16k/60mins - strength training advice

[Cricketbat]

Hello; please help with advice re: strength training.

I’m aiming for a 16k/60 mins sometime this year. Started C2 again last year; can’t quite reach my late-20s times but since starting again have managed 17.59/5k and 8133/30mins. This year I’ve done a 2.54 marathon and 15725/60mins. But my 100m and 1000m times are relatively much slower. Can’t see that I can improve aerobic capacity that much more (or at least not by the 275m needed, given age, full time job, etc) so I think I need to build muscular strength/power and I’d appreciate help with what weights sessions to do at home. Have dumbbells only (!) and a low boredom threshold. I can run/row to exhaustion but lack determination with weights. Was thinking x2 per week.

Any advice of home-based exercises, sets, reps, how heavy, etc, all gratefully received. Thank you
Neil


46, 1.81m, 80kg
Recent times (2022 onwards): 100m 18.9 | 1k 3:17.4 | 5k 17:58.9 | 30' 8,133m | 60' 15,725m | 42,195m 2:54:58
Historic times (mid-2000s): 2k 6:41.9 | 5k 17:50.1 | 30' 8,269m | 10k 37.07 | 60' 15,910m

[Sakly]

Hi, I think you are going into wrong direction, if you add weights to reach your 16k goal. This is mainly (if not all) related to your cardio capabilities, not strength. Strength will help to get better at shorter sprint distances, I believe there it is very helpful.

I would add the time you would spend on training to go for two more rows at slow speed. If you can spend another two hours this will help much more for your goal.
Your age should not be a problem. I started a year ago and at 42 years old I improved so much on the longer distances, but I am not stronger than a year ago (doing 3 gym sessions/week).

[Rod]

.

Hi Cricketbat,

I set the British record for 60-69 Lwt men for the hour 3 years ago (aged 62) with 16011 metres and found that it was the aerobic work that I did that helped me not the weights so would caution aginst going down the route of thinking they are what's going to get you there because I certainly think that they are not.

https://www.concept2.co.uk/indoor-rower ... rm#results

Here's an article I wrote about training soon after, maybe it will give you some ideas?

Good luck with it though...I'm sure you can do it given your other performances so far.

How to go about training to improve your rowing is a commonly asked question so I wrote an article on the subject that I can copy onto here when it crops up so here it is…hope it helps.

I think the best way to approach any training plan is to make sure you start by building a good Aerobic Base as the benefits of doing that are huge.

To give an image of that….You can jump higher from a platform than you can from the flat of the floor…and rowing without a good aerobic base is like trying to jump from the floor…not the platform.

For long term, sustainable progress then you really do need to do a large volume of base building endurance and aerobic development rows under 70% of maximum heart rate type training.

This is known as the ‘’ UT2’’ heart rate training zone.(Google that for some good info).

When you add interval sessions into the mix you'll see greater results than if you only did the interval sessions with no longer stuff to ''back it up''.(as I often bang on about!)

Interval sessions can improve your speed and fitness over a short period but if you do them (or hard paced distance sessions) for too long you'll plateau and possibly 'burn out’ as you could suffer ‘’over training syndrome’’

The endurance base will improve your rowing times over all distances.

A few weeks peaking for a race with interval sessions is one thing but for the bigger picture you need to build your fitness up from a solid endurance base which involves plenty of long (20 - 30 minutes or more) slow rows at 18 to 20 spm to help improve power in the stroke, slide control plus overall technique...and by slow I mean between 55 - 70% of your maximum heart rate.

If for example your maximum is 180 then 70% would be 126 bpm and you’d need to stay under that at all times during the row….if it looks like you’re going over then slow down….don’t worry about the pace it’s the heart rate that’s important.

If you put ‘’Maffetone Training’’ into Google a lot of good information on this will come up and also google ‘’ ‘’building a good Aerobic Base’’ as there’s plenty showing it’s the way to go.

Training stimulates the body into adapting…. And Adaptation happens on rest days and slow days. That’s when the body has chance to recover and grow. This is when improvements take place.

Going hard at it every day merely breaks the body down, doesn’t have time to adapt, never heals and you can easily get injured so don’t go too fast too often. (Twice a week is plenty and only then if properly fit).

Over time as you go on with this your pace will improve but your Heart Rate will not go any higher so you can enjoy watching progress because the heart is working as the same rate but more efficient at oxygen transportation.

This slow aerobic rowing helps the heart adapt over time.

In this aerobic state the body is happily supplied with enough oxygen to get around the body to the muscles however, it likes to become more efficient at doing it so the heart adapts the left side by stretching the wall.

Each beat of the heart now allows more blood into the left side and in turn, pumps more blood and oxygen around the body on each beat.

It also means that the threshold of when your body goes into a state of oxygen debt is raised and thus you’re able to push harder and improve race times.

This training stimulates many physical changes which drive the improvements, some good examples are;

1) Your small blood vessels (capillaries) open up and grow more to the areas of highest oxygen demand so they can deliver more oxygen to your muscles and carry away waste products such as carbon dioxide and lactic acid.

2) Mitochondria (Energy boosters) in the muscles will multiply and you'll improve the body’s efficiency at burning fat for fuel. Your heart will become stronger and more efficient plus you'll have a lot more energy.

If you do around 80% of your training like this with the remaining 20% faster (such as interval sessions) you’ll have a good chance of improving your rowing over all distances.
3) To summarise…. Training in UT2 uses more fatty acids as fuel for the muscles & enhances the physiological adaptations of capillary growth & mitochondrial replication, so it will long term aid your efficiency.

Another good source of info is ‘’Polarised Training’’ by Steven Seiler so would suggest a Google search on that too plus plenty of good videos on Youtube about improving your rowing/stroke rate/aerobic development.

[Tsnor]

You want 1 day/week of strength work independent of your rowing targets. Bone density, etc. So good you are planning to do this. Do a max of 3 days, more is not better.

As said above (by National Champions !) 60 minutes is almost all aerobic.

You mainly grow aerobic by hours/week of long/slow work. You need hours/week, the more time spent at low effort levels the greater the aerobic gains.

Oddly, studies of marathon runners show that marathon performance scales with hours of long/slow, but does not scale with hours spent working out above long/slow pace. You need to understand long/slow training (zone 2 of 5, below LT1 - first lactate threshold, below VT1 - first ventilatory threshold) to optimally build

Here is a TED talk that might help. https://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_seile ... e_athletes

Here is a pointer to the current world record holder for 5K and 10K speed skating. He spends all his time cycling to build his aerobic engine, then uses massive aerobic capacity to win. https://www.nbcolympics.com/news/bikes- ... er-10k-win

[Spinal]

Pushing back a little against some of the posts in this thread..... I would caution against fixating on an ideal training distribution / heart rate zone or strictly following what worked for someone else.

https://www.outsideonline.com/health/tr ... ng-debate/


If you feel that a lack of power is holding you back then incorporating some strength training might improve your performance...... You won't know until you try it out

[Dangerscouse]

Pushing back a little against some of the posts in this thread..... I would caution against fixating on an ideal training distribution / heart rate zone or strictly following what worked for someone else.

https://www.outsideonline.com/health/tr ... ng-debate/


If you feel that a lack of power is holding you back then incorporating some strength training might improve your performance...... You won't know until you try it out

I'm in agreement with this, and I do have a healthy amount of scepticism with slavishly following the accepted wisdom.

There are far too many variables to account for to apply a standard set of options. Approach everything with the thought "I might be wrong" and always assess, evaluate and, if needed, realign.

[Tsnor]

Pushing back a little against some of the posts in this thread....
https://www.outsideonline.com/health/tr ... ng-debate/

The article strongly supports a long/slow training approach. It says

1. Polarized works

2. Pyramid works, and it is not a polarized protocol. <Pyramid is another 80-90% long slow plus 2 days/week of intensity protocols. Pyramid differs from polarized in that the intensity work is mainly between LT1 and LT2 rather than above LT2. But it is also a long/slow (below LT1) centric protocol.> Example polarized vs pyramid distributions "POL competed 84.5%/4.2%/11.3% and PYR 77.9%/18.8%/3.3% of total training time for zones 1,2 and 3 respectively. " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6873141/

3. Nils van der Poel's training is not polarized and it works. Nils van der Poel is the poster child for building aerobic base as the key contributor to an event that takes him <15 minutes to complete, well less than an hour. His self published plan is online, here is a quote from one article about it "He called his training simple yet robust. For example, a week in his "aerobic season" includes six hours of biking Monday-Thursday, a 10,000-meter speed skating session on Friday and two rest days. The gold medalist claimed to have skated more laps than his opponents while doing less high intensity training leading up to the Olympics. He also stressed the importance of rest to maintain a healthy body and mindset. " https://www.sportsengine.com/olympics/b ... -after-10k

Agree strongly that people should do the workouts that they feel will work, and/or are most fun for them. Also agree strongly that people should incorporate strength training in whatever workout they do, especially as they become masters athletes.

OP's request was for a strength plan to improve his 60 min rowing performance. OP felt he had max'ed his aerobic performance. Encouraging OP to follow strength training to meet his goals should be coupled with some belief it will get him there. Most evidence points to OP *not* having maxed his aerobic, and shows the best way to improve 60 minute performance is by building aerobic base. You will find evidence that strength training helps build aerobic base when coupled with a strong aerobic training plan. I don't think there is evidence that strength training will substitute for an aerobic base plan.

[Spinal]

Pushing back a little against some of the posts in this thread....
https://www.outsideonline.com/health/tr ... ng-debate/

The article strongly supports a long/slow training approach. It says

1. Polarized works. (The original 3 zone or the newly adopted 2 zone with tempo, sweetspot and threshold incorporated )

2. Pyramid works, and it is not a polarized protocol. <Pyramid is another 80-90% long slow plus 2 days/week of intensity protocols. Pyramid differs from polarized in that the intensity work is mainly between LT1 and LT2 rather than above LT2. But it is also a long/slow (below LT1) centric protocol.> Example polarized vs pyramid distributions "POL competed 84.5%/4.2%/11.3% and PYR 77.9%/18.8%/3.3% of total training time for zones 1,2 and 3 respectively. " https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6873141/

3. Nils van der Poel's training is not polarized and it works. Nils van der Poel is the poster child for building aerobic base as the key contributor to an event that takes him <15 minutes to complete, well less than an hour. His self published plan is online, here is a quote from one article about it "He called his training simple yet robust. Fexample, a week in his "aerobic season" includes six hours of biking Monday-Thursday, a 10,000-meter speed skating session on Friday and two rest days. The gold medalist claimed to have skated more laps than his opponents while doing less high intensity training leading up to the Olympics. He also stressed the importance of rest to maintain a healthy body and mindset. " https://www.sportsengine.com/olympics/b ... -after-10k

Agree strongly that people should do the workouts that they feel will work, and/or are most fun for them. Also agree strongly that people should incorporate strength training in whatever workout they do, especially as they become masters athletes.

OP's request was for a strength plan to improve his 60 min rowing performance. OP felt he had max'ed his aerobic performance. Encouraging OP to follow strength training to meet his goals should be coupled with some belief it will get him there. Most evidence points to OP *not* having maxed his aerobic, and shows the best way to improve 60 minute performance is by building aerobic base. You will find evidence that strength training helps build aerobic base when coupled with a strong aerobic training plan. I don't think there is evidence that strength training will substitute for an aerobic base plan.

The OP has fitness and endurance but feels he is lacking muscular strength, however rather than give him direction for some strength training he has been told to do more low aerobic rowing.

Low HR steady state seems to be thrown out as the default answer to every question.

[Tsnor]

The OP has fitness and endurance but feels he is lacking muscular strength, however rather than give him direction for some strength training he has been told to do more low aerobic rowing.

Low HR steady state seems to be thrown out as the default answer to every question.

Do you think it's the wrong answer here ?

For anyone doing less than 4 workouts a week low HR steady state is the wrong answer. Think you will find that posted everywhere on this forum. There are also some threads like "Training To Break 1:14 - 500m" thread and "Low Pull Technique ? Workouts ?" where Low HR steady state is not in play.

Both science and tracked elite athlete training seems to point hard at Low HR steady state for people doing endurance sports and working out enough that overreach is a consideration.

If OP asked about strength training in general for rowing the thread would be very different. OP asked about strength training to improve 60 minute power.

[Mike Caviston]

Low HR steady state seems to be thrown out as the default answer to every question.

It does seem to be, here and on other rowing forums (Rowing Illustrated; Reddit). Pity.

Do you think it's the wrong answer here?

I'm not Spinal, but I think so as it is in any situation where the athlete is looking for advanced performance, not just general health and fitness.

Both science and tracked elite athlete training seems to point hard at Low HR steady state for people doing endurance sports and working out enough that overreach is a consideration.

Saying this over and over doesn't make it true. The "science" and the "tracking" of athletes is fuzzy enough that you can squint and see whatever you want. Making a vague statement that "studies show" what works for marathon runners or referencing a single speed skater aren't proof, especially for rowers. Everyone can express an opinion, but that doesn't make it "science".

[Sakly]

To defend myself, I wrote this tip based on my own experience over the past year.
I started erging Jan last year and my first serious 60min was 15527 meters. This was not at the beginning, but after some month. Two weeks ago I made a 60min mid intense steady state session and reached 15630m with 6 spm less and heart rate average 15 bpm lower than my PB.
I average ~4 to 4 1/2 hours/55-60k on the rower per week with nearly all low intensity work (what means heart rate of 70-80% of max, decided by feel/RPE typically). Very few high intensity session, probably 1 in two weeks.
But I combine it with 3 gym sessions/week, which are quite intense. My strength level has not changed the last year (at least not in a way, that I could clearly note that), so the much better results must relate to much better cv performance build up over the last year.

[Spinal]

To defend myself, I wrote this tip based on my own experience over the past year.
I started erging Jan last year and my first serious 60min was 15527 meters. This was not at the beginning, but after some month. Two weeks ago I made a 60min mid intense steady state session and reached 15630m with 6 spm less and heart rate average 15 bpm lower than my PB.
I average ~4 to 4 1/2 hours/55-60k on the rower per week with nearly all low intensity work (what means heart rate of 70-80% of max, decided by feel/RPE typically). Very few high intensity session, probably 1 in two weeks.
But I combine it with 3 gym sessions/week, which are quite intense. My strength level has not changed the last year (at least not in a way, that I could clearly note that), so the much better results must relate to much better cv performance build up over the last year.

I didn't mean to offend if it came across that way..... but tbh you are a great example of someone who combines strength and aerobic training with amazing results to show for it.

[Sakly]

To defend myself, I wrote this tip based on my own experience over the past year.
I started erging Jan last year and my first serious 60min was 15527 meters. This was not at the beginning, but after some month. Two weeks ago I made a 60min mid intense steady state session and reached 15630m with 6 spm less and heart rate average 15 bpm lower than my PB.
I average ~4 to 4 1/2 hours/55-60k on the rower per week with nearly all low intensity work (what means heart rate of 70-80% of max, decided by feel/RPE typically). Very few high intensity session, probably 1 in two weeks.
But I combine it with 3 gym sessions/week, which are quite intense. My strength level has not changed the last year (at least not in a way, that I could clearly note that), so the much better results must relate to much better cv performance build up over the last year.

I didn't mean to offend if it came across that way..... but tbh you are a great example of someone who combines strength and aerobic training with amazing results to show for it.

Not at all, but I wanted to make clear why I recommended to add more slow work on the rower and not adding strength training, so made the same recommendation could be read everywhere else (which was criticised in a general way).
I do not state that strength training does not help for rowing. I only say, that I am convinced that for the mentioned specific goal I think more slow work on the rower will help much more than strength training (in the classic way of programming - reps and sets with more or less heavy weights).
My training regime could be described more as a pyramidal training. Base is the slow work on the rower, mid intensity done by my 3 gym sessions, which consist of many intervals and circle trainings with bodyweight exercises with different intensity levels and very few reps and sets of heavy weight exercises (squats and deadlifts) and high intensity work is done at gym sessions or rower, based/aligned on current challenges and gym training plans.
This adds up to 7-9 sessions/week, ~4h rowing, ~4 1/2h gym training (excluding warmup, only training part).

PS: when I talk about slow work, this means not "hardly work at all". I think even slow work has to be work, but in a way that you can quickly recover from it. I found that the 80% heart rate max rule combined with RPE is sufficient for me to reach this goal. This might be different for others.

[Dangerscouse]

PS: when I talk about slow work, this means not "hardly work at all". I think even slow work has to be work, but in a way that you can quickly recover from it. I found that the 80% heart rate max rule combined with RPE is sufficient for me to reach this goal. This might be different for others.

Imo this is the exact point that is lost in translation. You have a great grasp on what is working, and you're not afraid to increase the pace and effort, and also back off when it's not working.

[nick rockliff]

When I started taking the erg more seriously in 2003, my start point on 22 May 03 was a 6.59 2K. By the time I got to the end of the season 29th April 04 my 2k was 6.28, 5k 16.57, 10k 35.24, 30 min 8449.

No weights, no HR monitoring and 2 to 4, 1 hour session per week at the local gym. Just hard work every session. Age 46.