Drop off in 2k performance when targeting longer stuff

[hikeplusrow]

I'm currently training for another HM by doing longer UT2 pieces and continuous work between 5k and 14k at faster than target pace. Right now, I couldn't get even close to my best 2k. My question is, when training for longer stuff, do you guys attempt to maintain a reasonable 2k capability or just accept that your 2k is going to suffer significantly?

[ShortAndStout]

One thing I've heard is that the metabolic adaptation that TR workouts provide are short-term (think a few weeks or months) and have diminishing returns past that same timeframe. This is why they don't recommend doing 2x or more transport workouts a week, for example, only like some very small percent until you get into race season, at which point you use it to tighten up your time.

What's may have happened, esp if you're now training UT2 (and haven't before?), is that those aerobic adaptations you're making are taking over and, for lack of a better word, replacing the fast-twitch you've developed. This is a good thing - it means your aerobic base is being built and your metabolism is changing as a result. If you want to go back to that time you just need to throw in more very-intense speed work and ensure you get adequate rest.

[jcross485]

I'm currently training for another HM by doing longer UT2 pieces and continuous work between 5k and 14k at faster than target pace. Right now, I couldn't get even close to my best 2k. My question is, when training for longer stuff, do you guys attempt to maintain a reasonable 2k capability or just accept that your 2k is going to suffer significantly?

I personally have never trained specifically for 2k performance; I've always been interested in the longer duration stuff. That said, based on some of the equivalency calculators I've seen, my distance paces and times show that I should be able to hit a faster 2k than I know I am capable of - I attribute this to a lack of specificity or a lack of high intensity work within training. My "intensity" is more along the lines of tempo, sweet spot, or threshold work.

I mention all of this because, I do believe if you are going to chase a goal like the best HM, FM, 50k, 100k or other distance performance you can put up, you're going to lose some of the specific fitness that would get you your best 2k. Fitness is fitness but there is also something to be said for specificity. You might not be capable of both a personal best 2k and HM at the same time, but developing a fast HM will give you a big base of aerobic fitness to build a fast 2k on with more focused intensity. Similarly, if you develop a fast 2k, you will have a lot of power and speed in which you can slowly add volume to build more aerobic capacity and endurance to have a good HM.

I would look at it as though, while your 2k might not be there now, you have built up the base and potential to throw one down much faster than before after a bit of specificity.

I personally don't know which way is best - distance to power/speed or power/speed to distance - but I can see either way working. When you look at other endurance type sports, generally speaking, athletes will work from least specific to most specific when it comes to prepping for an event, but will go from shorter duration events to longer duration events over the course of their career.

[Dangerscouse]

I have always made sure to do a variety of sessions, even if this is only a semi-hard / hard distance rather than short sharper intervals as it's important to keep both going.

When you say faster than target pace, how fast do you mean? If you're noticing that your 2k is suffering, I'd suggest that you have to focus on this side of performance too as it will help with your HM too.

As an example I set a HM PB near the end of my ultra distance training for my 12hr session and IIRC, I also made sure to do 30r20 / 2k / 5k / 10k etc

It's a common mistake to think that to get better at something you need to do more and more of that specific thing, at the exclusion of other sessions, but there's a considerable amount of overlap that needs to be exploited.

[KeithT]

I think there will always bee drop in performance on distances you aren't targeting. As others have stated it's best to have some variety but if you are focusing on one distance or short vs. long there will be a drop in the other. For this reason I try to keep varied but when I have prepared for some competitions or TTs I have done more focused training and noticed the other distances suffered some when I went back to them.

[nick rockliff]

When I first started it was all about racing (on the erg) and mainly the 2k. The season started in September and ended in April with Eddie Fletchers Evesham Golden Mile in July right in the middle of the base training period.

All your base work would be May to about 4 or 5 weeks before the first race. Then it would turn to race pace work and speed sessions.

All the base for me would have been UT2, UT1 and AT sessions with no speed work at all. During the racing session it would be all about keeping fitness at a peak which is not easy.

So, first you need to know why you are training. Is it for general fitness and wellbeing or is it that you have a specific goal?

[hikeplusrow]

Thanks for the replies. I suppose it's all about specificity - you can't really have your cake and eat it. I train using watts, and my faster stuff for the HM tends to be continuous pieces at target wattage + 5-15 watts depending on the distance. I occasionally do a session of 7 x 1k with 2r at target wattage + 20 watts. Apologies for the watt talk - I realise most people work to HR. Cheers.

[jamesg]

maintain a reasonable 2k capability or just accept that your 2k is going to suffer significantly?

Probably best to do it the other way round, distance first, since distance needs strength, technique and endurance: basic training.

But 2k and shorter want endurance and also speed, so can go high rate anaerobic, which is trained last; and not sustainable long term.

[Elizabeth]

Thanks for the replies. I suppose it's all about specificity - you can't really have your cake and eat it. I train using watts, and my faster stuff for the HM tends to be continuous pieces at target wattage + 5-15 watts depending on the distance. I occasionally do a session of 7 x 1k with 2r at target wattage + 20 watts. Apologies for the watt talk - I realise most people work to HR. Cheers.

Target wattage meaning half marathon target? I would think that HM training would benefit from some work closer to one's anaerobic threshold, but don't know enough around the science behind it.

I train to HR for easy/medium work and to pace for anything hard. Watts is basically pace, just with different numbers. I think this is pretty common.

[jcross485]

Target wattage meaning half marathon target? I would think that HM training would benefit from some work closer to one's anaerobic threshold, but don't know enough around the science behind it.

I train to HR for easy/medium work and to pace for anything hard. Watts is basically pace, just with different numbers. I think this is pretty common.

You are certainly more experienced and accomplished on the erg than I but this is the conclusion I am coming to myself not just with rowing but other endurance modalities. Take what the day gives you when it comes to base work so that you can target the aerobic system, the main point of base work. Then, on the "hard days", target a goal pace / power to help drive the top end performance, the main point of the hard work.

[hikeplusrow]

Yes, target wattage is HM target. I agree that watts and pace are really the same thing - you're just chasing a number.

[Elizabeth]

Target wattage meaning half marathon target? I would think that HM training would benefit from some work closer to one's anaerobic threshold, but don't know enough around the science behind it.

I train to HR for easy/medium work and to pace for anything hard. Watts is basically pace, just with different numbers. I think this is pretty common.

You are certainly more experienced and accomplished on the erg than I but this is the conclusion I am coming to myself not just with rowing but other endurance modalities. Take what the day gives you when it comes to base work so that you can target the aerobic system, the main point of base work. Then, on the "hard days", target a goal pace / power to help drive the top end performance, the main point of the hard work.

Exactly. I don't quite understand the charts that lay out heart rates for harder work (beyond UT2/UT1 or whatever model you're using) -- an all-out 5k or 30r20 will have me hitting max or close to it, while something like 8x500m isn't really long enough to let it hit that before the next rest comes.

I set an AG marathon world record with essentially no work at marathon pace. It was mainly steady state, work at ballpark 5k pace, work at ballpark 2k pace, strength training. I would probably approach it differently if doing it again, but I personally like keeping some faster work in there.

[Cyclingman1]

I set an AG marathon world record with essentially no work at marathon pace. It was mainly steady state, work at ballpark 5k pace, work at ballpark 2k pace, strength training.

That is not surprising at all to me. Yes, when one wants to do well at distance, obviously some longer rows are necessary to get the body used to the time, if nothing else. But nothing beats tuning the CV system to a peak level. When I get my Ferrari serviced , I don't say test it out by driving 50 MPH to Timbuktu. No, I want the car screeching around corners and able to accelerate and maintain a high speed. Same with the body. Training at lactate threshold is what it is all about, that is, near race pace 2Ks and 5Ks. Backing off to a marathon pace is then a piece of cake. Those who do not push the anaerobic threshold up will have to operate at a higher percentage of peak capacity and tire far more quickly. I don't concern myself with the details of UTx,AT,TR,AN rows. I do slow distance, LT, and some pure anaerobic rows.

[jcross485]

Exactly. I don't quite understand the charts that lay out heart rates for harder work (beyond UT2/UT1 or whatever model you're using) -- an all-out 5k or 30r20 will have me hitting max or close to it, while something like 8x500m isn't really long enough to let it hit that before the next rest comes.

I set an AG marathon world record with essentially no work at marathon pace. It was mainly steady state, work at ballpark 5k pace, work at ballpark 2k pace, strength training. I would probably approach it differently if doing it again, but I personally like keeping some faster work in there.

Definitely an interesting approach but one that clearly works! I am working towards that FM / 50k effort towards the end of the year and am targeting a lot of steady state with some work between 5k and HM pace but nothing specific to marathon pace, although I'm willing to bet pace for the FM / 50k will end up being close to my steady state work.

[nick rockliff]

Thanks for the replies. I suppose it's all about specificity - you can't really have your cake and eat it. I train using watts, and my faster stuff for the HM tends to be continuous pieces at target wattage + 5-15 watts depending on the distance. I occasionally do a session of 7 x 1k with 2r at target wattage + 20 watts. Apologies for the watt talk - I realise most people work to HR. Cheers.

You can have your cake and eat it but your recipe needs to be sound. My HM and 2k PBs were done within six weeks of each other. Both off the back of base work of UT2, UT1 and AT.

The important part is then transitioning the base work into pace/rate work. My HM pace rate was 1.45.8 r26 and 2k 1.34.1 r31. You need three or four weeks to get used to those combinations, they are both very different to what I would have been doing for base work.