Grip it and Rip it

[mjhatten]

I'm 74 years old and I just like to row. I see all sorts of varied routines but the only thing that appeals to me is to row at my max for 30 minutes. I measure myself by the my average watts. I pick a number and try to exceed it. I pay attention to my heart rate and try to stay below 85% of my HRR (Karnoven method) I pretty much do the same challenge 3 or 4 times a week. It feels good and it's rewarding. My only competitor is me.

Am I the only one who works this way?

[Sakly]

If you don't focus on specific goals this is absolutely fine

You could think about going for all out intervals once per week if you are at full health as this provides beneficial hormone response.

[mitchel674]

Nothing wrong with that.

Personally, that would get boring for me. I prefer to mix up my rows with a combination of steady state pieces and different length intervals on different days.

[Autoland]

My routine is similar in that I usually try to stick with the fastest pace I think will get me to the finish while maintaining a constant stroke rate. Depending on how I feel in the 1st minute, I like to pick a pace slightly faster than last time.

The finish is typically 5k, 10k, 30min, 60min, half marathon, or something in between. I will on occasion throw in a shorter session or interval, but I don't prefer those, and they are few and far between.

I don't know my HRR and only have an estimate of my max HR, but I do pay close attention to HR. The only thing I look at more than HR is pace, which is how I measure my progress. The priority is to not allow my pace to drop off throughout the session, and to turn it up a notch towards the end. Negative splits keep my spirits up. And like you, my only competitor is myself.

Keep on gripping and ripping.

[walterpump]

I'm 74 years old and I just like to row. I see all sorts of varied routines but the only thing that appeals to me is to row at my max for 30 minutes. I measure myself by the my average watts. I pick a number and try to exceed it. I pay attention to my heart rate and try to stay below 85% of my HRR (Karnoven method) I pretty much do the same challenge 3 or 4 times a week. It feels good and it's rewarding. My only competitor is me.

Am I the only one who works this way?

I'm 81 mjhatten and just getting back into rowing after several years. Rowing on a Model A with PM-1 and enjoying it a lot. I do mostly row/rest at this time until I build up a bit. I too like to just row like you do, and also do some intervals to improve things like VO2 Max and speed.
Monday's row: 3012M @ 19spm, 3:03/500m, total time 19:27.
Cheers mate & keep on rowing.

[Tsnor]

..but the only thing that appeals to me is to row at my max for 30 minutes. ... I pretty much do the same challenge 3 or 4 times a week.

Am I the only one who works this way?

Your approach is best for working out 3 times a week, with a rest day between, for gaining strength, improving lung capacity, improving condition, lowering blood pressure, etc. All the good things that exercise brings.

For that 4th session, go for it, knowing that some studies show that 4th session is hurting your fitness rather than helping and that you'd better off not doing it.

In a move that caused riots, Garmin sport watches started flagging workouts like your 4th session a week as "Unproductive: your training load is at a good level, but your fitness is decreasing." Garmin is backed by science here, but nobody wanted their $400 watch to tell them that the same workout that was praised the day before was now "unproductive".

That said, seriously, if you enjoy that 4th session do it. You are still going to be so much more fit than the typical person of any age that you have the room to do a few unproductive things. That Garmin watch nags about "unproductive" workouts, think what it would say if it learned someone had a few beers after rowing.

(Sports scientists would tell you to replace the 4th session with a long walk, or 70% Heart rate long row. Thus all of the discussion of HR limited workouts.)

[Dangerscouse]

I'm 74 years old and I just like to row. I see all sorts of varied routines but the only thing that appeals to me is to row at my max for 30 minutes. I measure myself by the my average watts. I pick a number and try to exceed it. I pay attention to my heart rate and try to stay below 85% of my HRR (Karnoven method) I pretty much do the same challenge 3 or 4 times a week. It feels good and it's rewarding. My only competitor is me.

Am I the only one who works this way?

Imo if you can recover from it, keep doing it. There's arguably too many rules and guidance for exercise, but when all you want to do is grip and rip, and you can keep maintaining it, then what's not to like?

Personally I don't do it, as I've tried it and fairly quickly I plateaued and then regressed. It just doesn't work for everyone.

[jamesg]

Am I the only one who works this way?

Me too, but 30 minutes is more than I need or like. Usually 10, 15 sometimes 20' at about 120W (1.5W/kg), rate 20 for now. 82y 185cm and no problems save hips taking their time warming up.

[Gorow]

Mjhatten, you are in plenty of good company sticking to a standard workout. That was my style (M, age 60) when I starting erging again 4 years ago (ages after my college crew days). At first, a very simple erg routine, 3x/week, allowed me time for some basic strength training, injury prevention stuff, and other exercise. That all said, once I started comparing my times on the C2 rankings, and then competing on the erg, I wanted and needed to mix things up to improve (including high rate/intensity shorter intervals). If your goal it’s simple base aerobic fitness, and you don’t go “max” more than 3x/week, you will continue to be fitter than most.

[p_b82]

I don't enjoy interval training either - Flat out max effort stuff is nice for the endorphin rush, but the slower steady state I find more relaxing; generally speaking, I tend to mix it up between the two.

Do a month or so on the easier stuff, and then try my hand at my pb's & see if I can beat them for some variation.

I do look at the age group c2 rankings.. more for an understanding of how where I am relative to my peers; but I don't actually care about where I'm ranked. For me it's about beating myself - might change if I get better though!

[aussie nick]

..but the only thing that appeals to me is to row at my max for 30 minutes. ... I pretty much do the same challenge 3 or 4 times a week.

Am I the only one who works this way?

Your approach is best for working out 3 times a week, with a rest day between, for gaining strength, improving lung capacity, improving condition, lowering blood pressure, etc. All the good things that exercise brings.

For that 4th session, go for it, knowing that some studies show that 4th session is hurting your fitness rather than helping and that you'd better off not doing it.

In a move that caused riots, Garmin sport watches started flagging workouts like your 4th session a week as "Unproductive: your training load is at a good level, but your fitness is decreasing." Garmin is backed by science here, but nobody wanted their $400 watch to tell them that the same workout that was praised the day before was now "unproductive".

That said, seriously, if you enjoy that 4th session do it. You are still going to be so much more fit than the typical person of any age that you have the room to do a few unproductive things. That Garmin watch nags about "unproductive" workouts, think what it would say if it learned someone had a few beers after rowing.

(Sports scientists would tell you to replace the 4th session with a long walk, or 70% Heart rate long row. Thus all of the discussion of HR limited workouts.)

hmm, really interesting. And to confirm that this is because of the intensity of the workouts? ie if he was going hard for only 1 and then doing ut2/3 for the other two then a 4th would still be productive?

[Jerome]

I saw this explanation by a Reddit user:

Performance Condition If your heart rate is higher at a particular pace for your Garmin/FirstBeat calculated VO2 Max then you will have a negative Performance Condition. If your heart rate is lower at a particular pace for your Garmin/FirstBeat calculated VO2 Max then you will have a positive Performance Condition.

To maintain a Productive status you must be working out above your proximal Training Load while keeping positive Performance Conditions during workouts that calculate your VO2 Max.

Source: http://www.garmin.com.hk/minisite/runningscience/

According to the link it is an indication of overtraining, measured by vo2 max development.
I’m not well educated in sports physiology, but as far as I know vo2 max is an iffy indicator of performance and fitness.

Mid twenties I had my vo2 max tested at ~60. My training consisted of 3 tabatas a week, total time inc wu&cd approximately 1 hour per week

[JaapvanE]

According to the link it is an indication of overtraining, measured by vo2 max development.
I’m not well educated in sports physiology, but as far as I know vo2 max is an iffy indicator of performance and fitness.

It totally depends on how it is measured. The official lab test (actually measuring O2 uptake) is quite reliable, but something you don't want to do (it is a tough test as you need to reach MaxHR).

Some shortcuts have been devised, where most depend on the relation of a (sometimes estimated) training load and HR, which then gets projected onto a MaxHR. As most people don't know their MaxHR and finding that out is tough (as that is the toughest part of the labtest for patients), that is usually a guestimate, and so is the resulting VO2Max in an absolute sense (i.e. comparing to others).

That being said, it is a nice indicator to see if people are improving: it depicts the relation between effort and HR, which hopefully improves while training. So my current VO2Max of 45 might not mean much in comparison to your current VO2Max, but it is a good indicator for my improvement as it was 35 two years ago (measured the same way).

Mid twenties I had my vo2 max tested at ~60. My training consisted of 3 tabatas a week, total time inc wu&cd approximately 1 hour per week

Some trainings are very effective for some people. So that could be an outcome. More interesting, how has it progressed as VO2Max drops with age?

[Tsnor]

hmm, really interesting. And to confirm that this is because of the intensity of the workouts? ie if he was going hard for only 1 and then doing ut2/3 for the other two then a 4th would still be productive?

Yes, the science is based on "intensity of the workouts" not sure what causes the watch to report "unproductive".

The studies show that too much intensity with too little recovery yields worse results than a better mix.

The one commonly quoted study normalized the total exercise work done, then compared groups of trained cyclists doing 2, 3 and 4 days of intensity at the same total workout exercise done. The results were 2 day and 3 days were in a statistical dead heat (with 3 being slightly better), and that 4 days was worse than 2 or 3. (aside another study compared 0 days and 1 day of intensity and found that 0 intensity days per week is a bad idea even in off season.)

The studies were triggered by the discovery that winning Olympic athletes were doing less intensity than their non-winning peers. I find the conclusions from the training logs of the elite athletes more compelling than the studies, and am glad they say the same thing.
1. Results are positively correlated to total time spent training. Train more do better.
2. Too much time above UT2 (too much time in high intensity workouts) is Negatively correlated with performance. Winners did less work above UT2 than losers. Athletes who train the same amount as others, but do less above UT2 do better.
3. Results apply to "endurance" sports that have a duration roughly > 3 mins. Clearly applies to 2K row, not clear that the same approach is best for say a 500m attempt. Compare the training of two elite rowers here ... Alex F trains differently than Cam. And I doubt Brian Shaw's training has much UT2 work in it, but for 100M rowing he is very strong.
4. Results apply across running (400M through marathon), cycling, nordic skiing, etc. Same training log analysis results, same research study results.

Separately, the claim has been made by Seiler that 4-5 hours training a week is the past the crossover point where you get measurable benefit from forcing some training under UT2 vs "Grip it and Rip it" (neat phrase !).

Finally all this is about marginal gains comparing people who work out at the same level. Someone using "Grip it and Rip it" is absolutely much better off than someone using "coach potato".

[aussie nick]

hmm, really interesting. And to confirm that this is because of the intensity of the workouts? ie if he was going hard for only 1 and then doing ut2/3 for the other two then a 4th would still be productive?

Yes, the science is based on "intensity of the workouts" not sure what causes the watch to report "unproductive".

The studies show that too much intensity with too little recovery yields worse results than a better mix.

The one commonly quoted study normalized the total exercise work done, then compared groups of trained cyclists doing 2, 3 and 4 days of intensity at the same total workout exercise done. The results were 2 day and 3 days were in a statistical dead heat (with 3 being slightly better), and that 4 days was worse than 2 or 3. (aside another study compared 0 days and 1 day of intensity and found that 0 intensity days per week is a bad idea even in off season.)

The studies were triggered by the discovery that winning Olympic athletes were doing less intensity than their non-winning peers. I find the conclusions from the training logs of the elite athletes more compelling than the studies, and am glad they say the same thing.
1. Results are positively correlated to total time spent training. Train more do better.
2. Too much time above UT2 (too much time in high intensity workouts) is Negatively correlated with performance. Winners did less work above UT2 than losers. Athletes who train the same amount as others, but do less above UT2 do better.
3. Results apply to "endurance" sports that have a duration roughly > 3 mins. Clearly applies to 2K row, not clear that the same approach is best for say a 500m attempt. Compare the training of two elite rowers here ... Alex F trains differently than Cam. And I doubt Brian Shaw's training has much UT2 work in it, but for 100M rowing he is very strong.
4. Results apply across running (400M through marathon), cycling, nordic skiing, etc. Same training log analysis results, same research study results.

Separately, the claim has been made by Seiler that 4-5 hours training a week is the past the crossover point where you get measurable benefit from forcing some training under UT2 vs "Grip it and Rip it" (neat phrase !).

Finally all this is about marginal gains comparing people who work out at the same level. Someone using "Grip it and Rip it" is absolutely much better off than someone using "coach potato".

thanks for the detailed response and vv interesting & useful