Concept2 Forum

Training Intensity Distribution Over a Four-Year Cycle in Olympic Champion Rowers: Different Roads Lead to Rio
Daniel J. Plews, Paul B. Laursen

The purpose of this study was to compare the training intensity distribution (TID) of the undefeated world champion male rowing New Zealand (kiwi) pair over a four-year Olympic cycle, across training phases, training years, and between individuals. Training data, including heart rate and boat speed, were recorded in the athletes rowing in the same boat between March 2013 and August 2016, ending with the Rio Olympics final. Progressive exercise tests assessed first (LT1) and second (LT2) lactate thresholds and associated heart rates, to determine the percentage of training performed below, between and above these demarcation points. Training an average of only 12-15 h/wk throughout the Olympic cycle, the mean percent distribution of time (±SD) at each training intensity was 80.4 ± 5.5% <LT1, 17.9 ± 5.3% LT1-LT2 and 1.8 ± 0.8% >LT2 for Rower A and 67.3 ± 9.0% <LT1, 30.2 ± 9.4% LT1 - LT2, and 2.4 ± 1.4% >LT2 for Rower B. Across the years 2014-2016, Rower A performed most likely more training <LT1, while Rower B performed mostly likely more training between LT1-LT2. Training appeared to become more polarised, with greater amounts of time spent <LT1, with increased training duration (R=0.38-0.43). Two of the world’s best rowers, rowing together in the same boat with an undefeated record across an Olympic cycle, travelled markedly different “roads to Rio” within the context of their TID, with one rower displaying a polarised model of TID, and the other pyramidal. However, TID trended towards becoming more polarised in both rowers with increased training duration.

" For practitioners who monitor training in elite athletes and pay attention to TID, these
data are of interest. Perhaps for the first time, we have shown two differing TID profiles
(polarised vs. pyramidal), in two very high level athletes achieving optimal results across a
similar training program. However, although this is apparent in these data, over longer time
periods the TID model can change (i.e. from pyramidal to polarised models and vice versa).
It is also worth noting that, in the case of both rowers, the majority of time spent training was
still at an intensity <LT1.
From a practical application standpoint, these data beg the question: “which TID
method is superior and which should be strived for in training?” Based on these results, it would
appear as if either can be effective, and the success of each model may be due more to years of
training, individual physiological responses, as well time available for training.
When considering the three TID models presented herein, the threshold as to where one
model ends and the other begins is also influential on the resulting interpretation. As such,
accurate TID identification can be difficult when using the heart rate time in zone method. For
more accurate demarcations, practitioners should also consider other methods of assessment
such as the “session goal” method.

http://journals.humankinetics.com/doi/1 ... .2017-0343

Spotted in the wild. Of course they have the data for all the sessions going back a whole Olympic cycle. The paper itself is filled with many tidbits.
- Confirms they did not do any weight sessions (although they did in the past - and a pair is pretty much it's own weight training)
- Bond likes to bike and Murray likes to erg for supplemental training
- 15 hrs a week average (although had been higher in the previous Olympic cycle)
- Bond aerobic dominant, Murray anerobic dominant

7x4min step protocol data (Australian test)
Weight Height VO2 max Peak HR Average 4 min LT1 power LT1 LT2 power LT2
(L/min ) max (w) (w) HR HR
89.5 188 6.4 182 531 320 144 408 165
99.4 195 6.7 195 552 330 160 410 175

15 hours a week is 6 x 2.5 hours which is very little on top of that 80% < LT1 for one of the rowers
but not for the other although in the same boat. Was one of them in worse shape?

I simply do not believe it. I would not want to work out that little if I were full time devoted to rowing,
would you?

Emma Twigg reports on youtube the following: 20K OTW in the morning, 20K OTW in the afternoon
and additional work in between.
Other rowers talk of 5 hours on the bike between rowing sessions. And that is not unbelievable.

H2O wrote:15 hours a week is 6 x 2.5 hours which is very little on top of that 80% < LT1 for one of the rowers
but not for the other although in the same boat. Was one of them in worse shape?

I simply do not believe it. I would not want to work out that little if I were full time devoted to rowing,
would you?

I was similarly surprised. So much so I contacted the lead author. He is the team physiologist who has set the training bands for the past 6 years. They track training on Trainingpeaks and use Heart rate variability (HRV4training app) plus the TSS (training stress score) from training peaks to determine physiologic load. He said in the prior Olympic cycle they averaged close to 20 hr a week. They have found rowers can handle about 20 hrs a week in a sustainable fashion before breaking down. Here is the table outlining yearly weekly averages split between activities. Differences exist due to injury (2016 early Bond had a rib injury that limited water time) and some other issues. They really managed hard on the physiologic indicators of overload from the heart rate variability and TSS scores.

As you can see from the table Bond liked cycling (hence he is now trying to qualify as a time trialist) and Murray liked the erg. On water only 10 hrs a week, does not include warm up or warm down. All data with heart rate over 100 included.

The only explanation is one of quality work even with lower workloads, and overload is a real and important phenomenon.

Year Weekly Training (hh:min) Rowing on water (%) Concept Ergometer (%) Cycling (%) Other(%) TSS
Bond
2013 13:24 72.9 11.4 13.6 2.1 690.7
2014 14:11 63.1 12.9 22.2 1.8 702.5
2015 14:14 64.3 11.7 20.1 3.9 782.5
2016 15:14 53.2 8.9 30.4 7.5 797.4
Murray
2013 12:41 76.2 14.2 6.3 3.4 715.6
2014 13:36 65.2 18.0 16.1 0.7 590.7
2015 13:26 61.4 23.3 14.2 1.1 545.2
2016 13:52 66.6 22.6 10.4 0.5 739.0

Could you please share the full PDF of the article?
I can't find it in usual places.

Regarding training volume,
Very high volume has become fashionable among endurance athletes. A few elite athletes manage to do it and dominate their sport, so the ones ranked slightly lower think this is the reason why (and gear). Everybody is chasing Martin Sundby's (XC Ski) mythical 1000h per year even if he's very special and managed to do it once or twice.
Of course, amateurs will straight up copy the the no.1 in the world.
It's refreshing to see that some coaches and elite athletes beat their own path.

One thing to never forget: Kiwi Duo's UT2 on the erg is 1:40/500m.

I do think that one can train and achieve very high levels using a higher intensity training approach if earlier in life there have been physiological adaptations.

There was a former World Champion that lived in my home town years back. I've mentioned this study before, but they took 3 high level (Olympic podium) rowers and looked at their hearts versus runners, bikers, X-Country skiiers and other world class athletes. The rowers hearts were MUCH larger. They were doing this study initially to figure out if they were at health risk. What was determined at the end is that the sport of rowing just builds that "engine" by lots and lots of slower (but relatively difficult) meters, because the entire body was involved -- more so than any other endurance sport.

There are also studies about how slow steady work enlarges the heart valve and makes the "pump" membrane thinner and wider with lots of slow steady work (UT 2 type work), where HIIT type work makes the valve narrower and the membrane thicker.

When you combine a larger heart with the heart valve wider and the membrane thinner and more efficient, you have a cardio monster athlete. My belief (and scientific studies back this) is that once that physiological adaptation occurs, it's relatively permanent. Perhaps that's why (at this stage) the one athlete doesn't need to do the vast amounts of polarized work (slower work). He's already adapted his body for the physiological change.

Find it pretty funny to call 12/15 hours a week serious training being not much. Track athletes never do more. Often less.
And 12/15 hour in rowing is 180/240 km.

Balkan boy wrote:Could you please share the full PDF of the article?
I can't find it in usual places.

I have a prepublication copy. Let me check with the authors.
You can look at the 7 x 4 min step protocol and gain a great deal of information. Both the Australian and NZ team focus on watt numbers as much as splits. The two were remarkably well matched from a training perspective.

Rower A Average 4 min max watt 531 LT1 320 LT2 408
Rower B Average 4 min max watt 552 LT1 330 LT2 410

This translates to
Rower A 2K split 1.27.0 LT1 split 143.0 LT2 Split 135.0
Rower B 2k split 1.25.7 - 5.43.6 LT1 split 142.0 LT2 Split 134.9

Noel Donaldson (the awesome foursome coach and current head of sweep rowing for NZ) has a 2015 presentation available on the structure of the NZ sweep program
http://www.worldrowing.com/mm/Document/ ... eutral.pdf

You can dig though it but it matches up. The pair is training 12-15 hrs a week - there are example weeks from May and Nov 2015.

I can't tell you how they became this good, but once they got there this is how they maintained it. Murray has said previously the program 2006-2009 had more weight work and he thought this was not as good a return for them in the pair as water and erg work.

Emailing with the physiologist (Daniel Plews) the training load and fatigue data have driven this approach since it is all available for analysis. He is a pioneer in Heart Rate Variation and separation of aerobic dominant vs anerobic dominant athletes.

Have a look at the comments he makes for a 7x4 assessment in the Donaldson presentation. They tailor everything.

Here is a link to the physiologists web site https://www.plewsandprof.com/

What I find amazing is the thinking in NZ and Aus that allows a physiologist to set the training loads for the elite program over the 4 year cycle. The head coach is confident enough in their ability and the value they to give up control of this portion of the program. Not what I saw when rowing D1 in the US.

I've always been one more inclined to find my own way through rather than trying to duplicate others and there is always a subtle tipping point in training which is only known to that specific athlete of they're intuitive enough to identify the signs. It sounds like these two are fully aware of their limits and requirements.

Ledley King (footballer) only could manage to play a game and train once a week or not at all, for the last year or two of his career yet he was still amongst the best defenders in the Premier League.

Some people are just born to perform and they don't need what us mere mortals need to do to improve.

AMBer71 wrote: What I find amazing is the thinking in NZ and Aus that allows a physiologist to set the training loads for the elite program over the 4 year cycle. The head coach is confident enough in their ability and the value they to give up control of this portion of the program. Not what I saw when rowing D1 in the US.

That is pretty surprising. Head coaches, especially D1 guys don't like being told what to do.

This all is very interesting AMBer. Either it means that I'm going about my training all wrong (increasing meters every year). Maybe that explains that in a year I never did more than 30K on average in meters per week, I set my PB and since then I've struggled to match it (even though I'm doing nearly twice as much volume now). I've always been more of an anaerobic guy than aerobic guy. Just thought I could train the aerobic side more. Perhaps it's all for naught. I guess I'll find out this race season. If I don't improve, I might throw the plan in the trash and go back to 3 or 4 days a week hard (instead of 6 days a week with most of it being SS, upper end UT2 work). Perhaps that approach (along with heavy lifting) would give me better results.

Thanks for the information!

hjs wrote:Find it pretty funny to call 12/15 hours a week serious training being not much. Track athletes never do more. Often less.
And 12/15 hour in rowing is 180/240 km.

OK, "very little" is not the right choice of words.
Not being in this league I should not comment on it. They clearly know what they are doing, the results prove it.

H2O wrote:

hjs wrote:Find it pretty funny to call 12/15 hours a week serious training being not much. Track athletes never do more. Often less.
And 12/15 hour in rowing is 180/240 km.

OK, "very little" is not the right choice of words.
Not being in this league I should not comment on it. They clearly know what they are doing, the results prove it.

certainly, both otw or raw power (erg) they yield results, Bond is also relative small, with 87 ish kg rowing weight. Think that they would train more if that would help them. But not training makes us better, but being able to recover from that training. 2 hours serious training is a lot. Fluffing around and doing all kind of extra stuff, can be called training, but does it really help?

I think there are a few things to add to this that could be pure speculation, but I suspect it's not.

1) This study was done over 1 Olympic Cycle. At this point, Murray/Bond were already at the pinnacle of the World Rowing scene. So much so, that the various rowing Federations (at least the ones that were good enough) didn't even bother to put their best guys into this event. They were so dominant in the London Cycle that going into the Rio cycle, a lot of countries decided to prioritize other boat classes. So this would lead me to believe that the competition actually got easier for them. So, there was less need to train as hard as they have in the past. The top athletes only train as hard as they need to. Anything more just increases the risk of injury.

2) This was their 3rd Olympic cycle on top of the prior years of training. At this point they had well over a decade each of intense training volumes. Even with the drop in total volume, that base that they spent so long building wouldn't deteriorate completely. Given that this was a smaller boat, the amount of aerobic capacity needed increases based on the fact that the race takes on average a minute longer than their 2K erg times (both were in the 5:40s). They obviously never lost all of that base.

3) The pair is one of the hardest boat classes to compete in. In addition the fact that the boat is slower, there is also the element of synchronicity which is most important in this class. By the time they got to Rio, they had been rowing together in the pair for almost 10 years (maybe more, since they trained in a pair during the Beijing cycle occasionally). That's 10 years of knowing exactly what to do and how to do it, every single stroke. This alone puts them at an advantage that none of their competition has. Most of the pairs at this point didn't even have more than one or two years of training together. I'd also add that they could steer a dead straight course, making their race much easier.

lwtguy wrote:By the time they got to Rio, they had been rowing together in the pair for almost 10 years (maybe more, since they trained in a pair during the Beijing cycle occasionally)

Good points. Maybe everybody else avoided them. That explains why the unbeaten run may have lasted. Noel Donaldson's presentation highlights some technical reasons about the otw stroke power. Bond had more power early in the stroke, Murray more power later in the stoke. It turned out in a pair this lets you go faster overall. Each position has a different pivot point around the center of mass during the stroke cycle. The physics is beyond me but the force plates and oarlock data tell an interesting picture.

Funnily enough they didn't row the pair together except during the prep for the international season each year. Bond lived in the South Island in Dunedin and Murray in the North Island in Cambridge. NZ rowing has 4 geographic performance squads. Bond spent most of the year in the South Island rowing for the southern regional team and would then join Murray for the international preparation and competition season.

rowit.co.nz has all the regattas and results going back to 2007. If you have a look through the results there are only 4-5 8+crews capable of going under 6.00 at any one point in time. That includes the Elite men and the U23's. (I was rowing there in the early 90's and it was the same. We won the U23 championship and then finished 3rd in the premier final)

The conclusion I take from the study is these guys are incredibly efficient at getting the work done, and use physiologic training overload tools to tailor preparation for aerobic vs anaerobic dominant athletes. The NZ and Aus national programs have progression data now on multiple generations of Olympic oarspeople (Waddell to Drysdale to Murray/Bond to Manson). Noel Donaldson (the coach) has referred to the overall plan as "simple, repetitive year to year with current needs".