Train hard and less or easier and more?

[iant187]

Hi chaps and chapesses,
I'm getting back into rowing after a number of years off and starting to follow a few plans and just getting some miles in.
I did follow the old Concept 2 plan for a bit and that was good, but looking to change a bit and thought obvious choice is Wolverine or Pete Plan.

From how I read it, Wolverine seems to suggest less hard effort, but overall more miles. Whereas Pete Plan is a couple of hard sessions, but less miles overall. IE 8x500 at 2k pace for Wolverine or 8x500 at 2k-3 for PP

I would actually prefer less hard effort and lots of steady state, rather than make my eyes bleed 2 or 3 times a week.
Just wondering your thoughts - do you think they both achieve the same result or do you get better results for harder, but less training?

Cheers

[hjs]

Wolverine is certainly not less hard, would even say its harder, pp has easier sessions, apart from the interval stuff, wolverine has nothing easy, the longer sessions are low rate L4, or faster L3 stuff.

PP is wolverine minus the L4 work. You could tweak both plan if you like ofcourse. For base building you could switch some faster sessions for longer work. Etc

Or you could start out slower on the speedsessions and build on those in time.

[Dangerscouse]

I guess it depends on what your end goal is. Do you want to go faster, get fitter or something else? Both plans will provide good results.

[iant187]

Main objective is to get the right side of 7 minutes (Sub7 is first goal, then ultimately I think a 6:40).
Psychologically I prefer not to do lots of very hard sessions and happier doing twice as much distance but easier effort.
I think Wolverine suggests you shouldn't need to do too many "near death sessions"
Don't get me wrong I can do the hard stuff when I need to, but if it was all the same result, I'd go for distance over effort.

Just wondering whether people here have tried both approaches and what results they found worked best or general other thoughts on distance verses intensity training.

[bob01]

Hi.. Admirable objectives!

Don't forget technique!!!

Also look outside the rowing community for inspiration and direction in your training.

eg Polarized or periodization

Remember the old adage the bigger the base the higher the pinnacle!!

Remember it takes a relatively short period to train the anaerobic (weeks) as opposed to the aerobic system (years)

if I were you I would think about getting in loads of base metres in ... in rowing parlance UT2 don't be in a rush to get into the Threshold and hard interval sessions..... Your goal is your goal... not to bash out frequent PBs.. PBs are great motivation along the way but there are other parameters that one can use. ... not a great believer in HR being used to dictate training zones but many use it: say 10k at 70% of max or heart rate range.

there are lots of physiological benefits to training at the easy aerobic end.... including vital capacity of the heart, getting the oxygen etc. to the working muscle fibre... both macro and micro level. I refer to the latter of these as capillarisation

To their credit there is a community around the plans you mention and therefore support and encouragement!

If you followed the concept 2 plan that was a periodized type plan... just need to extend the !st phase... plug max weeks in!!

I often dip into the Casey Plan which I like (I don't do more coz I cycle too) look at sub7 facebook page.

I know I have set myself up for abuse(LOL) from PP and wolverine fan base... also... LOL

Hope this helps

[hjs]

Main objective is to get the right side of 7 minutes (Sub7 is first goal, then ultimately I think a 6:40).
Psychologically I prefer not to do lots of very hard sessions and happier doing twice as much distance but easier effort.
I think Wolverine suggests you shouldn't need to do too many "near death sessions"
Don't get me wrong I can do the hard stuff when I need to, but if it was all the same result, I'd go for distance over effort.

Just wondering whether people here have tried both approaches and what results they found worked best or general other thoughts on distance verses intensity training.

Don,t know why you think intensity is lower on the wolverine.

How hard you need to go depends on your relative fitness. A peaking fase doesn,t need to be that long. 6 weeks is enough.

Most otw rowers do 80/90% long work at ut2 work. But you need volume for that. And use low rate to build a strong enough stroke.
In the build up to races/tests ad in 2k speed work.

Wolverine start out easier, build builds to hard racing. Pp is the short simple version made from wolverine. Also ment to peak at 2k.

The goals you mention mean little, for some those would be easy, others need hard work, and plenty never reach does.

[bob01]

Not mastered the ''

But to add to above most endurance athletes use polarized...

2k endurance? yes but less so... but a good base is fundamental....base on periodized as the C2 plan

[mdpfirrman]

Listening to your goals, honestly, I wouldn't do either plan. I'd stick to a 80/20 plan, 20% hard and 80% easier (UT 2 type work, around 60% to 65% of HRR or a level 6 on a scale of 1-10). Both plans you mentioned, Wolverine and PP, are meant to add "stress" before a 2K race. Though Wolverine is supposed to be a year long plan (if you're willing to spend a long time working in the 16 to 20 SPM range), like Henry said, it's not easy by any means.

The main difference between PP and Wolverine is two things. PP dummies Wolverine down and makes it an easier plan to follow. Wolverine is a bit more complex and harder to understand. Though some say it's simple, the threads on here make it clear that it's not (just my opinion). Both are great plans. The other difference is compromise on stroke power on the PP. Wolverine seems (to me) to make it pretty clear that your stroke should be as powerful as it can be no matter if it's a SS workout or an interval workout. The only variable is your SR (stroke rate). The PP allows you to soften your power and increase your SR accordingly on SS days. That's why Henry said that Wolverine is not an easier plan. You work lower rate but higher power each stroke, so just different. I prefer higher rate work where I'm not pulling near max each stroke. Just personal preference. Each has merits.

I was just doing the 5K Pete Plan. It's hard 3 days a week and easier 3 days a week. If you switched that up to where only two days are hardish, I think you'd accomplish what you want. That's what I'm thinking about doing. It's high volume but perhaps a bit too hard as written but if you just eliminate the TT day (the third hard day of the six day a week plan), it would only be two harder days and four easier days and you'd be close to that 80/20 split of easier to harder work. To me, that's more sustainable for a longer/base building plan while still working on some speed and AT work at the same time so you're not losing progress or starting from scratch when you "gear up" for the 2K stress training.

You do mention you'd "rather not make your eyes bleed 2/3 times a week". Part of that is necessary for reaching the best 2K you're capable of. I think I've read that in order to keep speed and AT at current capabilities (and not lose ground), you need to train each a minimum of every 10 days, perhaps less. In order to improve speed and lactic acid tolerance at the same time, you probably need 3 days a week of harder training (like the PP/Wolverine Plan). You simply can't do just easy volume and improve your 2K times beyond a point, it unfortunately doesn't work like that. Maybe do two hard sessions one week and then one the next week. You might be able to maintain enough stress that way until you're ready to do one or two rounds of the PP building up to a 2K TT.

[iant187]

Thanks for the replies chaps.
I should have probably said I did row a number of years ago (6:21 pb) so I get that you have to put the effort in and I know what it's like to be in the 3rd 500 of a 2k, but the majority of that training was long distance on the water - hours and hours... and we didn't do a huge amount of intense training (proportionally).

Just now being the wrong side of 50 and back to rowing, I was keen to hear people's thoughts.
Interesting note, I also heard last week, Roger Banister only ever did 20 - 30 minute interval sessions (yes I know that was running not rowing )
I might do as you suggest mike, just do 2 hard sessions a week get plenty of SS miles in on the other days and see how that feels...

[jamesg]

Just wondering your thoughts - do you think they both achieve the same result or do you get better results for harder, but less training?

Training is always progressive, as you well know. As far as I can see nothing has changed (save Watts on the erg) since I rowed in the late 50s.

See the Interactive schedules. There are about 200 to choose from and very detailled:
https://indoorsportservices.co.uk/training/interactive

For general fitness I usually take an L3 5 session 26 week plan then do the first half or quarter repeatedly until summer comes along, then I go riding and swimming. These cause some initial pain, but this soon passes and they let me use any acquired endurance.

For racing the second halves worked very well, clearly best done on top of plenty of basic training before.

[hjs]

Thanks for the replies chaps.
I should have probably said I did row a number of years ago (6:21 pb) so I get that you have to put the effort in and I know what it's like to be in the 3rd 500 of a 2k, but the majority of that training was long distance on the water - hours and hours... and we didn't do a huge amount of intense training (proportionally).

Just now being the wrong side of 50 and back to rowing, I was keen to hear people's thoughts.
Interesting note, I also heard last week, Roger Banister only ever did 20 - 30 minute interval sessions (yes I know that was running not rowing )
I might do as you suggest mike, just do 2 hard sessions a week get plenty of SS miles in on the other days and see how that feels...

Erging rowing is very age friendly, based of that 621 sub 7 will be easy. And what worked in those days will now still work.

Re Banister, if he knew how to train like they now know, he would have been a good bit faster.

[lancecampeau]

- My first year on the erg was about setting PB's at the standard distances to benchmark my capability, then a lot of slower / longer pieces (20k and up) to build up my aerobic base.
- My second year has been about shorter, much more intense pieces with lower stroke rates and higher SPI. Trying to build up my anaerobic capabilities.

My third year? Not sure yet... but I've always got the Canadian Indoor Rowing Championships in the back of my mind (held in Feb)

[iant187]

... based of that 621 sub 7 will be easy...

Thanks hjs - certainly doesn't feel easy at the moment , although I think that's just getting back to regular training.
I've been back on the erg for a few months now and I guess I was hoping to have had better progress. I did 50+k last week and happy putting that sort of distance in at the moment - maybe a bit more, so think I will do that for a bit with a couple of hard PP sessions added in.
I'll give the 8x500 a blast this evening at 2k-3 and see how that feels..

[hjs]

... based of that 621 sub 7 will be easy...

Thanks hjs - certainly doesn't feel easy at the moment , although I think that's just getting back to regular training.
I've been back on the erg for a few months now and I guess I was hoping to have had better progress. I did 50+k last week and happy putting that sort of distance in at the moment - maybe a bit more, so think I will do that for a bit with a couple of hard PP sessions added in.
I'll give the 8x500 a blast this evening at 2k-3 and see how that feels..

Relative easy

You know what it is, thats a big plus.

Thats a very nasty session, if it does not feel horrible you are not trying hard enough

[iant187]

Thats a very nasty session, if it does not feel horrible you are not trying hard enough

OK - did that session.
I was actually 1 second quicker than target pace (makes me think my current 2k might be better than I thought).
Wasn't too bad at all (maybe I should have gone quicker) although I was blasting out the first 100 still putting pressure on to 200m (as I might a 2k test), then I slacked off for the last 300, trying to keep some for the next interval!
Do you try and row an even split on those type of intervals?