:30/:30 intervals beneficial?

[e-Clair]

blues__, I would suggest that since you are 65, if you’re doing any significant amount of strength training, that you limit the rowing to just long slow distance work. You can find research articles about “concurrent training”, but don’t expect to see veteran athletes discussed.

[hjs]

blues__, I would suggest that since you are 65, if you’re doing any significant amount of strength training, that you limit the rowing to just long slow distance work. You can find research articles about “concurrent training”, but don’t expect to see veteran athletes discussed.

Looks like good advice. If you don,t race and given your age, hard fast interval work is not needed and would very much interfere with your other training.
I don,t like the term slow, longer aerobic work yes, but even ut2 work is not really slow.

[bob01]

Well I'm 66....and I would and do intervals...if one is not traini g for a 2k etc. ... as one ages strength training becomes more vital.
Nothing wrong with endurance .. perhaps a longish warm up and cool down... warm up for weights on the erg...
Consider some intervals post weights too

[NavigationHazard]

For the umpteenth time, there is nothing about 30"/30" workouts that says they have to be "hard and fast." Or any other workouts.

All athletic training involves interval work in the sense of alternating periods of stress with periods of recovery. Whether it's a single stroke with a drive/recovery cycle, it's some number of 30"/30" intervals with grouped drive/recovery cycles punctuated by active or passive rests, or whether it's a daily marathon with what's incorrectly thought of as "continuous rowing" but is really one set of drive/recovery cycles, you're still rowing some of the time and then not rowing some of the time. And at a macro level, you do a workout and then you do something else until it's time for the next workout.

Training effects come from the relationship between the work and the rest, with the body using the latter to make desirable physical adaptations induced by the former.

The point of micro-interval work is to use the rest intervals that separate the 'work' pieces to help manage the stress involved. How the results compare to more conventional, longer pieces is entirely up to how hard you do how many of the short work bits at what rating(s), plus how long the rests might be in relation to the work bits, plus what you do during the rests. There's absolutely no reason to presume that "hard and fast" (whatever one might mean by those terms) is the only way to approach this.

[blues_]

Thanks, e-Clair and hjs, this is interesting because it is essentially the opposite of the recommendation given by the "Starting Strength" folks, (Mark Rippetoe et al), and most specifically for masters athletes in "The Barbell Prescription" by Dr. Jonathon Sullivan and Andy Baker, (who are each "Starting Strength" coaches themselves).

They state that LISS, (long slow distance), is essentially catabolic over time and interferes with strength training, (muscle growth and maintenance), whereas shorter duration, more intense interval work, (done two to three days per week), does not rob the system of the necessary resources for recovery and muscle growth.

What I've been doing thus far in the few weeks I've had the rower is a couple days of short intense intervals...40 seconds on, 20 seconds off x 8 by way of one example...and one day of either a longer piece...such as 2000 meters in one go, or 500 to 750 meters x 4.

I'm able to get my heart rate into the relevant zones for both steady state and / or more intense intervals.

Here's an excerpt from the C2 site:

Q. Can intervals help me lose weight and maintain health?
A. Yes. New research suggests that interval training may be a very time-efficient and effective way to lose weight, not to mention that it will build your fitness as effectively as longer, moderate workouts.

A recent study in Japan reached the intriguing conclusion that you would burn more fat with two 30 minutes bouts of exercise separated by a 20 minute rest period than in a single 60 minute session.

And finally, intervals add variety and structure to your workouts, which makes them even more interesting and helps the time pass.

Q. Why are intervals good for older athletes?
A. They have been shown to be the most effective workout for stemming the tide of aging.

A recent pilot study in Norway has shown that interval workouts may be more effective than longer, lower intensity workouts for reducing cholesterol, adjusting the ratio of fatty acids in the blood, and reducing the risk factors for metabolic syndrome. They have also been shown to be an effective therapy for patients with heart failure. Consult with your physician before starting an exercise program.

Q. Then why not do them all the time?
A. Because you can’t. Expect to be tired after doing intervals. If you’re not, you’re not doing them hard enough. You need to allow your body to recover for a day or two after interval sessions. Competitive athletes might do intervals as many as five days per week during a high-intensity speed training week; older athletes can generally do intervals up to 2–3 times per week.

Source: http://www.concept2.com/indoor-rowers/t ... l-training

This is a conversation of great interest to me and which I want to learn more about to properly calibrate my training.

I appreciate all points of view and the willingness to share thoughts in this arena.

(And thanks to bob01 as well, whose post I just noticed as I was sending my reply.)

[hjs]

Its about the combination if weights and hard intervals. If you really go for it erging is super tough, people who don,t row don,t know this. I have seen serious weightlifter doing so called hitt work on the rower. A serious rower would call that a warm up.

Try a max 2k or hard 500 reps and you will soon know thats hard to combine with hard weights. If you limit your rowing to 85/90% it a different matter. That would be a less taxing.

[blues_]

Its about the combination if weights and hard intervals. If you really go for it erging is super tough, people who don,t row don,t know this. I have seen serious weightlifter doing so called hitt work on the rower. A serious rower would call that a warm up.

Try a max 2k or hard 500 reps and you will soon know thats hard to combine with hard weights. If you limit your rowing to 85/90% it a different matter. That would be a less taxing.

I think that's the only reason I bother with using the heart rate monitor.

With weight training it's easy enough for me to figure out a weight I can press or deadlift for five reps.

On the other hand, if I try to row at "maximum effort", it's pretty obvious that I won't be able to sustain the effort for significant duration.

Even on the 40/20r intervals x 8 I can see the fluctuation of watts produced and 500 meter split times...though I usually put a max effort in the last interval that rivals or even exceeds the first interval.

The heart rate monitor will show that while the first interval only got the rate up into the 120's...(after a proper warm-up prior to starting),...by the last interval I'm just above 140 which is pretty much as high as I want to go based upon the calculations I've done for my age (and condition).

I have no doubt that my max effort would be laughable to a serious competitive rower, but since it's cardio / metabolic conditioning I'm after...it's really only the effort that puts me in the zone that ultimately matters, to my thinking. And the fact that I'm progressing, by going a little further, a little quicker in the intervals.

I'd be curious what the science, (such as it is), demonstrates as to how long one must be in the zone for it to have the desired effect on conditioning.

[hjs]

For short intervals, hf is a poor indicator. Those are anaerobic and hf often lags in those cases.

I was not talking about absulute performance, but about relative ones. Everybody has its own limites, but relatively seen we can all work hard.
Re hf, we can,t calculate our hf numbers, there is a very big difference in indivudual numbers. You need to know your real hf performance. Max and restrate.

[blues_]

For short intervals, hf is a poor indicator. Those are anaerobic and hf often lags in those cases.

I was not talking about absulute performance, but about relative ones. Everybody has its own limites, but relatively seen we can all work hard.
Re hf, we can,t calculate our hf numbers, there is a very big difference in indivudual numbers. You need to know your real hf performance. Max and restrate.

Understood.

Edited to add: Interesting articles

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/concurrent-training/

https://www.strongerbyscience.com/concu ... ng-part-2/

[NavigationHazard]

Duplicating a post in my Indecent Intervals thread... Here's an example of 30"/30" approached as a nominally aerobic power-endurance workout. The rest intervals mitigated the cardio-vascular effects and allowed me to work both harder in terms of per-stroke input and also significantly longer in terms of net duration than I could have done via continuous rowing. I would add that HR is a very imperfect proxy for intensity in this sort of thing. Depending on how hard you're working, HR may actually peak during the rest intervals thanks to cardiovascular lag....

30 x 30" r20 on 30" just now, with the wind literally blowing a gale outside. Mostly I did it to get warm - it's 43F cooler right now than it was at 3 pm yesterday, and that's not factoring in the 50 mph gusts.

01] 149m 1:40.6 pace 343w r20
02] 150m 1:40.0 pace 350w r20
03] 151m 1:39.3 pace 357w r20
04] 150m 1:40.0 pace 350w r20
05] 151m 1:39.3 pace 357w r20
06] 151m 1:39.3 pace 357w r20
07] 151m 1:39.3 pace 357w r20
08] 151m 1:39.3 pace 357w r20
09] 151m 1:39.3 pace 357w r20
10] 152m 1:38.6 pace 364w r20

11] 152m 1:38.6 pace 364w r20
12] 152m 1:38.6 pace 364w r20
13] 152m 1:38.6 pace 364w r20
14] 152m 1:38.6 pace 364w r20
15] 153m 1:38.0 pace 371w r20
16] 153m 1:38.0 pace 371w r20
17] 153m 1:38.0 pace 371w r20
18] 154m 1:37.4 pace 379w r20
19] 154m 1:37.4 pace 379w r20
20] 154m 1:37.4 pace 379w r20

21] 154m 1:37.4 pace 379w r20
22] 154m 1:37.4 pace 379w r20
23] 155m 1:36.7 pace 386w r20
24] 155m 1:36.7 pace 386w r20
25] 154m 1:37.4 pace 379w r20
26] 155m 1:36.7 pace 386w r20
27] 154m 1:37.4 pace 379w r20
28] 155m 1:36.7 pace 386w r20
29] 154m 1:37.4 pace 379w r20
30] 156m 1:36.1 pace 394w r20

4582m total work distance in 15:00.0 net elapsed work time, 1:38.2 pace, 369w r20 [PM3].

[bob01]

Article in cycling weekly ..(uk). 're endurance athletes benefiting from short intervals... loads of em.

I think us 'ergers have a lot to learn from other sports... but there seems to be a mind set amongst many that if it ent wolverine or Pete plan it is to be dismissed

bob01 78 February 7th, 2018, 3:59 pm

[JerekKruger]

but there seems to be a mind set amongst many that if it ent wolverine or Pete plan it is to be dismissed

You realise that most regular posters here don't follow the Pete Plan and hardly any follow the Wolverine Plan right?

[hjs]

Article in cycling weekly ..(uk). 're endurance athletes benefiting from short intervals... loads of em.

I think us 'ergers have a lot to learn from other sports... but there seems to be a mind set amongst many that if it ent wolverine or Pete plan it is to be dismissed

bob01 78 February 7th, 2018, 3:59 pm

If you are relative weak you could be right, but rowers train strenght in a different way often. Keep the rating low and do weights. You do know rowers are the strongest aerobic atletes from all. There is a reason for that.

This forum is 90% beginners atm hardly any strong rowers post here, so looking at the training done here says very little about row training. Pete plan is certainly not something any serious rower uses.

[jackarabit]

Pete plan is certainly not something any serious rower uses.

Henry, as you will remember, Lindsay H. did several cycles of Pete “lunchtimes” fall of ‘16. Came second in MHWT60-69 at WIRC ‘17 and did a world circumnavigation to get there! About as serious as age group competition gets imo. Does some alactic interval work also IIR. Also keeps his sez:duz ratio in check. Could be the essential ingredient in his success?

[Gammmmo]

You do know rowers are the strongest aerobic atletes from all. There is a reason for that.

Hmmmm...what about cross country skiers? While you often hear of pro cyclist or cross country skier Vo2maxes you seldom hear about that number for rowers. Maybe I just don't read the right articles....??