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

[Cyclingman1]

Jim, I see now where you are in the bands. I was wondering about this especially since I'm not the type to do what Dean does and roll multiple HM's a week.

If I did several HMs in a week, assuming I even could, I would be so tired and would have to do them so slowly that I doubt very seriously if I would be able to do a 8:00 2K after a few weeks of such a regimen. If someone thrives off such a program, more power to them. I personally have to stay used to speed. I can get on a rower and do a 7:04 any day of the week with no warmup, unless I am really am exhausted - like today. I realize that is a terrible time for a 40 yr old. And it's not exactly easy. The next 3/4 sec/500m do not come automatically. But for a 70yr old (in 3 days) weakling (as Henry insists upon) not too bad. Among 500 65-74 ranked rowers worldwide that would easily be top-ten, excluding of course all of the many who supposedly don't rank their times yet buy into C2 machines. My best time currently ranks #2 in the world in that cohort. For me, I must be doing something right.

I'm not asking anyone to buy into what I do. If anyone likes a lot of LSD, go for it. If I was training someone, yes, there would be LSD, but there would be a wide variety of AT and TR workouts. I would get them comfortable with speed. No panic on race day.

[hjs]

But for a 70yr old (in 3 days) weakling (as Henry insists upon) .

Pfff, really for a 70 year old.... Can you show me quote where I say that? Don,t think so.

What I do say is, that you use a weak stroke in training. You don,t do low rate work. And you may very well have good reasons not to do so, given your injuries and age. But what now works for you, is not what most other succesfull rowers do.

Other point, your socalled low volume. Not in total training, cycling and erging combined you make more hours than I do.

I think you are by nature not weak, but very strong, you can race all your training, have done that for a long time and keep doing that. That said, your erg stroke stays hamsterlike

[G-dub]

H - haven't you figured out yet, after all these years, that our man from Lawrenceville needs a tussle to get him going? He'll be bringing back up the "weak stroke " comment until he quits rowing his erg or beats everyone in his age group!

[hjs]

H - haven't you figured out yet, after all these years, that our man from Lawrenceville needs a tussle to get him going? He'll be bringing back up the "weak stroke " comment until he quits rowing his erg or beats everyone in his age group!

Ofcourse and he also will never take the "trouble" to answer a question. So every now and than I repeat what I really say.

[Cyclingman1]

Cyclingman1 wrote:
But for a 70yr old (in 3 days) weakling (as Henry insists upon) .


Pfff, really for a 70 year old.... Can you show me quote where I say that? Don,t think so.

That said, your erg stroke stays hamsterlike

Great, not a weakling, but has hamsterlike stroke. Hmmmm.

[hjs]

[Tim K.]

Cyclingman1 wrote:
But for a 70yr old (in 3 days) weakling (as Henry insists upon) .


Pfff, really for a 70 year old.... Can you show me quote where I say that? Don,t think so.

That said, your erg stroke stays hamsterlike

Great, not a weakling, but has hamsterlike stroke. Hmmmm.

My friend, this is the beauty of the erg for someone like you. Anyone who is tall has a distinct advantage over the vertically challenged. You dont have to generate a huge amount of force, you just have to compensate by moving quickly and the work ends up being compairable or greater than someone who is capable of generating more force but moves slower. On the water you may very well end up getting left behind but we are not on the water. On the erg your ranking is all based on the number the pm calculates. You can change "gears" to suit your best performance rate. You might be "weak" but your fast and it gets results, just go with it!

[maestroak]

I think weakling would be preferable to hamsterlike. I'd imagine a hamster might have some advantages at some endeavors but seems to be particularly ill-suited to an erg with those little bitty appendages.

-Steve

[jamesg]

If I was training someone, yes, there would be LSD, but there would be a wide variety of AT and TR workouts. I would get them comfortable with speed. No panic on race day.

That's been standard practice for years, as in the Interactives.

LSS (aka UT2 and it's not slow anyway, 70% HRR and very low rating) is only for the first 2- 3 weeks to get the unfit and the unlearned like me up to a reasonable standard so we can then do the rest: say another 23 weeks of intervals, a lot of it AT and faster.

[bisqeet]

horses for courses...

i do a few hm a week - probably average about 100 -120 km / week rowing.
I'm not a great winter athlete (i live in the alps and hate skiing - figure that) so rowing is my main sport.
I also suffer a bit from hashimoto, which severly effects my metabolism. wasting 1500 cals a day extra on sport helps battle that.

i find that because the majority is UT2 (i.e. HM R20 - 2:08/500m - HR 130-135) i never "overtrain" or suffer from over compensation. I can train the next day without problems or tiredness.
my l4 work (twice a week) is also HM distance but usually more power (>10W/stroke R18-R24 - trying to increase the power)
I don't think that on any day of the week, I wouldn't be able to pull a sub7 2k - probably a lot faster than that actually.

I like the rowing, its easy to organise (i have my own "gym" at home) - i have the time (or i make it - fitness is a biggy for me) and i enjoy it.

I really need a target for this year - I penciled in a FM @sub 2:00/500 pace and maybe a 6:45 2K.
I am thinking about going to boston next year for "fun" - at 48 i'm more or less at the far end of the age scale so medals are not an option, but I would change my training to adapt to those targets.

I could never do some of the sprint work shawn turns out day for day on this program - but i doubt he would even contemplate doing a FM in under 3 hrs (at least on his current plan).

I can say that my 2k time has improved on this program - although i do very little or none sprint training.
could it be better? - definetly, but its not a priority for me (at the moment).


hats off for those that compete at any and all age brackets with some amazing times - i can only hope that if and when i get there, that i can be close

[hjs]

http://athletictimemachine.com/2014/09/ ... -training/

https://roadcyclinguk.com/how-to/six-th ... zCWiTA9.97

[bisqeet]

interesting reads - thanks for the links.

[mdpfirrman]

Thanks Henry for the links. Read the first read. Very good. Very similar to what I've been reading. Dean, you are doing exactly what they say to do.

Here's a review of the 80/20 book by Matt Fitzgerald that explains his "formula" for your HR for recovery work. He says to find your LT by doing a 30 minute very hard run (in our case row) and then take your average HR for the last 10 minutes. That HR on your last 10 minutes is what you use to understand your recovery rate. LT HR X .75 to .80 is where you want to be (at least according to Fitzgerald).

The Maffetone formula is 180 - age roughly. Works out to be around the same for me as the Fitzgerald formula. Maffetone says if you're in shape you can add 5 to the formula.

For now, I'm finding my "sweat spot" around 135.

http://endurancebuzz.com/2015/01/26/the ... ng-slower/

[bisqeet]

Thanks Henry for the links. Read the first read. Very good. Very similar to what I've been reading. Dean, you are doing exactly what they say to do.

Here's a review of the 80/20 book by Matt Fitzgerald that explains his "formula" for your HR for recovery work. He says to find your LT by doing a 30 minute very hard run (in our case row) and then take your average HR for the last 10 minutes. That HR on your last 10 minutes is what you use to understand your recovery rate. LT HR X .75 to .80 is where you want to be (at least according to Fitzgerald).

The Maffetone formula is 180 - age roughly. Works out to be around the same for me as the Fitzgerald formula. Maffetone says if you're in shape you can add 5 to the formula.

For now, I'm finding my "sweat spot" around 135.

http://endurancebuzz.com/2015/01/26/the ... ng-slower/

the maffetone is about the same (+/- 10%) as what the free spirit calculator "forecasts" (for me)

http://www.freespiritsrowing.com/conten ... /hr-bands/

not sure if cardia creep should be ignored or adjusted to.
I don't have much - but at HM distances theres always going to be a little fluctuation

[hjs]

Thanks Henry for the links. Read the first read. Very good. Very similar to what I've been reading. Dean, you are doing exactly what they say to do.

Here's a review of the 80/20 book by Matt Fitzgerald that explains his "formula" for your HR for recovery work. He says to find your LT by doing a 30 minute very hard run (in our case row) and then take your average HR for the last 10 minutes. That HR on your last 10 minutes is what you use to understand your recovery rate. LT HR X .75 to .80 is where you want to be (at least according to Fitzgerald).

The Maffetone formula is 180 - age roughly. Works out to be around the same for me as the Fitzgerald formula. Maffetone says if you're in shape you can add 5 to the formula.

For now, I'm finding my "sweat spot" around 135.

http://endurancebuzz.com/2015/01/26/the ... ng-slower/

Cheers, the 180 minus age is average and can in some cases deviate a good bit. Maffetone also, the way I see it, is not focussed on performence, but more aimed at health. I think knowing ones real Hf numbers are needed if you use those aa a training tool.