Page 1 of 1
'rest' vs. no 'rest' - best strategy?
Posted: August 24th, 2012, 12:57 am
by jimrothstein
I've been rowing for several months - for health, fitness and to lose a bit of weight.
Worked my up to about 6,000 meters a day (6k) and feel good about the improvement.
By changing the PM workout settings, I can row 6k with a few strategies (after a warm up)
For example,
1) sit down, row 6k till finished
2) sit down, row 2k, 'rest' (i.e. row slowly) 60 seconds, repeat 3 times
3) sit down, row 1k, 'rest' 60 seconds, repeat 6 times
etc.
Of course, with more rest embedded, the 'harder' (more Watts) I can row.
I am not training for anything. This is only for health, 'burn fat', fitness, etc.
Any thoughts on difference between the strategies?
Jim
Re: 'rest' vs. no 'rest' - best strategy?
Posted: August 24th, 2012, 3:42 am
by hjs
Doing both is best, variation is always a good thing, don,t erg max though everytime. Training is racing yourself, in the long run that will not work.
Re: 'rest' vs. no 'rest' - best strategy?
Posted: August 24th, 2012, 8:24 am
by jvincent
Like hjs said, mixing it up is best.
You want to have a mix of "hard" days, average days, and easy days. If you look at any of the training plans this is what they do since your body needs recovery time. If you listen to your body, i.e. if you are feeling over tired or can't go as hard as you want, then it is probably time for a break.
Re: 'rest' vs. no 'rest' - best strategy?
Posted: August 24th, 2012, 7:06 pm
by jimrothstein
Thanks for replies.
Variation: Will continue, but it is actually hard for me is to REST, i.e. day off. Haha (Feels like sky will fall or gain back weight - irrational)
"training is racing yourself" - yes, I may be guilty of this; I keep careful records. Now it is still easy to improve each time, but obviously a limit.
jim
Re: 'rest' vs. no 'rest' - best strategy?
Posted: August 25th, 2012, 5:01 pm
by jimrothstein
Dorafun and others:
If you don't embed any 'rest', could you post what your workout looks like now:
Example: I call this 3 x (2k + 1:00)
2) sit down, row 2k, 'rest' (i.e. row slowly) 60 seconds, repeat 3 times
I record EACH 2k segment AND the totals (a lot of numbers) from the PM.
In totals and averages, the PM ignores the 'rest' time and 'rest' meters.
Even though both are exactly 6k, my body performs differently for 3 x (2k + 1:00) from, say, 6 x (1k + 1:00). Since the latter has twice the embedded 'rest' and half the segment length; my average Watts ('intensity') can be higher, and so the total (active) workout is shorter (again all 'rest' time and meters are ignored in PM). Both are very different workout from continuous 6 x (1k + 0:00), i.e. no 'embedded rest'.