m is hardly 'junk miles'.

[hjs]

This dosnt really belong in here but since these threads take wild off topic tangents and it is relevant to the current side track I thought Id include it here.

I have had a really hard time accepting the training modality encouraged by HJS. When Im done I want to feel like I have had my ass kicked. If I dont, I feel like I have shortchanged myself, evidence suggests more and more that this is the reason I dont have great endurance. I think this guy finally got through to me:

Part 1: http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com/201 ... endurance/ Part 2: http://www.bengreenfieldfitness.com/201 ... durance-2/

They are not short but if you are going to start reading, read them both all the way.

Both links are nice reads. (Quote from the former thread)

[mdpfirrman]

I read those too Henry. I had previously read the first one. Thanks to Tim for posting those. Essentially, the article (in my mind) is best summarized by that a training plan that doesn't include "life" as part of your activity is wrong and that the ideal training plan (and some of his ideas are borrowed from Mark Sisson - the guy that is one of the leading proponents of Paleo lifestyle in the US) is a faulty plan. Sisson (and the author) both feel like that 80/20 that top world class athletes do is unattainable for most every day Joe's like most of us. We work and live doing other things too many hours of the day. What he proposes (and this is more geared toward Triathletes) is how to set up a training plan that isn't 20 hours or 20 sessions a week and still be a top performing athlete.

His example of a plan at the end of the last article is about 50% UT1 stuff / 40% UT2 stuff and the rest AT type stuff. What he's proposing is if you're living "life" the right way, much of that other 80% slow stuff comes from just living. He encourages things like doing pushups every hour or pullups or walking desks at work.

Don't trust my summary read it for yourselves, but this is a general idea of what he's getting at. He says that he's a coach for some of the world's top Ironmen.

The idea of the article is interesting. I guess I wonder whether a walking treadmill or similar things are practical for most of us. I know that some of the best competitors (like Greg) have mentioned that they had laid yearly plans out to do 10 or more sessions per week and it ends up being 6 or 7 sessions a week.

Thanks for starting the thread Chris. I've been interested in this very topic but didn't want to chime in on the other thread because it was out of place.

[Cyclingman1]

There are a couple of factors not being discussed: time to exercise and ability to tolerate long hours on rower.

I personally do not have the time to devote hours and hours to rowing. It's not just the time on the rower, but the prep, etc. Course, this is nothing new for me. When competing at a pretty high level in duathlons, I had to steal training time from a demanding job and home requirements. Secondly, long hours in endurance activities is tiring. And that is counterproductive when doing speed work. I'm tired enough already, why just pile on myself with mega miles?

[hjs]

There are a couple of factors not being discussed: time to exercise and ability to tolerate long hours on rower.

I personally do not have the time to devote hours and hours to rowing. It's not just the time on the rower, but the prep, etc. Course, this is nothing new for me. When competing at a pretty high level in duathlons, I had to steal training time from a demanding job and home requirements. Secondly, long hours in endurance activities is tiring. And that is counterproductive when doing speed work. I'm tired enough already, why just pile on myself with mega miles?

You do 5x a week hard spinssessions per week, every session on the rower is a race session. And you find it strange that st age 70 you are tired. Bizar how your mind works.

Its very easy to sit hours on the rower, just like cycling or walking. If you pace go easy enough.
Your 5 hours of spin classes are roughly the equivalent of 70km on the erg, so you ave time, but use it for something you like more.

You main problem is that you don,t want to train, but only want to race. Fine if you like that, but it sure is not getting the best put of you.

[G-dub]

The challenge with these discussions is that instead of talking about the ideal and then ways to mitigate / augment for the realities of our individualities and of life as a weekend athlete, we talk about what we do individually, based on what we like to do or can do, and discuss it as if that is the ideal that everyone should follow.

[mdpfirrman]

Out of curiosity Jim, how much time do you spend when the weather is nice biking outsides? See, I guess I'm thinking that you're like more of a prime example of the article that Tim (and Henry) posted. To others, it seems like you spend way too little time in UT2 or even in UT1 as you're an all out rower when you row.

I guess I'm thinking that reality is that the 80% (of slower work) that top performers do is your casual longer rides on the bike. Your tough spin classes are like a UT1 and your rower is like a AT workout. For most of us, you're right Jim, we don't have the 15 hours a week to train (or the 10 to 15 sessions it would take to ever become the best WE could be - because most of us are going to reach world class level).

In practical terms, to a guy like me, I have a home spinning bike that's adequate. If I spend 7 hours a week on the rower, and around 6 more at home at night while watching TV with the Spinner in my living room doing cycling at UT2 (or even a bit slower), it's the ideal situation. The seven hours or so on the rower (which is more than most would like to do) would be spent doing more UT1 and AT work than most would encourage. But that's the point of the article above, you can't take that 6 or 7 hour window most of us have and expect to achieve our best if we are couch potatoes the rest of the time.

Other examples would be playing basketball or soccer for fun or leisure (or perhaps volleyball) but I think biking is one of the best examples.

If there are any Australians out there, I'm a big fan of the story of Cliff Young, the famous ultramarathoner. He was a 60 year old that entered one of the most prestigious ultras in the world at that time (this was in the 70's I think). He was a "gum shoe" sheep herder. He spent his entire day herding sheep (UT2 type stuff). The other guys were well trained "world class" athletes in their 30s and 40s. Everyone thought when he entered the race it was a joke. Media was all over the story because they thought Cliff would die. Everyone sped off at the onset leaving Cliff in the dust. They ran around 16 hours a day (this was a multi day event). Something funny happened on the first day. While the others slept, Cliff kept going -- all night long! At the end of the first day, he was way ahead and never looked back. The 60 year old sheep farmer became a national cult hero. Most didn't consider his life "training", yet he said he would jog (in his gum shoes) for up to 14 hours a day herding sheep. This was his life since he was a boy. Funny thing is, this is the guy that basically invented a method of running that's packaged now by marketers as things like the "Pose method". It was originally simply called the "Cliffy Shuffle".

http://www.elitefeet.com/the-legend-of-cliff-young

I actually think the story is inaccurate as I'm pretty sure he lead the race after the first night and the other runners never caught him. He did set the course record!

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

What exactly are people trying to debate or come to a conclusion on?

Polarization has been shown (not proven, because you can't really prove anything in sports physiology) time and time again to yield the best results, especially when the majority of training volume is spent at low intensities (i.e. UT2 and UT1).

There's really nothing to debate there in my mind. Yes, you can be fast and NOT be on a polarized plan. Yes, you can be fast and NOT train in the UT2/UT1 zone. But all research and all observations lead to the same conclusion: if you want to be the fastest possible, you need to be on a polarized plan that heavily emphasizes UT2/UT1 work. Even the famed Danes did a lot of SS work, though most people don't realize this (there is a video from Eskild Ebbesen where he details their training plan in the lead up to the Olympics which you can easily google and see for yourself).

Also, the notion that "already aerobic" athletes don't benefit as much from UT2/UT1 work is bogus. EVERYONE benefits from UT2/UT1 work. Eventually you can figure out if you need to do a bit more AT/VO2max work or a little less based on your scores over different distances/tests, but the majority of your training will still always be UT2/UT1. Guys going 5:40 benefit from UT2 work as much as guys going 7:30.

Anyway, it's a bit of a rant, but it always strikes me that people are seeking to re-invent the wheel when it comes to training and the evidence is out there. Ever since the East Germans figured out that long and slow is the way to go, every nation and every elite team in the world has adopted a polarized approach to training with a heavy focus on long and slow work.

Not everyone is trying to win the Olympics, so that plan isn't the best match for everyone. BUT that doesn't take any merit away from it - it is still the plan that would get you closest to your theoretical fastest speed possible.

[G-dub]

Word (or for us older folks../word up), Armondo.