Muscle Memory?

[Tsnor]

Thanks Glen. Perhaps I need to do fewer strenuous workouts. At least for now. It really isn't in my nature, even at 67. I probably need to take a longer view and build my endurance more. I can go back to trying for PB's later. As I said, I'm on a learning curve. I tend to not use age as an excuse, but I suppose there is no point in denying that it has an effect.

Even for 20 year old elite athletes, research says doing a combination of long, low impact work plus a few hard session gives best results. Too much hard work doesn't help, it hurts. This isn't age getting you, it's a bad training plan.

Garmin sport watches caused a fuss when they started reporting hard workouts as "Unproductive: your training load is at a good level, but your fitness is decreasing. Your body may be struggling to recover, so you should pay attention to your overall health including stress, nutrition, and rest." What they meant is the user got enough hours of exercise, but did too many hard workouts with too little recovery time between workouts. People got upset "I worked really hard, it had to help". Nope, it didn't.

Net is do most of your work each week at a pace where you can talk conversationally, and also do 1 or 2 hard workouts. Here's a ted talk with an overview, post if you want more details. https://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_seile ... e_athletes

[jvander76]

Elizabeth, Glenn, and Tsnor...thanks. Your input is helpful and appreciated.

[jvander76]

BTW Tsnor, I think you sent the Ted video before. I watched it, but evidently did not absorb it. Maybe this time! Good stuff.

[Elizabeth]

Thanks Glen. Perhaps I need to do fewer strenuous workouts. At least for now. It really isn't in my nature, even at 67. I probably need to take a longer view and build my endurance more. I can go back to trying for PB's later. As I said, I'm on a learning curve. I tend to not use age as an excuse, but I suppose there is no point in denying that it has an effect.

Even for 20 year old elite athletes, research says doing a combination of long, low impact work plus a few hard session gives best results. Too much hard work doesn't help, it hurts. This isn't age getting you, it's a bad training plan.

Garmin sport watches caused a fuss when they started reporting hard workouts as "Unproductive: your training load is at a good level, but your fitness is decreasing. Your body may be struggling to recover, so you should pay attention to your overall health including stress, nutrition, and rest." What they meant is the user got enough hours of exercise, but did too many hard workouts with too little recovery time between workouts. People got upset "I worked really hard, it had to help". Nope, it didn't.

Net is do most of your work each week at a pace where you can talk conversationally, and also do 1 or 2 hard workouts. Here's a ted talk with an overview, post if you want more details. https://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_seile ... e_athletes

I've mainly been running Pete's Plan for several cycles now (sometimes running or cycling instead of steady state rowing on pretty spring days or when traveling, and typically running one 3-week cycle per month), and it has 3 hard workouts a week: speed intervals, endurance intervals, hard distance. A lot of running plans will have two quality workouts per week (e.g. tempo run, speed intervals), a long run, and then easier mileage/pace on other days.

I've been getting good results, and I feel like I'm recovering well as long as I stay under a certain running mileage - running seems to beat me up more than rowing. But I feel like this is commonly seen as too much hard workouts. I'm getting a little off topic from jvander's original post, but does the science say that this is more than ideal?

[Tsnor]

I've mainly been running Pete's Plan for several cycles now (sometimes running or cycling instead of steady state rowing on pretty spring days or when traveling, and typically running one 3-week cycle per month), and it has 3 hard workouts a week: speed intervals, endurance intervals, hard distance. A lot of running plans will have two quality workouts per week (e.g. tempo run, speed intervals), a long run, and then easier mileage/pace on other days.

I've been getting good results, and I feel like I'm recovering well as long as I stay under a certain running mileage - running seems to beat me up more than rowing. But I feel like this is commonly seen as too much hard workouts. I'm getting a little off topic from jvander's original post, but does the science say that this is more than ideal?

If you are doing BOTH (3 hard Pete Plan workouts a week) and (2 tempo or speed interval running sessions a week) then science says this is too much. Glad you are not seeing problems, they usually start after 4-6 months. Google "non-functional overreach" and "overtraining". Typical pattern is (1) several months of great results followed by (2) performance stagnation despite continuing or increasing workload and if you keep pushing it (3) burnout, rising resting heart, falling heart rate variability, getting sick all the time, etc.

One study I saw showed 2 hard workouts per week were great. 3 hard workouts had negligible gains over two hard workouts, but was a gain. 4 hard workouts had less benefit than 2 hard workouts. In studies of marathon runner race results, competitive times improved with both "total training hours" and "hours spent at UT2 (long/slow)" and actually got worse with "hours of training above UT2" (example, for runners doing 20 hours/week training the more time above UT2 the slower the competitive result). Other studies showed at least one day hard is much better than no hard work. Winning Olympic athletes training logs shows very little time is spend on very hard workouts (less than 10% by time, 20% by sessions with a 12 session per week average so 2.4 hard sessions/week), the rest is UT2 or below.

If you can get past the snarky delivery this cycling video compares the evidence for lots of long slow vs. sweet spot/tempo training. The studies referenced are in the video description if you want to look at them. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0n-nnRbFBs If you like podcasts (listen while you are rowing steady state) this site does a good job: https://www.velonews.com/training/fast- ... en-seiler/ there are several follow up podcasts.

Aside: the early "polarized" work claimed the training gain was from doing "hard workouts hard" and "long workouts slow" and "nothing in the middle". That is no longer considered true, the focus now is "majority of work long/slow/UT2" and "remaining work at any speed above UT2 as long as it is strenuous". The two to three hard workout max rule still applies.

[Elizabeth]

If you are doing BOTH (3 hard Pete Plan workouts a week) and (2 tempo or speed interval running sessions a week) then science says this is too much. Glad you are not seeing problems, they usually start after 4-6 months.

Oh gosh no, sorry about the confusion. Until last fall, a typical week for me would include a tempo run, one session of a track workout or hills, one long run, 3 easy runs, lifting a couple of times. I transitioned to indoor rowing as a primary activity in the fall. This last week has consistented of:
Sunday: hike, 6.3 mi with 2,230 ft elevation gain
Monday: 8x500m/3:30r
Tuesday: 8k steady state row, bench, cleans
Wednesday: 5x1500/5:00r
Thursday: 60 min steady state row
Friday: 10k hard row
Saturday: easy 5 mile run
I'm due for a rest day and will probably do an easy 1900m on the erg tomorrow for the Juneteenth challenge then call it a day.

It sounds like this has marginal gains over 2x hard sessions per week but isn't completely stupid - is that your understanding? I've been wondering if I'll hit a point where I need to pull back or incorporate periodization.

I'll definitely listen to those videos/podcasts - thank you!

[Tsnor]

If you are doing BOTH (3 hard Pete Plan workouts a week) and (2 tempo or speed interval running sessions a week) then science says this is too much. Glad you are not seeing problems, they usually start after 4-6 months.

Oh gosh no, sorry about the confusion. Until last fall, a typical week for me would include a tempo run, one session of a track workout or hills, one long run, 3 easy runs, lifting a couple of times. I transitioned to indoor rowing as a primary activity in the fall. This last week has consistented of:
Sunday: hike, 6.3 mi with 2,230 ft elevation gain
Monday: 8x500m/3:30r
Tuesday: 8k steady state row, bench, cleans
Wednesday: 5x1500/5:00r
Thursday: 60 min steady state row
Friday: 10k hard row
Saturday: easy 5 mile run
I'm due for a rest day and will probably do an easy 1900m on the erg tomorrow for the Juneteenth challenge then call it a day.

It sounds like this has marginal gains over 2x hard sessions per week but isn't completely stupid - is that your understanding? I've been wondering if I'll hit a point where I need to pull back or incorporate periodization.

I'll definitely listen to those videos/podcasts - thank you!

Super. That makes more sense. You are working hard Mon, Wed, Fri. Maybe also hard on Sunday too with the excellent (3 hour?) hike. Nearly 1/2 mile gain over 6 miles is quite hilly, you may be at tempo heart rate or higher.

At 9 hours of work a week you really need a plan. (someone doing 3 hours of work a week probably doesn't).

The two changes I'd suggest are
(1) move the strength work (bench, cleans) from Tuesday to one of your hard days. Better to stack the weight training on one of the hard days than on a long/slow or rest day. (Glad you are doing strength training, makes a big difference. Consider 2x a week, stacked on hard days.)
(2) find a way to get a scheduled rest day every week. Add a second when needed. Versus only resting when needed. Rest is when the body actually gets stronger. The workouts triggers the growth, the rest days and the long/slow days are when the body responds to the workout.

Progressive overload. Over time you'll gradually up the intensity on Mon, Wed, Friday by going harder. Up the intensity on Tues, Thursday by going longer. Looks like an excellent plan very supported by science. Glad you are aware of periodization. I do macro cycles (off season, base season, etc.). I don't do any small blocks, but understand they do work.

[jvander76]

I feel like a 2nd grader in an nuclear physics class.

[jvander76]

I guess that would be quantum physics...

[Elizabeth]

I guess that would be quantum physics...

I'm so sorry for diverting the thread! I think the main takeaway is that good training plans will include mostly easy days, some hard days, and rest days. You won't train your body to go slow by taking the easy days adequately easy.

Tsnor, you've given me a lot to think about and I appreciate it. My 7 year old was setting the pace for the hike so that kept my heart rate down. I may ask more questions in a better place for it.

[jvander76]

No problem Elizabeth. Nothing to be sorry about. I appreciate your input. This is as good a place as any to converse with Tsnor.

[Mike Caviston]

I think the main takeaway is that good training plans will include mostly easy days, some hard days, and rest days. You won't train your body to go slow by taking the easy days adequately easy.

Not trying to start any argument, but every time I see the word “easy” in reference to training it rubs me wrong. For context, my default setting regarding training is to think in terms of max performance and competition, so bear that in mind. General fitness enthusiasts or recreational athletes might disregard. But if you want to reach your full potential, or have a serious chance at getting on the podium – there is no easy training. If you want to stimulate adaptation you have to challenge your status quo, and push beyond your accustomed limits, so by definition training can’t be “easy” (without difficulty or effort). I absolutely subscribe to the model of training that limits high-intensity (i.e., close to 2K pace) to one or two sessions per week, with lots and lots of meters at lower intensities. So those slower longer workouts won’t be excruciating, exhausting, or soul-crushing. But there shouldn’t be any freebies or gimmees. Even the lower-intensity work should be challenging. The intensity you use should require proper use of pacing, nutrition, mental strategies, and all the other tricks of the trade that define competitive success. So what’s the right word? I’m not sure. “Doable”, “manageable”, or “achievable” all seem more appropriate than “easy”. As a coach I would never describe a workout as “easy”.

[GlennUk]

Even the lower-intensity work should be challenging. The intensity you use should require proper use of pacing, nutrition, mental strategies, and all the other tricks of the trade that define competitive success. So what’s the right word? I’m not sure. “Doable”, “manageable”, or “achievable” all seem more appropriate than “easy”. As a coach I would never describe a workout as “easy”.

Point taken, yesterdays sessions for me was 75mins 80% HRmax at 22-24spm, ideally 22, my pace falls out of that and based on previous similar sessions.

The tough bit for me is maintaining a particular pace consistently for longish periods without exceeding the HR threshold signfciantly and fluctuating pace/spm.

Physically in the sense of the watts i need to generate to achieve the objectives, it is 'easier' than sessions where i use higher HR %, however, improving my consistency in terms of pace, HR, spm it is still tough, as i need to improve my coordination, rhythm, control over HR by adjusting pace slightly to maintain within my parameters.

So 'easy', is imprecise, when in fact we mean 'different' perhaps.

For me, i can see improvements week to week as i get better (i.e. higher pace for a given HR/spm over a particular period) as my body adapts to the training effort.

[Elizabeth]

I appreciate what you're saying, Mike - words matter. And they mean different things to different people. The run I classified as "easy" was using terminology/pacing from the book Daniel's Running Formula, based on my estimated VO2max. It felt manageable and lower intensity than a faster pace would have. I'm not trying to argue, but today I'm going to tackle a high intensity session (speed pyramid) and it will also be manageable/doable, but hard and I expect that I'll be pushing at my limits by the end. There is absolutely a difference in intensity and purpose, but I'm not sure what words I'd use to best describe it without getting into things like heart rate zones.

It's funny seeing you here - I had old threads and PDFs about the Wolverine Plan pulled up last night to try to better understand it. Did you incorporate strength training, and if so, do you have anything describing how that would fit into a typical week of training?

[Tsnor]

... every time I see the word “easy” in reference to training it rubs me wrong.

Mike, How should we describe UT2 work on this forum so people don't work at too high an intensity? What should we tell them so they understand how UT2 should feel? They can't cross check with lactate measurements.

Do we agree a common fail for uncoached athletes who are trying to reach their full potential is doing too much at too high an intensity? People posting on this forum want to work hard to improve. Often they are just learning about modern training approaches and are working alone. UT2 at the prescribed heart rate feels TOO EASY, so people push to do just a little bit more so it won't be so EASY. They don't want EASY workouts, they want to make progress. UT2 sessions feel disturbingly EASY for athletes who are used to doing everything at 80% max HR or higher (which is what everybody does until they learn better).

(for those who don't know Mike : https://www.row2k.com/features/391/mike ... rd%20today.)