Steady State ????

[old] neilb · Post by **[old] neilb** » July 5th, 2005, 8:40 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mel Harbour @ Jul 4 2005, 09:02 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />If for example you're doing a UT2 session (70-90 minutes r18 with appropriate heart rate), you should set off at a pace similar to one you've held previously, then after 20-25 minutes adjust your pace to get the heart rate in the right range (it will take your heart rate that long to settle down), then note the pace you are rowing at and maintain that through to the end. Your heart rate will rise, but this is purely as a result of dehydration etc.<br /><br />Mel <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mel,<br /><br />Interested in this point as I am sure I have seen somewhere the comment that once you go over the HR limit you are into the next band.<br /><br />As an example today I did a strapless r20 row for 60 min aiming at around 1:56 pace (this is normally a comfortable pace for 60 min at 22-24 spm) just to see what results it gave.<br /><br />I started at 1:56 and held this (and 20 spm) throughout. Between 20 - 25 mins my HR was fairly stable around 142/143 (estimated at 76% HRR) and so I simply carried on at same rate/pace to see what resulted.<br /><br />My average HR for 60 min was 143 and peaked at 152. I am curious as to whether this increase is likely to be down just to drift (and so can be ignored) or if my pace was really a touch too high. it was quite warm in the gym and whilst I took on water it would not have countered the loss via sweat. Also the r20 and strapless makes it a bit tougher than usual 22-24 spm.<br /><br />I tend to follow the bands broadly but I am concious that my estimate of HRR relies on using max of 220 - age and so may not be that accurate. (RHR is 44). <br /><br />I like the 60 min work at fairly low rates as it helps build a strong base and I think it is beneficial to me having started recently to learn to row on water. <br /><br />We are using low rates a lot on the water to help concentrate on technique and so the fact that I also use the low rates on the erg means that on the water I am comfortable with the low rate used for learning and I have enough base fitness that I can concentrate on technique throughout the water session without suffering through fall off in stamina/fitness. <br /><br />Neil<br /><br />

[old] Chris-lbc · Post by **[old] Chris-lbc** » July 5th, 2005, 12:11 pm

I don't have a heart rate monitor so it's hard for me to know if i'm training at the correct heart rate<br /><br />My pb splits are<br />2k: 1:48.5 <br />5k: 1:55.3<br />45 minutes: 1:59.5<br />60 minutes: 2:02.8<br /><br />I want to improve my fitness over the summer and I keep hearing that just going for a pb each time is the wrong thing to do so what would be the correct pace to do a 45 minute or hour piece at.<br />Thanks <br />Chris

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » July 5th, 2005, 12:31 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Chris-lbc @ Jul 5 2005, 08:11 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I don't have a heart rate monitor so it's hard for me to know if i'm training at the correct heart rate<br /><br />My pb splits are<br />2k: 1:48.5 <br />5k: 1:55.3<br />45 minutes: 1:59.5<br />60 minutes: 2:02.8<br /><br />I want to improve my fitness over the summer and I keep hearing that just going for a pb each time is the wrong thing to do so what would be the correct pace to do a 45 minute or hour piece at.<br />Thanks <br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Time for another "Big Thumb" Rule. - Take your PB pace and add 5 seconds to it and round up, so 45 minutes at 2:05 or 60 Minutes at 2:08. Frankly, 40 minutes of SS in any continuous piece is enough, by that time most anyone has lost focus (if they ever had it) and is probably doing more harm than good due to mental fatigue.<br /><br />Cheers!<br />

[old] Chris-lbc · Post by **[old] Chris-lbc** » July 5th, 2005, 12:43 pm

Thanks Paul, I'll try that tomorrow. I can't remember the last time I did an erg and didn't try to go as fast as possible so being in less pain will be nice.<br />Chris

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » July 5th, 2005, 12:50 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Chris-lbc @ Jul 5 2005, 08:43 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Thanks Paul, I'll try that tomorrow. I can't remember the last time I did an erg and didn't try to go as fast as possible so being in less pain will be nice.<br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />That's a lot of hard work! I can barely remember the last time I did an erg and <b>tried</b> to go as fast as possible... But I videotaped the sessions so I could have a reminder of what I wasn't ever going to do again.

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » July 5th, 2005, 12:58 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Frankly, 40 minutes of SS in any continuous piece is enough </td></tr></table><br />Well, in many cases it is. Depends on your current fitness and ultimate goals.<br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>by that time most anyone has lost focus (if they ever had it) </td></tr></table><br />Focus, like endurance, can (and should) be trained.<br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>and is probably doing more harm than good due to mental fatigue. </td></tr></table><br />Ah, the Holy Grail of training -- achieving a higher level without crossing a mental (or physical?) fatigue threshold. Where can I buy some of that?<br /><br />Cheers!<br /><br />Mike Caviston

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » July 5th, 2005, 1:48 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mike Caviston @ Jul 5 2005, 08:58 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Frankly, 40 minutes of SS in any continuous piece is enough </td></tr></table><br />Well, in many cases it is. Depends on your current fitness and ultimate goals.<br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>by that time most anyone has lost focus (if they ever had it) </td></tr></table><br />Focus, like endurance, can (and should) be trained. </td></tr></table><br />Agreed!<br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>and is probably doing more harm than good due to mental fatigue. </td></tr></table><br />Ah, the Holy Grail of training -- achieving a higher level without crossing a mental (or physical?) fatigue threshold. Where can I buy some of that?<br /><br />Cheers!<br /><br />Mike Caviston </td></tr></table> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />A cliche' (or group of them) comes to mind: It's not Practice that makes perfect, but Perfect Practice that makes perfect. Practice just makes permanent.<br /><br />I hope I wasn't implying anything less than a "progressive resistance" model (mental and physical). I'm just saying that 100 (or 1000+) more crappy strokes isn't doing you any good in the long run. If you want a longer session, take a short break, get a drink, think about what you want to accomplish, and get on with it. <br /><br />Anyway, you can't buy it, it must be earned... <br /><br />All the best!

[old] Mel Harbour · Post by **[old] Mel Harbour** » July 5th, 2005, 2:11 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Jul 5 2005, 11:31 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Chris-lbc @ Jul 5 2005, 08:11 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I don't have a heart rate monitor so it's hard for me to know if i'm training at the correct heart rate<br /><br />My pb splits are<br />2k: 1:48.5 <br />5k: 1:55.3<br />45 minutes: 1:59.5<br />60 minutes: 2:02.8<br /><br />I want to improve my fitness over the summer and I keep hearing that just going for a pb each time is the wrong thing to do so what would be the correct pace to do a 45 minute or hour piece at.<br />Thanks <br />Chris <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Time for another "Big Thumb" Rule. - Take your PB pace and add 5 seconds to it and round up, so 45 minutes at 2:05 or 60 Minutes at 2:08. Frankly, 40 minutes of SS in any continuous piece is enough, by that time most anyone has lost focus (if they ever had it) and is probably doing more harm than good due to mental fatigue.<br /><br />Cheers! <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I can't remember the source I'm afraid, but I've either read, or been told, fairly recently that the motivation for a long session is that as the muscle fibres become fatigued the body is forced to recruit other muscle fibres to bolster its efforts. This only happens in endurance training once you've done upwards of 35-40 minutes.<br /><br />Mel

[old] Mike Caviston · Post by **[old] Mike Caviston** » July 5th, 2005, 2:22 pm

Paul,<br /><br />Just tweaking you a little bit, dude! No argument that additional crappy strokes won't do anyone any good. Though on a serious note, from a physiological perspective, I agree that short breaks won't be detrimental for most training effects in most cases. But at some point, for the elite (or elite wanna-be) athlete, maximal peripheral (i.e., muscular) adaptations will require some longer continuous rowing (i.e., in the 60-90' range).<br /><br />Shucks, I can't buy it, I have to earn it? I don't think I'm gonna last too long in this game...<br /><br />Regards,<br /><br />Mike

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » July 5th, 2005, 2:34 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Mel Harbour @ Jul 5 2005, 10:11 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I can't remember the source I'm afraid, but I've either read, or been told, fairly recently that the motivation for a long session is that as the muscle fibres become fatigued the body is forced to recruit other muscle fibres to bolster its efforts. This only happens in endurance training once you've done upwards of 35-40 minutes.<br /><br />Mel <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I suspect if you go hard enough in the 35-40 minutes it would be quite possible to exhaust all recruitable muscle fibres. In fact, I'm very sure that if you do a series of "All out" 60 second bouts, with 30-60 second rest paddles, you will be at a point where "new recruits" will be required to maintain a "normal" 30 minute pace after 1 or 2 repetitions.<br /><br />"Pre-fatigue" was something we used in the 80's, but never really seemed to catch on. At least I don't see it mentioned these days. Perhaps due to it making things rather uncomfortable, and these days many seem to think that top perfomance can be had without discomfort. (The "Holy Grail" Mike mentioned?).<br /><br /> A nice workout I like to set up for just this purpose is 8k (imagine that) with 100m "bumps". This means that for the final 100M of every 1k, your task is to take the hardest strokes possible, then to settle right back to your normal 8k Steady state pace for the next 900m. i.e. 1:55 base pace with bumps that would likely be in the 1:30's somewhere. Of course the standard S10PS is applicable.

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » July 5th, 2005, 10:46 pm

Mel, you remember correctly (If I remember). <br /><br />In my mind, long (somewhat dreadful) 60' (maybe up to 90') row may well be an ideal approach to challenge the typically "unrecruited" less oxidatative FT fibers. Training these fibers to act with a greater "endurance" profile seems logical. The 2k needs all the endurance fibers it can get (there are plenty of powerful motor units that will probably never make it to the show no matter how your train). The value of working these same "borderline" fibers and a few more over 30 minutes is great (and may offer more bang for the buck, sure). But for the rower with larger than average goals there are plenty of sessions to fill out every week and 60' rows (unique perhaps for the way they fatigue you in the last 20' minutes) seem great candidates to do as well. <br /><br />I'm wondering myself if the extention to 90' is something for the "very well developed" rower (5th year +) , one who needs the extra duration to keep working the principle. In someway it may well be "too much" and counterproductive for those that are not ready for them (for some of the reasons Paul S says, it's just more crap probably getting crappier).

[old] reynolds352 · Post by **[old] reynolds352** » July 5th, 2005, 11:20 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Jim Barry @ Jul 5 2005, 10:46 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Mel, you remember correctly (If I remember). <br /><br />In my mind, long (somewhat dreadful) 60' (maybe up to 90') row may well be an ideal approach to challenge the typically "unrecruited" less oxidatative FT fibers. Training these fibers to act with a greater "endurance" profile seems logical. The 2k needs all the endurance fibers it can get (there are plenty of powerful motor units that will probably never make it to the show no matter how your train). The value of working these same "borderline" fibers and a few more over 30 minutes is great (and may offer more bang for the buck, sure). But for the rower with larger than average goals there are plenty of sessions to fill out every week and 60' rows (unique perhaps for the way they fatigue you in the last 20' minutes) seem great candidates to do as well. <br /><br />I'm wondering myself if the extention to 90' is something for the "very well developed" rower (5th year +) , one who needs the extra duration to keep working the principle. In someway it may well be "too much" and counterproductive for those that are not ready for them (for some of the reasons Paul S says, it's just more crap probably getting crappier). <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />90' rows are for 5+ year rower? i've only been rowing since october 2004 and i've been doing 3 hms a week, filling in the gaps with 10ks, 5ks, and interval work. is this training too hard?

[old] neilb · Post by **[old] neilb** » July 6th, 2005, 3:58 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Jul 5 2005, 12:48 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'm just saying that 100 (or 1000+) more crappy strokes isn't doing you any good in the long run. <br /><br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Paul,<br /><br />Could not agree more. A crapy stroke is always a crappy stroke wherever and whenever it occurs.<br /><br />A longer session has limited (negative?) benefit where it leads to crappy strokes although these can occur at any time if the focus is not maintained.<br /><br />I find the longer rows good to help with concentration and maintaining good form even towards the end. Whta helps me though is that I always row with a specific training intent for the piece (one or more of restricted rate, strapless, low spm, 11 SPI, holding diferrent spm etc) and without music, TV or other distractions.<br /><br />So, I focus on the monitor and the technique throughout.<br /><br />I find that the last say 15 min of 60 min is a really good mental challenge to continue to maintain a good, relaxed, stroke with good body position and smooth drive.<br /><br />I suspect that I could gain similar fitness benefits from reducing to say 35 -40 min with slightly different emphasis and I do include in my weekly schedule a couple of 30 min sessions with higher rates/lower splits.<br /><br />The broad PB +5 you mention seems to work for me as 60 min PB is around 1:51 whereas steady training is around 1:56.<br /><br />At the end of the day it is still about quality not quantity. 10 min focused can be better than 60 min unstructured whilst watching the TV but also vice versa.<br /><br />Neil

[old] jamesg · Post by **[old] jamesg** » July 6th, 2005, 7:06 am

From the weight of the guns bearing on this thread, looks like Steady State is a fundamental topic. <br /><br />It's helped me too, and from just jumping on and pulling, I shall move on to some new rules:<br /><br />1 Use only HR and %HRR to control what I'm doing (I've 60-173 at last measure, so UT2 <140, UT1 <150, AT <160 more or less);<br />2 No crappy strokes;<br />3 Look at pace only insofar as its percentage of some arbitrary gold standard that I set myself (maybe WR for my age and weight group?).<br />4 Use the Interactive and similar programmes only for the w/o type and duration, and forget the paces they show.<br /><br />Should be enough to keep me alive and kicking. Anything I've forgotten?

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » July 6th, 2005, 8:57 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>90' rows are for 5+ year rower? i've only been rowing since october 2004 and i've been doing 3 hms a week, filling in the gaps with 10ks, 5ks, and interval work. is this training too hard? </td></tr></table><br /><br />Adam, <br /><br /> I'd judge "too hard" on any program if the athlete is simply struggling to complete workouts, has too many off days, etc. In otherwords "too hard" sort of comes out in the wash. Perhaps switching your 90' rows to faster 60' rows could be a good trade (quality/ quantity trade offs are tough calls though). Once in a while (1x month) you might take that 60' training pace to 90' as a way to work on your mental stamina. Later in the build up, do them more often.<br /><br />