Training vs. fatigue

[Cyclingman1]

Training vs. fatigue

This may be a subject that thirty-something’s have little appreciation for, but I guarantee 50/60-plus rowers do. How does one train consistently and effectively while the effects of fatigue are constantly hovering?

I'm not referring to the mild fatigue that is gone with a good night's sleep. I refer to lingering fatigue.
It may not be an issue if one only rows at a pace that feels comfortable.

OTOH, if one is trying to improve, faster, difficult, and fatiguing rowing must be done. But how does that need impact the next day’s workout or the next? In other words, what is possible? How easy or difficult is it to find equilibrium in rowing most every day, while injecting harder workouts? Does constant readjustment, if not disappoint, occur?

Just wondering how others cope with this tradeoff. Most of the plans I see advanced in these discussions require a lot of mileage. Surely excessive fatigue comes into play.

[hjs]

You can only train as hard as you can recover, and it may sound strange that also goes for 30 somethings.

Milelage in itself is not a problem at all, its the intensity that matters most. A thing that does work is doing a 4 weeks cycly, building from week 1 to 3 and using 4 to easy off both in intensity and volume. That way you can make improvements for a long time, but it does come in waves.

[jamesg]

My take is that fatigue is real, in the sense that it's the metabolic products of the energy supplies we use. Training is getting used to their presence but also getting rid of them quicker. They're best got rid of during the work, when all systems are working well and faster than at rest, which is one good reason why the ideal training is long and slow enough to be long.

On top of that there's repairs to be made, and that too can only make itself felt as fatigue..

Not by chance the short and nasty stuff is very short, contains far less total work than the long SS and is limited to a few weeks before a race.

Our speed is an entirely different problem: it depends on technique only. Luckily for us oarsmen, the peculiarity of rowing is that we don't have to go flat our to learn to go flat out. We can train very effectively by just cruising slowly down the river, so that we have enough energy to cruise back again. The old time professionals did just that; which maybe is why the amateurs didn't want to race them.

[Nosmo]

Never train so hard that you compromise your next workout (first heard this advice from Greg Lemond when he was in his twenties). If you train different systems you can still work one system hard while letting another one recover. This means you should not do intense intervals more then two days a week--and for those over 60 once a week may all you can reasonably handle.

To recover well you have to be fit. When you are old it takes a long time to get in shape. Building slowly and steadily will get you there. It also means that it is important never to get out of shape. If you are fatigued it means you are working too hard for your fitness level (or more likely not recovering enough--which can be a bit different).

[kayakr]

There is extensive discussion of this in the book "time crunched cyclist" which I have been checking out.
Some crib tips:
- eat enough sugar, salt and water before during and after
- very selective high intensity (~2x per week intervals)
- rest days
- rest weeks - train with intervals 12 weeks, then 4-6 without to recover

Forcing eating and drinking more has been helping me on the bike and with rowing recovery.

You might also want to identify whether your current limits are driven by strength, endurance or CV fitness. On the rower I'm lacking on strength and have been working on lower SPM and power intervals to help build that.

Good stuff
http://concept2.co.uk/training/guide/training_bands

[slwiser]

I have not learn the magic formula to keep from being fatigued almost everyday I work out. I attempt to listen to my body but I am only on the edge of being successful with this.

From four years ago when I could barely get up off the floor after getting down because of near heart failure (4xCABG in Feb 08) to doing over 7 million meters in the last three seasons building my load from 134 watts the first season to 145 watts the second season to over 155 watts this season I can't seem to figure out how to fully recover. For my third season I acquired the Dynamic and find that I have had many fewer back issues but now it is my muscles and some nerves that are getting over-used is seems. To stop the muscles from being achy and some nerves being nervy I just can't fine the magic formula. I am not a life long athlete so I don't know what working hard means to my body.

I really appreciate this thread and all the suggestions but what is a slow long workout relative to ones fitness level? My fitness level is doing 13 minutes on the Bruce protocol just last month from less than 7 minutes four years ago. I started on the Concept 2 in June 09.

[Ralph Earle]

This is probably idiosyncratic, but I have three kinds of days:

1 No question that I don't want to exercise, so I don't.

2 I don't want to exercise, but feel I "should." These workouts are never harder than "medium" effort, in terms of pace, duration or both, and, barring injury, glad I did them, if only for the mental/emotional benefit.

3 No thought at all -- of course I'm going to workout.

#2 is where the hazard lies, so I do something I learned the hard way, well over 40 years ago, which is to literally ask my body, "What do you want to do today" and abide by the answer. If I take the answer as a starting point and try to push it ("30 minutes." "Hmm, how about two miles?" ), that's when I get fatigued.

Since I am still working full-time, this works out to exercising on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday, Saturday and Sunday.
Weekends are rarely a problem. But if any midweek day is a "#2" day and I don't listen, and then skip the next designated day, I know I've push too hard and am fatigued.

Finally, regarding getting faster, years ago Hilary Weeks admonished me for "racing my training." So I either cover the monitor and row by feel, or train at non-ranking distances, such as a mile or three miles or four miles, instead of 2K, 5K or 6K. That way I can't push myself too hard to overtake the guy ahead of me in the rankings.

[kayakr]

I did a quick comparison of "time crunched cyclist" to the pete plan, and the pete plan devotes significantly less to recovery IMO, especially if you're moving too fast on the non-interval days.

[kayakr]

building from week 1 to 3 and using 4 to easy off both in intensity and volume.

Like pete plan with an easy rest week?

[hjs]

building from week 1 to 3 and using 4 to easy off both in intensity and volume.

Like pete plan with an easy rest week?

In itself the p plan is missing that, and will cause hitting a wall in due time. Eay weeks, deloading can prevent that. It does mean that you have to train a lot more with the breaks on.


Simply put. On a scale of 10 intensity

Week 1 7, week 2 8, week 3 9, week 4 5

Week 5 8 etc

The waves will get higher every end week, but only week 3 is a heavy week, 4 is always recovery, although you may feel you could easily train harder.

[Cyclingman1]

Changing the topic slightly, I am interested in the experiences of others in coming back from illneses and/or injuries lasting on the order of two months or so. Perhaps one has rowed some during such and seen numbers get worse and worse. When coming back, it is easy to say I know I've been sick/hurt and cannot expect too much. On the other hand, it is also easy to fall into comparing to the level of just 2 months ago and trying to match that performance from the get go, which is where fatigue comes into play. Starting off at previous levels is a certain way feeling like a bear has climbed on one's back. And it is just not level of performance, but the total amount of workout. What used to be an easy twenty minutes now seems like the forced marched march at Bataan.

So, realistically how long has it taken to get back to former performance levels after fairly long layoffs? How can one really avoid trying to come back in a day versus a far longer schedule? Any thoughts, advice?

[gregsmith01748]

It takes a long time, at least 1 to 1, I think.

I suggest that the best wayto come back is to do a 2K test or something like it that you have good previous data on, and just start training against that level of performance.

[Bob S.]

My own experience was recovery from major, open heart surgery (aortic valve replacement and 3X CBG) nine years ago. We had just moved out here in the sticks and there was no cardio post-op rehab service in this area, so I was on my own after the first four weeks when we stayed in the metropolitan area until I was well enough for the long car ride home. I wasn't allowed to drive yet, but they had got me started on a program of walking, with a gradual increase of distance each day. After I got home, I continued the walking and adding in some very light weight lifting and alternating with easy sessions on my old C2 model B. It was a matter of taking baby steps - a slow, gradual increase in both time and intensity. Then I got the advice from a physician to try to do at least 30 minutes a day with my HR in the 80-90% of HR max range, so I applied that to the walks, the erg sessions, and doing a treadmill warm up at the gym where I did the weight lifting.

I completely disregarded what I was able to do previously. I felt that it was no longer relevant. I had hit a 2 year peak in erg competition at age 71 and it had been down hill after that - not only as a result of aging, but also because of increasing stenosis of my aortic valve. At 79, there was no point in thinking about what I could do or not do in the intervening 8 years. I just had to go by what I was doing from day to day trying to improve. Improvement went on for 2-3 years until loss due to aging caught up training gains and I was back to the expected downhill slide.

Bob S.

[Cyclingman1]

Bob, I would say major heart surgery and the like put peak performance rowing in an entirely different light. I actually makes one appreciate a 2 month, far less serious, situation. But in both situations expectations have to be well managed.

I think there needs to be disincentives to try too much. Initially, I suggest that non-standard distances be rowed that cannot be ranked and compared with past performances and others. Steady pace should be done that is literally comfortable. Stop before fatigue sets in. In the case of a 2 month layoff, I see 2 weeks of controlled rowing before any speedups are done. Then it is a matter of speedups within steady state rowing, increasing the pace on longer rows, and lastly some intervals - basically conventional training. My gut feel is that coming back is likely to be rather difficult, taking more time than the layoff.

The mental aspects are a challenge. If it took someone a year to improve 5 percent, and the layoff causes one to lose all of those gains, if not more, it will be difficult to not try to recoup those loses quickly. Rowing is supposed to be fun, but I suspect coming back from a forced layoff could be rather frustrating. I also believe that rowing a time trial at the start of recovery may be counterproductive - just adds to the pressure.

[Nosmo]

If you were training seriously, one rule of thumb is that it takes three times longer then the layoff to get back. (your results may vary of course)

You just need to recognize it takes a long time and to build slowly and not be too ambitious. But you already knew that. Just be realistic and have a long term view. It may not be easy because you are ambitious and like to go hard, but you have basically answered your own question. I think the goal for you is next years racing season, which doesn't start for many months so you have time.
One thing you can do is cover up the pace and just look at time or distance.