Diminishing returns on UT2 / general SS work in one session

[ShortAndStout]

Hi all,

One of the things I've been doing some research in has been how training for things like ultra marathons (in rowing but also other sports) is studied by sports scientists. I open this discussion to talk about some studies I've seen and want to compare it to the general ideology of rowing in particular.

If you look at things like the Fletcher marathon plan, the longest it has you go for is around 90 minutes but most workouts are within the 60-90m range. Assuming an avg marathon time of 3.5h, consistent training seems to be in the 1 - 1.5h range, so training accounts for around 25% - 50% of the total distance you'll end up racing. According to the ranked workouts on C2 Logbook, the range is about 2:54 - 3:36 (elite to not elite).

I want to play devils advocate for a second and go against popular understanding which suggests that improvement in an endurance sport can be roughly obtained by doing a lot of lower effort work mixed with a comparably small amount of extremely hard work. Specifically, some of what I'm finding suggests that after a certain amount of steady state work (Z2 or Z3), aerobic capacity fails to improve after a certain amount of time, usually around 90 minutes. Maybe that the gains just reach have diminishing returns. Biking seems to be different with higher end endurance work being slated at 4-5 hours, not sure why it's different.

In this video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z82GCNXdLAA), the host talks with a PhD in sports sciences and endurance training for athletes, where he talks about 90 minutes also being about the higher end for what a training session should look like. In his other videos he uses the 4-5h example above, so I'm unsure how that fits into his view. In general he mentions that "longevity is highly related to mitochondrial function and metabolic health" (https://youtu.be/xuqURs4auc8?t=141, different video).

In that last video they have a good discussion about where to incorporate Z5 training into your microcycle, and describe an example of a 5 workout microcycle wherein the fifth workout can either be another Z2 / UT2 workout, or a high intensity session to develop gylcolic capacity in the muscles. He mentions two things:

• Adding sprints to the end of Z2/Z3 training is OK (https://youtu.be/xuqURs4auc8?t=427) and can successfully develop both systems, but the opposite is untrue because the high buildup of lactate changes your metabolism and doesn't train Z2 at all.
• The duration of individual workouts usually caps out around 90 minutes, and if you want to add more time, you should add another session instead of adding more time to a single session.

I don't know why that is for the second point, but there it is. Why is a 3 hour row less efficient than two 1.5-hour rows?

Here's the quote from an article I found which is the real kicker for this whole thing and one of the reasons I started thinking about this in the first place. https://www.rowperfect.co.uk/wp-content ... rowers.pdf

Many coaches and athletes are convinced that 60-120 minutes of continuous low intensity or steady-state rowing is an important part of developing and maintaining an adequate aerobic base. We have convincing data, including muscle biopsy histochemical and biochemincal indicators, which support that rowing continuously at a low steady state intensity for 60 minutes or longer for any calibre of rower, is not more effective in maintaining aerobic capacity than 30 minutes of rowing at the same work intensity.

Not only do these results apply to a single bout of rowing, but also to 5, 10, 15, and 20 week training responses after the aerobically-trained subjects had completed a total of 20, 40, 60 and 80 training sessions respectively. Furthermore, performing 2 intermittent 30 minute exercise bouts of relatively high aerobic work intensity (10-20 % more average power than for the low intensity work) with a 7-10 minute recovery period between the 30 minute work bouts is a much stronger aerobic training stimulus than lower intensity continuous rowing.

This higher work intensity for continuous rowing could not be tolerated by most subjects for more than 32-36 minutes and still maintain a steady-state. The increased energy expenditure of the intermittent high intensity work not only proved significantly more effective than either 30 or 60 minutes of rowing in the improvement of aerobic capacity, but it was also more neuromuscularly task specific.

So I guess I'm interested to hear your take.

[Dangerscouse]

I have got no idea of the science behind the distance/ time that is recommended, as I just work off the confidence and trust elements of rowing.

I found a big factor, for me at least, is the fear of tackling such a long distance with no experience of doing something at least fairly close to it. I can't dispute the science in any way, but personally I think I really benefit from doing much more than 90 mins.

It seems to me like it's a matter of finding the goldilocks zone of enough distance / time to galvanise confidence and enough aerobic adaptions to power your way through. It is worth noting though that the aerobic fitness is only necessary if you're going for a specific result, as you'll probably find a way to finish if that's all you want to do. This detail will not be part of their analysis.

[jamesg]

Why is a 3 hour row less efficient than two 1.5-hour rows?

It seems simpler to train the pace first, then the distance: training is always progressive, but there has to be something to use to train, which in rowing is the stroke.

Doing a full marathon at low speed in the hope of going faster next time does not seem very inviting.

When ever I wanted to do a ½M, I did few 10ks, then a pair of 1h, then the ½M. Using the same pace for all.

[Elizabeth]

I don't see how any of this goes against the idea of mixing a lot of lower effort work with a smaller amount of hard work.

In the last study you mentioned, I don't see key information about the full context of the training plans that the participants followed. It seems from the wording that they were following these "exercise bouts" four times per week over a period of 20 weeks. Was that their entire training? If so, then it's not surprising that increasing the power by 10-20% produced a stronger stimulus. But that's not the way that people who advocate low intensity steady state actually train, and so I don't see what conclusions could be taken from that.

In regards to splitting sessions over 90 minutes into two sessions, I've done a cycle where I approach long work as one continuous session, and I've done multiple cycles now where my longest sessions top out around 100 minutes. The latter has been just as effective while being much more recoverable. Managing recovery becomes important at a certain training volume.

[JaapvanE]

In regards to splitting sessions over 90 minutes into two sessions, I've done a cycle where I approach long work as one continuous session, and I've done multiple cycles now where my longest sessions top out around 100 minutes. The latter has been just as effective while being much more recoverable. Managing recovery becomes important at a certain training volume.

Interesting. So is there a break in between? And how long is the time between those sessions (still trying to break that HM+ barrier)?

[p_b82]

I can't talk about any of the science - or reasoning - but I think one factor in the quote you posted was they were aerobically trained subjects; a relative n00b like me will have different physiological responses to some-one who's already made most the required adaptations already.

I'm with Stu on the mental aspect of having more of an idea where things are going to go - and so for me getting to ~80% of a distance at the pace I'm aiming for is very useful. It's probably not doing me any real benefit physically, but mentally it's a huge boost.
I've seen on the C2 pdf marathon plans (Terry O’Neill/frank birch - I think) for the 80k the longest row is 30k in a single session - once; and I think the 110k plan goes up to 35k also just the once.

I think Elizabeth's point about the recovery is also a major factor.

I light of the recovery aspect, I assume 4hours on a bike is easier to recover from than the same training effort in 1.5hours of rowing, or it takes 4 hours to get the same training benefit at the same equivalent pace; and that's why there's a higher volume there.

[Elizabeth]

In regards to splitting sessions over 90 minutes into two sessions, I've done a cycle where I approach long work as one continuous session, and I've done multiple cycles now where my longest sessions top out around 100 minutes. The latter has been just as effective while being much more recoverable. Managing recovery becomes important at a certain training volume.

Interesting. So is there a break in between? And how long is the time between those sessions (still trying to break that HM+ barrier)?

Right, long break in between. First session at 5:30 or 6 am, meal, second session at somewhere between 11 am and 2 pm depending on my work schedule for the day, and then another meal.

[ShortAndStout]

I don't see how any of this goes against the idea of mixing a lot of lower effort work with a smaller amount of hard work.

In the last study you mentioned, I don't see key information about the full context of the training plans that the participants followed. It seems from the wording that they were following these "exercise bouts" four times per week over a period of 20 weeks. Was that their entire training? If so, then it's not surprising that increasing the power by 10-20% produced a stronger stimulus. But that's not the way that people who advocate low intensity steady state actually train, and so I don't see what conclusions could be taken from that.

In regards to splitting sessions over 90 minutes into two sessions, I've done a cycle where I approach long work as one continuous session, and I've done multiple cycles now where my longest sessions top out around 100 minutes. The latter has been just as effective while being much more recoverable. Managing recovery becomes important at a certain training volume.

I didn't catch that myself but that makes a lot of sense, wouldn't a 10-20% increase in power be considered UT1 basically? Which as you've mentioned before isn't a hard enough stimulus to create adaptation and you should be looking at faster work.

It seems simpler to train the pace first, then the distance

Also makes sense, I've been taking a backwards approach myself lately so I can get in the miles but I'd wager that both approaches work

[hikeplusrow]

I've only ever done a HM on the erg, but have done running marathons/100k road ultras, and also a 12 hour cycling time trial. I would agree with the idea that super long outings are mainly of benefit from a psychological/confidence perspective. This sort of training probably adds little in terms of improved aerobic development. Unfortunately, one thing it definitely can do is give your body a right battering - and that's the difficulty. In running especially, the impact of very long sessions on the skeletal structure is immense, and recovery is difficult when it feels like someone has taken a hammer to your knees. Also, because this sort of work can only be undertaken infrequently, one has to question whether it can lead to worthwhile physical adaptations in terms of increased seat time/time on your feet. I'm not completely up to date, as I no longer run, but I believe those in the ultrarunning community are now actively questioning the value of very long workouts. It may be the case that super long workouts do nothing for you physically other than guarantee exhaustion.

[alex9026]

It may be the case that super long workouts do nothing for you physically other than guarantee exhaustion.

I fell victim to this in my running marathon training, four weeks out I let my ego get the better of me and race a tough hilly 20mile road race. My training til this was on point, and exactly that I was training, not testing. I couldn't recover from this and subsequently got injured two weeks later. Nice to know this is now being recognised, its no doubt a common pitfall.

Have done plenty of long hard days on the bike where my training rides rarely exceeded four hours, simply because it's so time consuming. I will no doubt take a punt at some endurance stuff on the erg, with my only learning and experience stemming from other sports, but there is enough to suggest the principles remain the same.

I like Elizabeth's suggestion of splitting the session, if logistics permit this is a sure fire way to keep recovery in check whilst still accumulating the work.

[Elizabeth]

I don't see how any of this goes against the idea of mixing a lot of lower effort work with a smaller amount of hard work.

In the last study you mentioned, I don't see key information about the full context of the training plans that the participants followed. It seems from the wording that they were following these "exercise bouts" four times per week over a period of 20 weeks. Was that their entire training? If so, then it's not surprising that increasing the power by 10-20% produced a stronger stimulus. But that's not the way that people who advocate low intensity steady state actually train, and so I don't see what conclusions could be taken from that.

In regards to splitting sessions over 90 minutes into two sessions, I've done a cycle where I approach long work as one continuous session, and I've done multiple cycles now where my longest sessions top out around 100 minutes. The latter has been just as effective while being much more recoverable. Managing recovery becomes important at a certain training volume.

I didn't catch that myself but that makes a lot of sense, wouldn't a 10-20% increase in power be considered UT1 basically? Which as you've mentioned before isn't a hard enough stimulus to create adaptation and you should be looking at faster work.

Yeah, it seems like the two groups may have done:
A: Unspecified amount of UT2, 4 sessions per week
B: 2x30:00/(7:00-10:00)r UT1, 4 sessions per week
But the details seem pretty sparse. The line in particular that the faster pace "could not be tolerated by most subjects for more than 32-36 minutes and still maintain a steady-state" begs the question of how they are defining steady state.

[Dangerscouse]

The line in particular that the faster pace "could not be tolerated by most subjects for more than 32-36 minutes and still maintain a steady-state" begs the question of how they are defining steady state.

That really stood out to me, too. 'Fast' and 'steady state' are difficult to reconcile as similar terms, so I'm not sure what they're really referring to

[Sakly]

The line in particular that the faster pace "could not be tolerated by most subjects for more than 32-36 minutes and still maintain a steady-state" begs the question of how they are defining steady state.

That really stood out to me, too. 'Fast' and 'steady state' are difficult to reconcile as similar terms, so I'm not sure what they're really referring to

So we are three in the line of confused people

[hikeplusrow]

The line in particular that the faster pace "could not be tolerated by most subjects for more than 32-36 minutes and still maintain a steady-state" begs the question of how they are defining steady state.

That really stood out to me, too. 'Fast' and 'steady state' are difficult to reconcile as similar terms, so I'm not sure what they're really referring to

So we are three in the line of confused people

Make that four.

[jcross485]

Five!

I've never been a triathlete or even a "competitive runner" but I've spent some time on long drives recently digging into the so-called Norwegian Method of training that a lot of triathletes are using as well as the methods of the Ingebrigtsen's in their running.

The one thing that has to be noted with respect to these methods is that they are heavily controlled by lactate measurements which most won't have access to or be able to do consistently but you can still get a rough idea of the training.

While most high level triathletes are training 2+ times per day to make sure they are hitting all disciplines, one of the things that stood out specifically with the Ingebrigtsen's training (exclusively running), is that they supposedly do a lot of doubles, both their intense / workout days as well as their "easy" days.

They are doing a lot of controlled workouts / intervals on short rest, right around lactate threshold (60 min max; AT in rowing speak) as opposed to pushing for race pace or beyond (one session a week, max) and their "easy" are doubles instead of a single session - something like 8k-12k in the morning and another 8k-12k later in the day. One day a week they might have a longer session where the put all volume in one as opposed to two runs but that is limited to one day a week.

With the workouts, they are splitting the sessions into doubles and controlling intensity so they can do more overall work. On the surface, a lot of controlled lactate threshold work doesn't appear as though it would improve performance in the events that they are competing in as their events are much shorter and faster, but clearly its working.

I also think the common perception is that a 16-24k session would bring more positive adaptations, especially when it comes to the aerobic system, but they are splitting total volume into more manageable chunks. I would presume they are able to run these easy sessions at a slightly quicker pace than if they did it in one go. I would have to assume that if they saw more benefit by doing all of the work in one session as opposed to two, they would do so, as they are at the tip of the spear when it comes to their sport. They are, however, doing this as professionals and everything revolves around training.

Clearly running and rowing are different sports with a lot of things that need to be considered with respect to training for certain events; however, the Ingebrigtsen's (Jakob) are training for events in time domains that are in the same realm as the more popular rowing events - 1500m up to 5k, or roughly 3:30 up to 14:00 or so. A wide range, but the 2k rowing event falls somewhere in the middle.

I mention all of this to come back to diminishing returns of UT2 / SS work in rowing. If one had the ability to hop on an erg twice a day, I would probably try doing the total volume I wanted to hit split into two sessions but at a bit higher intensity than if I crammed all of the volume into one session. These numbers are just to illustrate the point and not necessarily 100% reflective of what it would look like - I would try to do say 8k in the morning targeting 200w with the same in the afternoon whereas a normal UT2 / SS session might be 15-16k closer to 180w. Unfortunately, "life" dictates that I and a lot of others can train once a day so we end up trying to get the overall volume in which means a slightly lower intensity.