Page 1 of 2
Why not row 5k to improve 5k?
Posted: November 17th, 2022, 10:45 am
by rainman
I've been reading about all the various ways to improve a 5k time, and they all seem to suggest a similar approach to lots of long rows at a moderate heart rate intensity, with one interval training session a week, such as 2 x 2500m building to 2 x 3000m building to 2 x 3500m and so on.
I understand the need to do lots of longer less intense rows to build stamina, but I don't understand the interval training. Why not just do a 5k row each week and try to beat one's previous best time? Isn't that a good way to improve a 5k time?
Re: Why not row 5k to improve 5k?
Posted: November 17th, 2022, 2:40 pm
by Tsnor
rainman wrote: ↑November 17th, 2022, 10:45 am
I've been reading about all the various ways to improve a 5k time, and they all seem to suggest a similar approach to lots of long rows at a moderate heart rate intensity, with one interval training session a week, such as 2 x 2500m building to 2 x 3000m building to 2 x 3500m and so on.
I understand the need to do lots of longer less intense rows to build stamina, but I don't understand the interval training. Why not just do a 5k row each week and try to beat one's previous best time? Isn't that a good way to improve a 5k time?
If you are asking about keeping the "lots of long rows at a moderate heart rate intensity" and substituting a hard 5K row instead of the intervals that should work fine for you. You can substitute for the intervals or add it as a second hard workout each week.
Doing a "personal best" level 5K row weekly is not a good idea. The damage you take from a max effort row is not quickly recoverable, and a pattern of weekly max PB level efforts is not sustainable. Instead target 95% effort, and over time increase what you can do at 95%. An every few months PB attempt would be fine.
Your training program (which is excellent) of " lots of long rows at a moderate heart rate intensity, with one interval training session a week " is mainstream "polarized". If you changed the interval session to a hard 5K the name changes to "pyramid training". The science says "polarized" and "pyramid" both work equally well, and can be mix/matched.
If you were asking about dropping the "lots of long rows at a moderate heart rate intensity" and replacing it with two or three hard 5Ks/week then that would work if you put a rest day between 5K days, but likely not as well as your original plan.
If you went to all 5Ks and work more than 3 days/week then you'll see good results compared to no training, but not as good as if you followed your original plan " lots of long rows at a moderate heart rate intensity, with one interval training session a week" and at some risk of overreach symptoms (get sick a lot, feel unmotivated, etc)
How do we know this ? Practicing 5Ks to get better at 5K seems simple and intuitively. How can we know this is sub-optimal ?
Coaches/Trainers/Scientists looked at training logs of elite athletes at 5K and discovered that's not what they do. The people who train that way are not as fast. Doing 5Ks is not the best way to train for 5Ks.
Scientists did studies with groups of people (either novice or experienced didn't matter) separated into groups that trained differently. When you compare the group that does 5Ks as training to the group that does a mix of long/slow and intense work the 5K training group will be slower despite doing the same amount of work.
Sounds crazy, but those are so consistently the results for both training logs and academic studies that essentially all elite endurance athletes now train with a mix of lots of long/slow and a few days (2 to 3) of intense workouts like your training plan. The items still open are things like "what kind of intense workouts are best" and "what is the right mix of intense and long/slow" and "how much total work".
Re: Why not row 5k to improve 5k?
Posted: November 17th, 2022, 2:48 pm
by Dangerscouse
Tsnor wrote: ↑November 17th, 2022, 2:40 pm
If you are asking about keeping the "lots of long rows at a moderate heart rate intensity" and substituting a hard 5K row instead of the intervals that should work fine for you. You can substitute for the intervals or add it as a second hard workout each week.
Doing a "personal best" level 5K row weekly is not a good idea. The damage you take from a max effort row is not quickly recoverable, and a pattern of weekly max PB level efforts is not sustainable. Instead target 95% effort, and over time increase what you can do at 95%. An every few months PB attempt would be fine.
Your training program (which is excellent) of " lots of long rows at a moderate heart rate intensity, with one interval training session a week " is mainstream "polarized". If you changed the interval session to a hard 5K the name changes to "pyramid training". The science says "polarized" and "pyramid" both work equally well, and can be mix/matched.
If you were asking about dropping the "lots of long rows at a moderate heart rate intensity" and replacing it with two or three hard 5Ks/week then that would work if you put a rest day between 5K days, but likely not as well as your original plan.
If you went to all 5Ks and work more than 3 days/week then you'll see good results compared to no training, but not as good as if you followed your original plan " lots of long rows at a moderate heart rate intensity, with one interval training session a week" and at some risk of overreach symptoms (get sick a lot, feel unmotivated, etc)
How do we know this ? Practicing 5Ks to get better at 5K seems simple and intuitively. How can we know this is sub-optimal ?
Coaches/Trainers/Scientists looked at training logs of elite athletes at 5K and discovered that's not what they do. The people who train that way are not as fast. Doing 5Ks is not the best way to train for 5Ks.
Scientists did studies with groups of people (either novice or experienced didn't matter) separated into groups that trained differently. When you compare the group that does 5Ks as training to the group that does a mix of long/slow and intense work the 5K training group will be slower despite doing the same amount of work.
Sounds crazy, but those are so consistently the results for both training logs and academic studies that essentially all elite endurance athletes now train with a mix of lots of long/slow and a few days (2 to 3) of intense workouts like your training plan. The items still open are things like "what kind of intense workouts are best" and "what is the right mix of intense and long/slow" and "how much total work".
Nothing else to add. It does seem counter intuitive, but doing it as Tsnor advises is ideal
Re: Why not row 5k to improve 5k?
Posted: November 17th, 2022, 2:52 pm
by btlifter
rainman wrote: ↑November 17th, 2022, 10:45 am
I've been reading about all the various ways to improve a 5k time, and they all seem to suggest a similar approach to lots of long rows at a moderate heart rate intensity, with one interval training session a week, such as 2 x 2500m building to 2 x 3000m building to 2 x 3500m and so on.
I understand the need to do lots of longer less intense rows to build stamina, but I don't understand the interval training. Why not just do a 5k row each week and try to beat one's previous best time? Isn't that a good way to improve a 5k time?
Hard to give a better answer than what Tsnor already has. But I'd add the following:
The FASTEST way to improve your 5k - at least if you're not an advanced rower already - might infact be to do an all out 5k a few times.
But, "fastest" is not the same as "best". The problem with that approach is that you will likely plateau, then regress, after just a few weeks.
I like to think visually. If a fast 5k was my primary goal, I might imagine a pyramid. Base work is - unsurprisingly - the base. Strength work would fall into that category for me, too. Atop that base layer might be some short hard intervals, and also some long, moderately-hard intervals. Finally, the 5k itself is the peak of that pyramid. Of course, one could skip everything else and go straight to the 5k itself, but in so doing woukd drastially limit the height of the pyramid (speed of the 5k).
Re: Why not row 5k to improve 5k?
Posted: November 17th, 2022, 3:14 pm
by rainman
Thank you Tsnor (and others) for an informative answer.
Just to clarify, you interpreted my question correctly -- my intention was to keep the multiple long light/moderate heart rate rows per week and do one 5k time trial per week instead of interval work.
However, what you say makes sense that trying to beat a personal best 5k time every week might put too much stress on the body.
One final question then: if I was to take the approach of doing say 2 x 2500m intervals at 95% effort, how would you suggest to gauge that 95% effort? Perhaps by reducing my personal best 5k 500m pace by 5% and setting the pace boat to that for the intervals?
Re: Why not row 5k to improve 5k?
Posted: November 17th, 2022, 6:31 pm
by aussie nick
Tsnor wrote: ↑November 17th, 2022, 2:40 pm
rainman wrote: ↑November 17th, 2022, 10:45 am
I've been reading about all the various ways to improve a 5k time, and they all seem to suggest a similar approach to lots of long rows at a moderate heart rate intensity, with one interval training session a week, such as 2 x 2500m building to 2 x 3000m building to 2 x 3500m and so on.
I understand the need to do lots of longer less intense rows to build stamina, but I don't understand the interval training. Why not just do a 5k row each week and try to beat one's previous best time? Isn't that a good way to improve a 5k time?
If you are asking about keeping the "lots of long rows at a moderate heart rate intensity" and substituting a hard 5K row instead of the intervals that should work fine for you. You can substitute for the intervals or add it as a second hard workout each week.
Doing a "personal best" level 5K row weekly is not a good idea. The damage you take from a max effort row is not quickly recoverable, and a pattern of weekly max PB level efforts is not sustainable. Instead target 95% effort, and over time increase what you can do at 95%. An every few months PB attempt would be fine.
Your training program (which is excellent) of " lots of long rows at a moderate heart rate intensity, with one interval training session a week " is mainstream "polarized". If you changed the interval session to a hard 5K the name changes to "pyramid training". The science says "polarized" and "pyramid" both work equally well, and can be mix/matched.
If you were asking about dropping the "lots of long rows at a moderate heart rate intensity" and replacing it with two or three hard 5Ks/week then that would work if you put a rest day between 5K days, but likely not as well as your original plan.
If you went to all 5Ks and work more than 3 days/week then you'll see good results compared to no training, but not as good as if you followed your original plan " lots of long rows at a moderate heart rate intensity, with one interval training session a week" and at some risk of overreach symptoms (get sick a lot, feel unmotivated, etc)
How do we know this ? Practicing 5Ks to get better at 5K seems simple and intuitively. How can we know this is sub-optimal ?
Coaches/Trainers/Scientists looked at training logs of elite athletes at 5K and discovered that's not what they do. The people who train that way are not as fast. Doing 5Ks is not the best way to train for 5Ks.
Scientists did studies with groups of people (either novice or experienced didn't matter) separated into groups that trained differently. When you compare the group that does 5Ks as training to the group that does a mix of long/slow and intense work the 5K training group will be slower despite doing the same amount of work.
Sounds crazy, but those are so consistently the results for both training logs and academic studies that essentially all elite endurance athletes now train with a mix of lots of long/slow and a few days (2 to 3) of intense workouts like your training plan. The items still open are things like "what kind of intense workouts are best" and "what is the right mix of intense and long/slow" and "how much total work".
this post deserves to go in some 'best of' thread
Re: Why not row 5k to improve 5k?
Posted: November 17th, 2022, 9:45 pm
by Tsnor
rainman wrote: ↑November 17th, 2022, 3:14 pm
... if I was to take the approach of doing say 2 x 2500m intervals at 95% effort, how would you suggest to gauge that 95% effort? Perhaps by reducing my personal best 5k 500m pace by 5% and setting the pace boat to that for the intervals?
Try RPE (perceived effort) rather than any objective measure. Picking a good starting point like "reducing my personal best 5k 500m pace by 5%" is excellent, then adjust that up or down for your next hard session depending on how you feel. 95% by watts is not the same as 95% by split time, etc., so take 95% to mean "working very hard, but not working to failure or exhaustion" rather than 95% of some objective measure.
For short intervals (say 40 seconds on, 20 off), if you stop when you think you can do one interval more you are likely at the right load level. If feel like you can do 5 more, then next time do a couple more intervals or hit a faster split. For short very hard intervals you can try something like Improving split times on each interval during the workout -- if you can't improve the split compared to the previous then its time to stop. You need to know your capabilities to make this work well, but you learn them pretty quickly if you try this. Aside: You can also see what not to do with short intervals. Don't plan to keep doing intervals at pace until failure when your body makes you stop.
For hard continuous pieces and long hard intervals like 2 x 2500m, if you think you could have gone faster or longer but it would have hurt then you are likely good. If on a long hard piece you are dying and you need to handle down, then do it. But adjust the rate/pace/duration so that next time you won't need to handle down again. Training your body to stop in the middle is not good. If you do your hard workout and feel really good then bask in the victory and use a harder pace/duration next time. Having victories every workout is much better than being at the edge of failure. Save that edge for personal best attempts.
For strength training, stop when you have one more rep left, rather than lifting until failure. If you don't do any strength work then consider doing something one day a week. Strength work fills a need that erging does not completely hit.
Re: Why not row 5k to improve 5k?
Posted: November 18th, 2022, 2:01 am
by jamesg
I don't understand the interval training.
If you want to train your race stroke at race rates, the only way to do it is in intervals, necessarily shorter than the race. This is done after learning to row and after gaining some endurance, so tends to be distributed around the middle of a race training schedule.
This work may disallow any other hard work, so other days, if you have time, stay below 50-60% race power and rate, and 24h recovery be enough.
Re: Why not row 5k to improve 5k?
Posted: November 18th, 2022, 6:16 am
by p_b82
No comments to make on the training plan side, but was just going to add a little on the mental aspect.
Don't underestimate the effect of the mind on rowing; the middle distances hurt in a different way I've found.
If you do a TT frequently with the aim of just beating that time, the negative impact on motivation if you had the "perfect" run early on in your schedule and then the struggle to beat it can work against you (at least it does for me).
I'm a n00b, so my gains are large at the moment - but I only go for TT efforts once every 2-4 months or so at different distances to shake things up and so I can see those larger gains when I do have a go at them.
Re: Why not row 5k to improve 5k?
Posted: November 18th, 2022, 2:40 pm
by Mike Caviston
Tsnor wrote: ↑November 17th, 2022, 2:40 pm
Coaches/Trainers/Scientists looked at training logs of elite athletes at 5K and discovered that's not what they do. The people who train that way are not as fast.
I challenge the claim that anything definitive has come from training logs. I’m very interested in how elite athletes train and welcome reports of their methods. But there’s no way to get a comprehensive representation of the athletes of interest. Do we see all the training logs of elite athletes in a given sport? Do we see the logs of non-elite athletes for contrast? Is it possible to control all the other variables (training resources, environment, nutrition, sports medicine, etc.) that affect results? Is there a standardized method for recording training? Has it been verified that what an athlete records was actually performed? Do we see the actual training logs, or do we depend on someone else’s summaries and interpretations? It makes me think of the book
Outliers by Malcom Gladwell. It’s a good book worth reading, with the basic premise that successful people achieve success because of extraordinary circumstances rather than unique qualities of the individua;s. But Gladwell attempts to explain several successful people (such as the Beatles and Bill Gates) using the “10,000-Hour Rule”, which mischaracterizes the work of Anders Ericsson (see the excellent book
Peak). Gladwell fudges some numbers to shoehorn everyone into the 10,000 hour window and “prove” the rule. I am skeptical of researchers who “prove” elite athletes train by spending so much time in various training zones when “zones” are vague enough and fluid enough to be interpreted in different ways to suit different views.
Sounds crazy, but those are so consistently the results for both training logs and academic studies that essentially all elite endurance athletes now train with a mix of lots of long/slow and a few days (2 to 3) of intense workouts like your training plan. The items still open are things like "what kind of intense workouts are best" and "what is the right mix of intense and long/slow" and "how much total work".
Yes. It is hard to argue with the premise of lots of long and slow with a few intense sessions. But the terms “lots”, “long”, “slow”, and “intense” are so open to interpretation that they don’t have a lot of practical value (though it does clearly state the case against training by repeatedly doing 5Ks). It’s like giving nutrition advice by saying “Don’t eat junk, eat lots of good fats and carbs and protein”. Sure, but what does that even mean?
Re: Why not row 5k to improve 5k?
Posted: November 18th, 2022, 2:42 pm
by Mike Caviston
Tsnor wrote: ↑November 17th, 2022, 9:45 pm
For strength training, stop when you have one more rep left, rather than lifting until failure.
No, don’t stop at one rep left. Go to failure. Remember “failure” doesn’t mean paralyzing exhaustion, it just means using up available phosphagen stores (easily replenished) by doing reps until you can’t maintain proper form and then stopping.
Re: Why not row 5k to improve 5k?
Posted: November 18th, 2022, 4:07 pm
by Tsnor
Mike Caviston wrote: ↑November 18th, 2022, 2:42 pm
Tsnor wrote: ↑November 17th, 2022, 9:45 pm
For strength training, stop when you have one more rep left, rather than lifting until failure.
No, don’t stop at one rep left. Go to failure. Remember “failure” doesn’t mean paralyzing exhaustion, it just means using up available phosphagen stores (easily replenished) by doing reps until you can’t maintain proper form and then stopping.
Mike, I tried not to cherry pick. I looked at a few hits to the google query "weight training to failure study". Using the definition of failure in these studies, working to failure was not not better, and might be worse. I agree there are almost certainly studies that give opposite results. I'm also not a well trained weight lifter, I use a weight circuit rather than freeweights (which I believe are better for you) solely because I don't have the training to lift freeweights safely, so will leave off the discussion to people like you who know better. The definition of "lift to failure" was consistently "unable to complete the rep", if you could do the rep then you start the next one.
"The results were striking. The RM group training to failure achieved worse results across the board. "
https://mennohenselmans.com/skeletal-mu ... intensity/
" the researchers also found the training to failure group had higher levels of cortisol in their blood. This hormone is released in response to stress, and research shows it may actually hinder muscle growth."
https://theconversation.com/training-to ... gth-173872
"Thirteen studies were included in this review. No difference was found between RTF and RTNF on maximal strength in overall analysis (SMD: −0.08; p = 0.642), but greater strength increase was observed in RTNF considering nonequalized volumes (SMD: −0.34; p = 0.048). "
https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/full ... to.39.aspx
"The main results of this study show that there is no significant difference in strength gains between training to failure and conventional training. However, studies in which the volume was not equalized show an advantage for "classic" training. Conversely, studies in which the volume was equalized show no difference between the two types of training. In general, when the volume is not equated, the non-failure training groups have a higher training volume. And strength gains are correlated with training volume."
https://www.sci-sport.com/en/articles/t ... th-193.php
"Studies clearly show that subjects can positively gain strength and power without always going to the strict discomfort and acute physical effort associated with failure contractions. "
https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%2 ... ilure.html
Re: Why not row 5k to improve 5k?
Posted: November 18th, 2022, 5:41 pm
by btlifter
Please...
please.... don't lift to failure. I'm not going to get out my scores of textbooks, nor studies, nor powerlifting records. I will just implore you to please not lift to failure (at least, not frequently)
Re: Why not row 5k to improve 5k?
Posted: November 19th, 2022, 12:35 am
by Mike Caviston
I’ll say it again. Done properly, lifting to failure is not dangerous or harmful or even particularly demanding. It does require a certain amount of effort and concentration. It is not a superhuman feat. I’ve read all the textbooks and studies for many years. The issues that cause so much confusion and inconsistency in the literature include failure to properly equalize conditions between the programs being compared (such as number of sets); inconsistency in definitions of “failure” (such as “go until you don’t think you can do another rep” vs. actually attempting but failing a rep); and how strength is measured (1 RM, estimated from submax set, using a force transducer, etc.) Even with quality studies, the evidence supporting going to failure is not overwhelming, and gains can clearly be made without going to failure. But I think there is enough evidence to warrant going to failure in terms of potential benefits with minimal risks. I’ve personally trained to failure for more than 30 years and have maintained consistently high performance in my chosen sports with virtually no injuries. I’ve seen the method used successfully in a variety of settings ranging from weight rooms of D1 football teams to senior citizen fitness classes. Just to clarify a couple points, I also emphasize lifting only one set per exercise (I would never do multiple sets to failure; that is a problem with some studies showing poor outcomes). Do exercises or use equipment that is safe when failure occurs (dumbbells, weight stack machines, or body weight exercises such as pull-ups). Select resistance so that failure occurs with no more than 15-20 reps. I wouldn’t go to failure for powerlifting exercises such as squat or dead lift (in fact, I don’t do them at all).
Re: Why not row 5k to improve 5k?
Posted: November 19th, 2022, 2:40 am
by MartinSH4321
Tsnor wrote: ↑November 18th, 2022, 4:07 pm
Mike Caviston wrote: ↑November 18th, 2022, 2:42 pm
Tsnor wrote: ↑November 17th, 2022, 9:45 pm
For strength training, stop when you have one more rep left, rather than lifting until failure.
No, don’t stop at one rep left. Go to failure. Remember “failure” doesn’t mean paralyzing exhaustion, it just means using up available phosphagen stores (easily replenished) by doing reps until you can’t maintain proper form and then stopping.
Mike, I tried not to cherry pick. I looked at a few hits to the google query "weight training to failure study". Using the definition of failure in these studies, working to failure was not not better, and might be worse. I agree there are almost certainly studies that give opposite results. I'm also not a well trained weight lifter, I use a weight circuit rather than freeweights (which I believe are better for you) solely because I don't have the training to lift freeweights safely, so will leave off the discussion to people like you who know better. The definition of "lift to failure" was consistently "unable to complete the rep", if you could do the rep then you start the next one.
"The results were striking. The RM group training to failure achieved worse results across the board. "
https://mennohenselmans.com/skeletal-mu ... intensity/
" the researchers also found the training to failure group had higher levels of cortisol in their blood. This hormone is released in response to stress, and research shows it may actually hinder muscle growth."
https://theconversation.com/training-to ... gth-173872
"Thirteen studies were included in this review. No difference was found between RTF and RTNF on maximal strength in overall analysis (SMD: −0.08; p = 0.642), but greater strength increase was observed in RTNF considering nonequalized volumes (SMD: −0.34; p = 0.048). "
https://journals.lww.com/nsca-jscr/full ... to.39.aspx
"The main results of this study show that there is no significant difference in strength gains between training to failure and conventional training. However, studies in which the volume was not equalized show an advantage for "classic" training. Conversely, studies in which the volume was equalized show no difference between the two types of training. In general, when the volume is not equated, the non-failure training groups have a higher training volume. And strength gains are correlated with training volume."
https://www.sci-sport.com/en/articles/t ... th-193.php
"Studies clearly show that subjects can positively gain strength and power without always going to the strict discomfort and acute physical effort associated with failure contractions. "
https://www.unm.edu/~lkravitz/Article%2 ... ilure.html
btlifter wrote: ↑November 18th, 2022, 5:41 pm
Please...
please.... don't lift to failure. I'm not going to get out my scores of textbooks, nor studies, nor powerlifting records. I will just implore you to please not lift to failure (at least, not frequently)
+1