Concept2 Forum

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5043010/

I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, but if I'm reading this correctly, training upper body separate from the rower (I'm thinking like heavy rope work - they used an arm crank in the study which isn't accessible for most) might improve V02 Max and possibly overall rowing performance? I know that's not a conclusion of the study but the study does raise that topic in the discussion as a possible outcome of doing HIT (high intensity training) separately for legs / upper body.

mdpfirrman wrote:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5043010/

I'm not the brightest crayon in the box, but if I'm reading this correctly, training upper body separate from the rower (I'm thinking like heavy rope work - they used an arm crank in the study which isn't accessible for most) might improve V02 Max and possibly overall rowing performance? I know that's not a conclusion of the study but the study does raise that topic in the discussion as a possible outcome of doing HIT (high intensity training) separately for legs / upper body.

Mike "16 untrained man" ......... This is often the number one problem with such research.

I think Henry nails this one, Mike.
That arm training will represent a very novel stimulus for the untrained.
It's pretty likely that similar training in those folk - kayakers, cc skiers, rowers - who customarily do a lot of arm work (and who apparently have a greater proportion of slow twitch arm fibres as a result) would not lead to discrepant gains.

Just row still seems pretty good advice.

I see your point but at the same time, how many times do we do (as rowers) HIT work with just upper body? Unless you're doing a lot of Ed McNeely type of power work -- maybe 20 second micro bursts for maximum wattage? I certainly don't do this very often. When I did, I saw nearly a full two second jump in my 500m pace. Perhaps that's why? I certainly wouldn't consider even a 2K the type of HIT work they are describing in the study - to train fast twitch muscle fibers. That's why I brought up the heavy ropes. That would certainly come to mind. Just thinking out loud.

You could certainly try it but given time limitations and the benefits of movement specificity I do wonder how much value it would add.
But I do think power work should absolutely have a place. As I begin to integrate intervals I'll certainly include stuff like X x 30sec with 3-4 mins rest. (Where X might equal 12 but will more likely equal 4-6 . I've tried them already. Fun.) In the video riparn posted on the training board the Danish elite rowers are doing similar things.

Odd to think that such work will not only improve peak power but likely also contributes to aerobic fitness (when part of a varied training programme).

SIT may represent an effective way to boost the oxidative capacity of moderately-trained men, which, when coupled with other training at lower
intensity, could contribute to improved endurance performance.

http://www.fasebj.org/content/early/201 ... l.pdf+html

"Moderately trained men" - that would be me Perhaps it's just wishful thinking on my part but I've been looking over my year in rowing (I only do one or so indoor events a year). Noticing that my fastest times this year was when I was doing a real periodization training schedule. Easy SS work and very fast intervals (less reps than PP but at a much faster pace than the PP prescribes versus my 2K PB / 5K PB times). I was doing some of the Ed McNeely power stuff back then. Now granted, I've been sick 3 times this Winter (which you certainly could argue is why I'm slower) but I'm 2 seconds slower on my 500m paces now than in the late Summer. Part, I'm sure, is Winter illnesses have me off kilter a bit but I also wonder whether that power burst training stuff didn't really help me more than I realized at the time.

Guess an occasional visit to the coffeegrinder or a bit of crossfit madness (ropes) couldn't hurt.

Mike, note the new lexicon of training intensity acronyms: SIT, HIIT, and STCT which we must integrate with the familiar HIIT, HIT, and LIT.

Study linked by Gary describes participants as "young, moderately-trained." Doesn't promise a Benjamin Button effect but maybe the mitochondria stop having birthdays? I wish.

mdpfirrman wrote:"Moderately trained men" - that would be me

That's not you. They say only light unstructured activity, and at most three hours a week. If they were any less active, they'd have to be classified as sedentary. They should be called "untrained". Perhaps they are sedentary. For all we know, they shoot free throws twice a week.