Concept2 Forum

25M 200lb 2K: 7:43 5"7', HR 45-200

Planning on getting into marathon training on the erg. I already treat it like long form cardio, so 1h+ sessions aren't unusual for me. As I'm reading through fletcher's training guide however, I seem to be encountering some discrepancies with my own rowing experience and the expectation he has for HR and pace.

Here's a table in that guide which describes paces in terms of your 2K wattage:


(So my 2K W = 230, | 55%=125W | 60-65=138-149W | 65-70=150-161W | 70-75=161-172W | 75-80=172-184W )

Whenever I do long rows I usually do about 2:18, or around 133W. So that's 133W for about 14K (1H) per session. Avg HR 160.

The big thing he says a lot in his training guide is that you should really not go over the HR range for the session. As an example, a single 60' row on the chart looks like this:



80% of my HR is 160 and I hit that upper cap at 133W, my HR will certainly spike if I increase it to 150W (Marathon pace per the chart) and I'll fall out of the range. I haven't used HR ranges before because I think I tend to be about 15BPM higher than averages I find (and I'm a muscly dude so that makes sense) I just wonder if that training stimulus won't be affected.

Basically I don't want to adhere to the HR band and force myself to pull a 2:30 because I have a high HR, that's not gonna do anything for me. I also don't want to train in the grey zone and his advice of slowing down to stay in the right HR band is gonna make me pull a lot slower than I do even now, which is already pretty slow.

I'm sure Glenn will be along soon to help...but meantime just checking if you're comparing apples and pears? I may well be wrong, but I would take the published table to indicate what you could expect to manage under TT conditions. ie If your best 2k TT is whatever pace, then your marathon TT pace expectation should be 60-65% of that wattage. But that is TT pace, not training pace, isn't it? For training purposes completely different bands would be appropriate to create the bodily adaptations you need to enable you to do the TT stuff. Are there any other tables available showing potential pace levels at the various HR bands prescribed? JM2PW - maybe b*****ks.

I'm in no way disparaging Eddie Fletcher and his marathon plan, but I'm not convinced that the human body needs such strict boundaries, especially for a novice who just wants to finish a FM. Admittedly, I've got no way of knowing if I'd have gone faster with using Eddie's plan, but I doubt it would have been much better.

FWIW, I've never used any training plan and my ultra distance journey started with a decision to row a 12hr session in memory of my great friend who died in 2016. All I did was to increase the distance week on week and still do a good variety of steady and intense work.

HR was usually around 80% of max, but I always suggest that this is more based on what you can recover from rather than what is the suggested range, as we are all different and have different tolerances and limitations.

IMHO, if you're not enjoying it, I wouldn't suggest that it's the best way forward for you, BUT Glenn might be able to disprove my thoughts so don't take my word for it.

All of Eddie Fletcher's plans are based on measuring HR, so you'd need to start that and get used to it if you're going to use Eddie's stuff. Ideally you're supposed to pay Eddie to coach you - not just steal his materials.

Dangerscouse wrote: ↑

September 18th, 2023, 1:56 am

I'm in no way disparaging Eddie Fletcher and his marathon plan, but I'm not convinced that the human body needs such strict boundaries, especially for a novice who just wants to finish a FM. Admittedly, I've got no way of knowing if I'd have gone faster with using Eddie's plan, but I doubt it would have been much better.

FWIW, I've never used any training plan and my ultra distance journey started with a decision to row a 12hr session in memory of my great friend who died in 2016. All I did was to increase the distance week on week and still do a good variety of steady and intense work.

HR was usually around 80% of max, but I always suggest that this is more based on what you can recover from rather than what is the suggested range, as we are all different and have different tolerances and limitations.

IMHO, if you're not enjoying it, I wouldn't suggest that it's the best way forward for you, BUT Glenn might be able to disprove my thoughts so don't take my word for it.

What did your intense sessions look like for this sort of workout? Was it your typical 8x500 sort of high intensity stuff or did it look different training for ultras?

I abandoned the Eddie Fletcher plan after just three weeks when training for my marathon. I simply could not keep my HR in the zones he prescribed and found it very frustrating. Perhaps if you start out as a highly trained athelete, but for the average rower it's tough to apply.

I wound up just using the meters and daily schedule for a 12 week running marathon plan and applied it to my rowing training. Worked like a charm.

Hey,

I have also been training with the EF plan in the same older version that can be found publicly on the internet (5 sessions/week).

Yes, especially for athletes who tend to have weaknesses in the basic endurance area, it is very challenging to stay within the recommended heart rate limits. But patience pays off. I couldn´t control my inner chimp in the first run - and ended up overtraining ...

In the second run I was more disciplined and within the second cycle the slope of the heart rate drift within the "Default Pace") became flatter to none, the recovery times after the 5k intervals significantly shorter, etc. In addition, you learn to appreciate the "slow" units over time. You can concentrate well on your technique - and you also need the "saved" energy for the harder sessions (esp. the 10kp pieces can be pure nightmare...)

Today I would rather train towards the EF plan over about 2 months before starting the "real one" with a training week like (session and progressions like the EF-Plan):
- 1x default MP,
- 1x 5kp,
- 1x 10KP,
- rest day
- mobility, weights, cross training
- 1x default MP (extra long; e.g. double the traing time with in indoor bike (no watts... just HR...))
- rest day

ShortAndStout wrote: ↑

September 18th, 2023, 6:28 am

What did your intense sessions look like for this sort of workout? Was it your typical 8x500 sort of high intensity stuff or did it look different training for ultras?

It was a bit different to what anyone else would have done, as I also did a weekly 45 min spin class (which was intense) and a hot dynamic Pilates class (which was really intense) along with one or two intense sessions (depending on recovery), along with longer steady distances.

I'd usually choose to do longer distances, eg, 30mins 10k 10 miles, as I found that spin and Pilates were good enough to replace short intervals.

If I didn't do those classes, I'd suggest doing the standard Pete Plan intervals eg 4 x 2k; 5 x 1500m as I don't think that you need to build your tolerance to the more anaerobic elements if rowing.

You ideally need to build up a tolerance for longer periods of unbroken rowing, at a pace that is slightly faster than you intend to do. Having said that, a lot of people advocate adding in one or two mins rest in a longer distance, and breaking up, for example, a 15k into 3 x 5k, so that might be better for you too, but it's not something that's ever suited me.

The main driver for anything that you do has to be based around you're ability to recover, so don't be afraid to back off and do something different, but you need to master the art of knowing when to push through and when to rein it in. Laziness can all too easily masquerade as necessity in your thoughts.

Why worry about having to take it easy on the prescribed easy days? This is a challenging enough plan with plenty of hard work to do on key workout days without over doing it on recovery days.

After spending 90mins alternating between 10k pace, MP and HMP I was more than happy to take it easy the following day(s).

Dangerscouse wrote: ↑

September 18th, 2023, 10:48 am

I'd suggest doing the standard Pete Plan intervals eg 4 x 2k; 5 x 1500m

There are no standard Pete Plan intervals; those are intervals Pete copied from the Wolverine Plan.

I'm pondering starting that plan too (but damn, some sessions are long, not sure they'll fit my lunch break). Here're my numbers: When I do my 1h slow sessions I typically do 2:11-2:12 pace with an overall average HR of 141-145 (bit higher in the last 20min).
So I can do easily 30' at 2:15 with HR < 140.

FWIW, I have already completed 2 FM (best was 3h11, nothing spectacular), so yeah, I'm not particularly good.

NOTE: the 2x30' session is at Default MP pace, I think that is 125W for you, not 150W (138-149 that's MP pace, not Default MP pace).
And yeah, the naming is very confusing.

Mike Caviston wrote: ↑

September 18th, 2023, 5:35 pm

Dangerscouse wrote: ↑

September 18th, 2023, 10:48 am

I'd suggest doing the standard Pete Plan intervals eg 4 x 2k; 5 x 1500m

There are no standard Pete Plan intervals; those are intervals Pete copied from the Wolverine Plan.

Sometimes somebody comes up with something....

Then somebody else improves it and gets credit for it. I guess that's just how it goes.

btlifter wrote: ↑

September 18th, 2023, 8:24 pm

Then somebody else improves it and gets credit for it. I guess that's just how it goes.

"Copy" = "improve"?

HornetMaX wrote: ↑

September 18th, 2023, 6:15 pm

FWIW, I have already completed 2 FM (best was 3h11, nothing spectacular), so yeah, I'm not particularly good.

And yeah, the naming is very confusing.

For someone who has completed two FMs, I don't think you can say that you aren't 'particularly good'. Completing one is something that not many of us will ever do, and going back for more when you know what to expect is something I'm full of respect for.

I do totally agree the naming is very confusing. I'm a simple man, who just wants to keep it all as simple as possible, especially when it really can be as simple as you want it to be.

I too am not convinced by the HR training advocated by EF. Personally without any scientific basis I believe that how our hearts respond to exercise varies. It may well be that the highly trained respond similarly, but for the rest of us some people's hearts seem to increase heart rate more than stroke volume at lower exercise intensities. What matters is the volume of blood transported (stroke volume times heart rate), so the same effort for these people will lead to a higher heart rate. As such rowing at the same proportion of HRmax is not the same intensity for the 2. In addition, some people can recover quicker from a given intense session than others and so the same "recovery" session will allow for a different degree of recovery so what may be optimal for one may be insufficient for another and provide less stimulus for a third. A good coach will adjust rowing intensities and distances for his coachees so that they are getting the right stimulus while recovering sufficiently. No generic plan can achieve this.

When I tried the EF MP, I was exceeding the HR guides materially and did not progress as fast as I did with higher intensity hard sessions. Exercise physiologists generally agree that there is nothing magical about any of the HR thresholds quoted in generic plans, they are merely guides. That said, ego is such that most people will tend to row too fast on recovery days and this is particularly detrimental when pushing up the distance as required to prepare for an FM, so some mechanism is required to counter this tendency. What's more "over reaching" as practiced by training camps the world over demonstrates that people can maintain plans with insufficient recovery for several weeks with good results before the improvement plateaus and declines, so it is difficult to optimise the recovery sessions.

JMHO

Iain