UT2/Polarization (trying to move this from PB thread)

[Cyclingman1]

Actually the key to doing well in 2K is in pushing one's anaerobic threshold up. Saying 2K is aerobic is a "so what"? At what point do you start accumulating painful lactate? At what speed do you lose the aerobic pathway? That's why training at the AT is so important. BTW, be careful in suggesting that I know nothing of physiology. I'm actually quite familiar with the various metabolic pathways and the chemistry.

[mdpfirrman]

Sorry Jim no offense, you just mentioned you have no idea where your specific training ranges were most of the time (and didn't care to know).

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

My current plan is seven hours a week. So based on 80/20, roughly 5 something hours should be done at less than 150 HR. I'm probably more like 2 1/2 to 3 in that range. Thus the burnout feeling.

Just a quick comment/clarification: When most people talk about an 80/20 split, or any other split, they're referring to volume, not time.

So an 80/20 plan would have 80% of volume in UT2/UT1, not 80% of time. It may seem trivial, but in fact it makes a huge difference, especially the more you train.

[hjs]

Actually the key to doing well in 2K is in pushing one's anaerobic threshold up. Saying 2K is aerobic is a "so what"? At what point do you start accumulating painful lactate? At what speed do you lose the aerobic pathway? That's why training at the AT is so important. BTW, be careful in suggesting that I know nothing of physiology. I'm actually quite familiar with the various metabolic pathways and the chemistry.

No answer again ofcourse. So I will answer this, how do you get you anaerobic threshold up? By training the energy system that uses lactate, which is the aerobic system. The better you can use lactate, the higher the point at which we can,t clear it.
And not the lactate is painfull Jim, its the H+ ions, that causes the discomfort.

The anaerobic system which produces lactate is poorly trainabe, we either are good at it or not, and training that system will only work short term. In roughly weeks we an reach our peak.

To keep our fast fibers alive we do need speed work, strenghttraining, all year round, but not the lactic kind, which is in fact an emergency system, children don,t even have it yet, but the alactic kind. Which is very much used in gamesports. It recovers very quickly, roughly 95% within a minute.
We can do lots of short sprints in a short while, think a soccer game.
Sprint one 400 meter flat out, super lactic, and are out for a long while.

On the other and look at track and field, often the last lap in a 10k top race is done in 53 seconds, but those guys often jog on right away. Reason, super trained aerobic system plus ofcourse talent, but on the other hand a not very well trained
Lactic system which if trained better would only hinder performance.

[Cyclingman1]

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the importance of anaerobic threshold. One of the reasons that VO2Max is not an absolute predictor of performance is because some athletes can go deeper into the anaerobic system. Yes, you can train the pace at which acidosis becomes a problem. Often, those who have increased their AT pace through training will come out on top. In fact, I feel that is one reason that I have and can do well in racing. No way should I have been able to propel my slow, 195 lb body down the road to run 36 flat 10Ks, but I could. I'm convinced it was due to my AT training - hard runs. I got used to the pain. I just basically out-pained my competitors.

[hjs]

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss the importance of anaerobic threshold. One of the reasons that VO2Max is not an absolute predictor of performance is because some athletes can go deeper into the anaerobic system.

Dismiss ? Can,t you read, its very important to get the clearence up very high. Production is much easier to train.

[mdpfirrman]

Thanks Armando (I'm a relative newbie at all this)! I can see where that is different.

[bisqeet]

personally - i enjoy the UT2 rows.

I started off on the PP with a few targets (as a newbie).
after about 3 cycles i hit the targets and started to adapt the PP.
I was using active rests for all the intervals (usually at 2:30/500 pace)
recovery rows were HM's at 140 HR cap

i really did enjoy the diversity - but after 5 cycles i just didnt feel any better. Times were good and fitness was improved.

I ended up doing 1 hard (usually CTC or ITC maybe even a 10k, 5k, HM )and 5-6 long UT2 rows - i've been averaging 100km#/week since Dec.

I've noticed better condition on HM (now sub 1:20) 10k and 5k are a doddle.

The sprint work/ timing is off, but that is too be expected, I'm not planning on any races - so I don't really care about the 2k a the moment.

I did a sub7 (6:57) in Decemeber as one of my targets - haven't really "tried" since, but the one I did was 6:52 and it wasn't full out.

The only thing I did notice is my heartrate reserve. my rest has dropped from 52 to 44 - max is about the same (I very rarely hit it)...

its probably not for everyone - but I enjoy it.

[mdpfirrman]

Actually Dean, you're the one I think of when I read about 15 hours or so a week training and 80/20. I'm guessing you're doing around 10 hours a week though (which is still much more than I'm doing -- around 6). I think you hold to that philosophy really well. Maybe I'm wrong on the amount of training you do but your long slower rows (they are not slow to me) are the main part of your workout.

I know Chris and Greg train like that parts of the year too (I should add that).

[Bob S.]

I've noticed better condition on HM (now sub 1:20) 10k and 5k are a doddle.

doodle? Meaning? I seem to be falling ever deeper in the generation gap with regard to language.

[jackarabit]

Dean means that 5-10k distances have become very easy for him.

[bend3333]

I feel like you've got to realize everyone is different and responds to training differently.

I raced bicycles professionally back about 15 years ago. For years I was never finding my potential because I trained how I thought I should train. Big hours (20+ a week) and then add some more hours on top of the big hours. I trained with a lot of roadies that were Pro Tour guys ( I was a mountain bike racer) and the volume they would do was mind blowing. 30+ hour weeks for several months in a row during their base phase. They weren't just soft pedaling either.

It wasn't until I figured out that I was different that I toned down my training and saw way better results. I did best with 12 to 14 hour weeks in the offseason and 8 to 11 hour weeks during the race season. Basically, I could have held a full time job and train every bit as well as if I had no job at all.

A lot of people are convinced that they'd improve drastically if they could train twice as much. I'd be willing to bet that just as many people would get slower with that extra volume as there would be that got faster. Being able to endure high volume mentally and physically is a talent that you kinda have or don't have. Most people don't have it.

I never had it! I did finally realize that and reached a much higher level of fitness by listening to my own body and leaving my ego at the door when it came to volume.

The question of whether all those years of overtraining with massive hours made it possible for me to move to a lower volume load and find success is interesting. It probably didn't hurt.

Chris

[steveroedde]

This thread is getting at the principle question for nearly all amateur athletes.

How do you get the best results from limited trading time. For elite athletes, the primary limitation on training time is optimal recovery. For amateur (and I mean that in the "sports as a hobby" way), the primary limitation on training time is other commitments and priorities, like earning a living and spending time with family and friends.

As Armando pointed out, there is a ton of research that elite athletes deliver the best results with 80% of training time spend below the top of the UT1 band. Or I prefer to think of it as <2.0mmol/l of lactate. This is one area that can cause confusion. If you are doing 15 hours of base aerobic work per week like Eric Murray, your ability to process lactate becomes incredibly efficient and the pace required to produce those lactate levels gets quite fast. Also, your heart rate is higher relative to your lactate level when compared to someone who does less base work. This is one way that people can get confused by taking "elite" plans and just scaling them back in time. It's possible for the Kiwi pair to stay below 2.0mmol at 80% HR max, not so for this aging hobbiest.

But back to the question. If the ideal elite plan is 15 hours of base work and 3 hours of high intensity, what's the ideal plan for someone with a total of 8 hours (or 10) to train in a week. One thought, espoused by Eddie fletcher is to keep the 3 hours of hard stuff and reduce the 15 hours to what you have time for. Another thought is to scale them proportionately, so a 10 hour plan is 8 hours of base and 2 of hard. On this topic, there ain't much research. SEILLER refers to a study of recreational runners who were split into a polarized group and a threshold group, and the POL group did better, but I think that's more extreme than what most folks would do.

The most telling research that I've seen is also from SEILLER focused on the standard deviation instead of the mean. Basically, he put three groups of athletes on three different forms of polarized training, and within each group some athletes improved a lot, some a little and some not at all. The point he made was that polarization is the right strategy, but individual differences in physiology, background and motivation result in significant differences in outcome. His recommendation was to track progress and make changes if progress slows down.

Changing things up also reduces boredom and the chances of RSI.

But I don't have a good answer to the ideal balance of base vs hard. When you include warmup and cool down with my base work, I am at about an 80/20 split. This has gotten me a few PBs this season, but I haven't made a breakthrough at the 2k distance and I've stalled out in my latest cycle.

There is another important factor in this. What are you training for? If you have the physique and drive to get records as a sprinter, then a power oriented plan makes sense. If you want to do well on the Nonathlon, then a plan that optimizes fitness for different events at different times of the year might be best. If you want to do well at specific races, then a plan that sharpens you for those is a good idea. If you want to do well at the CTC or IRL challenges, then a balanced plan is probably a good idea. If you are in it for general fitness and health, then doing stuff to keep it interesting and varied is probably most important.

The way I am wired, I do much, much better when I have an event I am training for. So even though the most important reason I row is to combat a family history of obesity and heart disease, it isn't enough to get me up at 5:15 and out the door. Trying crack the top 5 of the 50-55 heavies at the CRASH-Bs, that's worth kicking off the covers for.

This is a cool topic and I like discussing it, sorry if this went on too long.

Greg, I read much of this thread and as usual, admire your thoughtful, non-judgemental, non-dogmatic, positive, helpful and inquisitive approach. Others could learn a great deal from you.
Most of the studies on various approaches show "responders", and "non responders" when one looks at raw data. Why? The subjects all did the same workouts? Some of the gene stuff suggests that there are big differences in trainability (and probably the most effective training stimuli for each individual). I would once again submit that what works for some...does not work for all. Some basic principles of training apply....but there are significant differences between us. Lets cut the dogma folks. Citing study references would be a good start...if you insist on being "right".

Happy rowing, Steve

[Bob S.]

Dean means that 5-10k distances have become very easy for him.

That is what I figured that it had to be. I have just never heard it used that way - to me it referred to scribbling by making little drawings. but that was based on when I first learned the word from a 1936 movie, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town:

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0027996/quotes

It comes up in the 4rd quote from Longfellow Deeds and the response to that quote from Judge May. Then it is explained by Mr. Deeds in the next quote. A classic comedy of the mid-30s.

[left coaster]

Greg, I read much of this thread and as usual, admire your thoughtful, non-judgemental, non-dogmatic, positive, helpful and inquisitive approach. Others could learn a great deal from you.
Most of the studies on various approaches show "responders", and "non responders" when one looks at raw data. Why? The subjects all did the same workouts? Some of the gene stuff suggests that there are big differences in trainability (and probably the most effective training stimuli for each individual). I would once again submit that what works for some...does not work for all. Some basic principles of training apply....but there are significant differences between us. Lets cut the dogma folks. Citing study references would be a good start...if you insist on being "right".

Happy rowing, Steve

Now that the emotions have all been voiced, I'd like to support this comment by Steve as well as the post he quoted from Greg.

Greg, you make a very good observation, one I was asking about i.e. does an 80/20 polarized training program provide maximum gains at lower volumes where the exercise rate limiting factor is not physiological recovery. For us (me) 'recreational or longevity' exercisers who have packed lives this is a really interesting and important question. If a person has 5 hours a week, what is the best way to use this time? For many people I talk to 5 hours seems like an eternity, but I think it is a reasonable start point for a discussion.

Steve, I agree, can posters pull some abstracts or references to support their claims? It is my understanding that "responders and non-responders" is language typically used to describe individual genetic differences in VO2 max response (increase) to endurance exercise. Non responders will still improve, but through different mechanisms.

I am particularly interested in the shortest path to improving VO2 max for responders. In part, because I am a responder, but most importantly because I have found compelling evidence that higher VO2 max later in life is associated with better cognitive function and central nervous system health. Yes, I think this is bad news for 'non-responders' if they were born with a low VO2 max... If others agree with the plan to contribute actual evidence to this thread I'll take the time to dig up a couple references to support the statements I'm making here.