Diminishing returns on UT2 / general SS work in one session

[hikeplusrow]

Five!

I've never been a triathlete or even a "competitive runner" but I've spent some time on long drives recently digging into the so-called Norwegian Method of training that a lot of triathletes are using as well as the methods of the Ingebrigtsen's in their running.

The one thing that has to be noted with respect to these methods is that they are heavily controlled by lactate measurements which most won't have access to or be able to do consistently but you can still get a rough idea of the training.

While most high level triathletes are training 2+ times per day to make sure they are hitting all disciplines, one of the things that stood out specifically with the Ingebrigtsen's training (exclusively running), is that they supposedly do a lot of doubles, both their intense / workout days as well as their "easy" days.

They are doing a lot of controlled workouts / intervals on short rest, right around lactate threshold (60 min max; AT in rowing speak) as opposed to pushing for race pace or beyond (one session a week, max) and their "easy" are doubles instead of a single session - something like 8k-12k in the morning and another 8k-12k later in the day. One day a week they might have a longer session where the put all volume in one as opposed to two runs but that is limited to one day a week.

With the workouts, they are splitting the sessions into doubles and controlling intensity so they can do more overall work. On the surface, a lot of controlled lactate threshold work doesn't appear as though it would improve performance in the events that they are competing in as their events are much shorter and faster, but clearly its working.

I also think the common perception is that a 16-24k session would bring more positive adaptations, especially when it comes to the aerobic system, but they are splitting total volume into more manageable chunks. I would presume they are able to run these easy sessions at a slightly quicker pace than if they did it in one go. I would have to assume that if they saw more benefit by doing all of the work in one session as opposed to two, they would do so, as they are at the tip of the spear when it comes to their sport. They are, however, doing this as professionals and everything revolves around training.

Clearly running and rowing are different sports with a lot of things that need to be considered with respect to training for certain events; however, the Ingebrigtsen's (Jakob) are training for events in time domains that are in the same realm as the more popular rowing events - 1500m up to 5k, or roughly 3:30 up to 14:00 or so. A wide range, but the 2k rowing event falls somewhere in the middle.

I mention all of this to come back to diminishing returns of UT2 / SS work in rowing. If one had the ability to hop on an erg twice a day, I would probably try doing the total volume I wanted to hit split into two sessions but at a bit higher intensity than if I crammed all of the volume into one session. These numbers are just to illustrate the point and not necessarily 100% reflective of what it would look like - I would try to do say 8k in the morning targeting 200w with the same in the afternoon whereas a normal UT2 / SS session might be 15-16k closer to 180w. Unfortunately, "life" dictates that I and a lot of others can train once a day so we end up trying to get the overall volume in which means a slightly lower intensity.

Double sessions are common among elite performers in running, swimming and rowing. Less so in cycling, it seems. I trialled double running sessions in my 20s, and found I was permanently exhausted, almost irrespective of the intensity of the sessions. As a result, I quickly returned to once a day training. I often do doubles now, but only in different activities - I'd never do two erg sessions in a day, unless I wanted to feel very washed out very quickly. I'm certainly not convinced by the argument that says two 30 minute erg sessions (AM and PM) are easier to recover from than a single 60 minute session completed at the same intensity. The sessions may be half as long, but you have half the recovery time between sessions - it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Twice a day training in the same activity risks a considerable build up of residual tiredness, unless you've adapted to it over years and years.

[nick rockliff]

Five!

I've never been a triathlete or even a "competitive runner" but I've spent some time on long drives recently digging into the so-called Norwegian Method of training that a lot of triathletes are using as well as the methods of the Ingebrigtsen's in their running.

The one thing that has to be noted with respect to these methods is that they are heavily controlled by lactate measurements which most won't have access to or be able to do consistently but you can still get a rough idea of the training.

While most high level triathletes are training 2+ times per day to make sure they are hitting all disciplines, one of the things that stood out specifically with the Ingebrigtsen's training (exclusively running), is that they supposedly do a lot of doubles, both their intense / workout days as well as their "easy" days.

They are doing a lot of controlled workouts / intervals on short rest, right around lactate threshold (60 min max; AT in rowing speak) as opposed to pushing for race pace or beyond (one session a week, max) and their "easy" are doubles instead of a single session - something like 8k-12k in the morning and another 8k-12k later in the day. One day a week they might have a longer session where the put all volume in one as opposed to two runs but that is limited to one day a week.

With the workouts, they are splitting the sessions into doubles and controlling intensity so they can do more overall work. On the surface, a lot of controlled lactate threshold work doesn't appear as though it would improve performance in the events that they are competing in as their events are much shorter and faster, but clearly its working.

I also think the common perception is that a 16-24k session would bring more positive adaptations, especially when it comes to the aerobic system, but they are splitting total volume into more manageable chunks. I would presume they are able to run these easy sessions at a slightly quicker pace than if they did it in one go. I would have to assume that if they saw more benefit by doing all of the work in one session as opposed to two, they would do so, as they are at the tip of the spear when it comes to their sport. They are, however, doing this as professionals and everything revolves around training.

Clearly running and rowing are different sports with a lot of things that need to be considered with respect to training for certain events; however, the Ingebrigtsen's (Jakob) are training for events in time domains that are in the same realm as the more popular rowing events - 1500m up to 5k, or roughly 3:30 up to 14:00 or so. A wide range, but the 2k rowing event falls somewhere in the middle.

I mention all of this to come back to diminishing returns of UT2 / SS work in rowing. If one had the ability to hop on an erg twice a day, I would probably try doing the total volume I wanted to hit split into two sessions but at a bit higher intensity than if I crammed all of the volume into one session. These numbers are just to illustrate the point and not necessarily 100% reflective of what it would look like - I would try to do say 8k in the morning targeting 200w with the same in the afternoon whereas a normal UT2 / SS session might be 15-16k closer to 180w. Unfortunately, "life" dictates that I and a lot of others can train once a day so we end up trying to get the overall volume in which means a slightly lower intensity.

Double sessions are common among elite performers in running, swimming and rowing. Less so in cycling, it seems. I trialled double running sessions in my 20s, and found I was permanently exhausted, almost irrespective of the intensity of the sessions. As a result, I quickly returned to once a day training. I often do doubles now, but only in different activities - I'd never do two erg sessions in a day, unless I wanted to feel very washed out very quickly. I'm certainly not convinced by the argument that says two 30 minute erg sessions (AM and PM) are easier to recover from than a single 60 minute session completed at the same intensity. The sessions may be half as long, but you have half the recovery time between sessions - it's six of one and half a dozen of the other. Twice a day training in the same activity risks a considerable build up of residual tiredness, unless you've adapted to it over years and years.

At my peak, my go to UT2 session was a 16k r20, did one in the morning and another in the evening many times. Never a problem doing this. Checking my log, I once did this session in the morning then my 60min all time PB in the evening.

[Elizabeth]

I don't know of anyone splitting a 60' session into 2 30' sessions, or splitting sessions to push the pace more for steady state. It's more a means to get in more volume, still aligning with whatever the purpose of each session is. And it is the kind of thing that you work up to.

[GlennUk]

In regards to splitting sessions over 90 minutes into two sessions, I've done a cycle where I approach long work as one continuous session, and I've done multiple cycles now where my longest sessions top out around 100 minutes. The latter has been just as effective while being much more recoverable. Managing recovery becomes important at a certain training volume.

FWIW the Eddie Fletcher FM/100k plans make exactly this point, there is no point in continuously erging for hours on end if you cannot recover sufficiently in between exercise sessions.

There comes a point where it is impractical to actually train for a significant proportion of the intended ultimate duration.

The point being that the 'recovery' between bouts of exercise, is as important as the exercise itself, whatever that looks like for each athlete, and whatever the training plan.

This becomes blindingly obvious once one trains for significant distances, an FM being at the lower end of that continuum imho.

FWIW, and IMHO, one is not training to erg a particular distance with this kind of endurance plan, but training to adapt the body to working for a longer duration to its max ability in terms of pace. It just so happens we focus on the distance as the goal but I suspect once one's body has adapted to erging for extended periods that with adjustments to intensity, one can exercise for much longer periods, without the need to increase the duraiont of the training.

There is a Stu points out also the psychological aspects of exercising for long periods of time which are as important to success as the physical aspects are imho.

[GlennUk]

At my peak, my go to UT2 session was a 16k r20, did one in the morning and another in the evening many times. Never a problem doing this. Checking my log, I once did this session in the morning then my 60min all time PB in the evening.

Hi Nick

As a youngster (late 20s/mid 30s) i often exercised twice, or three times a day, relatively moderate in this context, 6-8miles in the morning before work, 90mins weights in the gym or swimming or cycling, followed by 90mins exercises competitive (eventers) horses, which contrary to common belief is exercise), and never felt any particular issues with recovery.

However, since starting erging longer distances during 21/22 i did find that recovery and rest days became increasingly important as did other things such as calorific intake when training for the 116K.

Im curious to know when your peak was and how much different you find it now?

I think if i am not mistaken you have been erging for a long time (i erged for 201/11, then basically let the C2 gather dust before picking it up in 2020 again). We are not dissimilar in age im, 63 on 1st jan.

[nick rockliff]

At my peak, my go to UT2 session was a 16k r20, did one in the morning and another in the evening many times. Never a problem doing this. Checking my log, I once did this session in the morning then my 60min all time PB in the evening.

Hi Nick

As a youngster (late 20s/mid 30s) i often exercised twice, or three times a day, relatively moderate in this context, 6-8miles in the morning before work, 90mins weights in the gym or swimming or cycling, followed by 90mins exercises competitive (eventers) horses, which contrary to common belief is exercise), and never felt any particular issues with recovery.

However, since starting erging longer distances during 21/22 i did find that recovery and rest days became increasingly important as did other things such as calorific intake when training for the 116K.

Im curious to know when your peak was and how much different you find it now?

I think if i am not mistaken you have been erging for a long time (i erged for 201/11, then basically let the C2 gather dust before picking it up in 2020 again). We are not dissimilar in age im, 63 on 1st jan.

Hi Glenn, I was 48 when at my peak (2005) and am 67 next. I had a bit of an interruption to training due to bowl cancer and symptoms when I was 49/50 which knocked me back a tad. Then moved to China in 2008. I was still doing double sessions up until I was 54 without any recovery problems.

I only do 5 sessions a week now Mon to Fri with weekends of and most if not all will be top end UT1 but only totalling about 180k per month. I don't think it would be a problem doing some double sessions per week but would probably have to look at intensity.

I may give it a go when I finally get a chance to retire!

[GlennUk]

Hi Glenn, I was 48 when at my peak (2005) and am 67 next. I had a bit of an interruption to training due to bowl cancer and symptoms when I was 49/50 which knocked me back a tad. Then moved to China in 2008. I was still doing double sessions up until I was 54 without any recovery problems.

I only do 5 sessions a week now Mon to Fri with weekends of and most if not all will be top end UT1 but only totalling about 180k per month. I don't think it would be a problem doing some double sessions per week but would probably have to look at intensity.

I may give it a go when I finally get a chance to retire!

Thanks Nick,

I think i could do double sessions , but agree re intensity, when i followed the Eddie Fletch 100k plan i found about 2.3rds of the way through it i was calorie deficient (so i ate with abandon with the consequences that go along with that!), but in terms of rest days, i stuck with the recommendations of the plan ann added odd days here and there as i felt necessary.

I also stopped worrying if i was prevented form erging due to work on a planned day, although typically i adjusted the plan accordingly to 'not miss out'.

For me one of the key takeaways of that plan is that rest is part of improvement, without one will not improve, the only question in my mind is how rest is structured for any given individual.

Either way, the plan did show me that i didn't need to erg for anywhere near the total time it took me to finish my 116k (11.5hrs) to accomplish that duration. The limitations were my HR was much higher from the off than in training, and PITA, both of which impacted significantly on the duration i ended up taking, i never felt physically i couldn't finish.

[hikeplusrow]

When I was cycling, I found that after about 3 hours my heart rate dropped significantly without a corresponding drop in speed - in effect, heart rate became meaningless. I'd be interested to know if you guys have noticed a similar phenomenon when doing FMs or longer on the erg.

[ShortAndStout]

Hi Glenn, I was 48 when at my peak (2005) and am 67 next. I had a bit of an interruption to training due to bowl cancer and symptoms when I was 49/50 which knocked me back a tad. Then moved to China in 2008. I was still doing double sessions up until I was 54 without any recovery problems.

I only do 5 sessions a week now Mon to Fri with weekends of and most if not all will be top end UT1 but only totalling about 180k per month. I don't think it would be a problem doing some double sessions per week but would probably have to look at intensity.

I may give it a go when I finally get a chance to retire!

Thanks Nick,

I think i could do double sessions , but agree re intensity, when i followed the Eddie Fletch 100k plan i found about 2.3rds of the way through it i was calorie deficient (so i ate with abandon with the consequences that go along with that!), but in terms of rest days, i stuck with the recommendations of the plan ann added odd days here and there as i felt necessary.

I also stopped worrying if i was prevented form erging due to work on a planned day, although typically i adjusted the plan accordingly to 'not miss out'.

For me one of the key takeaways of that plan is that rest is part of improvement, without one will not improve, the only question in my mind is how rest is structured for any given individual.

Either way, the plan did show me that i didn't need to erg for anywhere near the total time it took me to finish my 116k (11.5hrs) to accomplish that duration. The limitations were my HR was much higher from the off than in training, and PITA, both of which impacted significantly on the duration i ended up taking, i never felt physically i couldn't finish.

How much UT2 did you incorporate into your training if any? I'm surprised to hear yall doing nearly 200k a month of UT1, I don't think I'd be able to recover from that very well

[hikeplusrow]

Hi Glenn, I was 48 when at my peak (2005) and am 67 next. I had a bit of an interruption to training due to bowl cancer and symptoms when I was 49/50 which knocked me back a tad. Then moved to China in 2008. I was still doing double sessions up until I was 54 without any recovery problems.

I only do 5 sessions a week now Mon to Fri with weekends of and most if not all will be top end UT1 but only totalling about 180k per month. I don't think it would be a problem doing some double sessions per week but would probably have to look at intensity.

I may give it a go when I finally get a chance to retire!

Thanks Nick,

I think i could do double sessions , but agree re intensity, when i followed the Eddie Fletch 100k plan i found about 2.3rds of the way through it i was calorie deficient (so i ate with abandon with the consequences that go along with that!), but in terms of rest days, i stuck with the recommendations of the plan ann added odd days here and there as i felt necessary.

I also stopped worrying if i was prevented form erging due to work on a planned day, although typically i adjusted the plan accordingly to 'not miss out'.

For me one of the key takeaways of that plan is that rest is part of improvement, without one will not improve, the only question in my mind is how rest is structured for any given individual.

Either way, the plan did show me that i didn't need to erg for anywhere near the total time it took me to finish my 116k (11.5hrs) to accomplish that duration. The limitations were my HR was much higher from the off than in training, and PITA, both of which impacted significantly on the duration i ended up taking, i never felt physically i couldn't finish.

How much UT2 did you incorporate into your training if any? I'm surprised to hear yall doing nearly 200k a month of UT1, I don't think I'd be able to recover from that very well

When I do a lot of UT1, I can recover enough to do more UT1, but not enough to do higher intensity stuff - so basically I just stagnate. But that's just me.

[nick rockliff]

Hi Glenn, I was 48 when at my peak (2005) and am 67 next. I had a bit of an interruption to training due to bowl cancer and symptoms when I was 49/50 which knocked me back a tad. Then moved to China in 2008. I was still doing double sessions up until I was 54 without any recovery problems.

I only do 5 sessions a week now Mon to Fri with weekends of and most if not all will be top end UT1 but only totalling about 180k per month. I don't think it would be a problem doing some double sessions per week but would probably have to look at intensity.

I may give it a go when I finally get a chance to retire!

Thanks Nick,

I think i could do double sessions , but agree re intensity, when i followed the Eddie Fletch 100k plan i found about 2.3rds of the way through it i was calorie deficient (so i ate with abandon with the consequences that go along with that!), but in terms of rest days, i stuck with the recommendations of the plan ann added odd days here and there as i felt necessary.

I also stopped worrying if i was prevented form erging due to work on a planned day, although typically i adjusted the plan accordingly to 'not miss out'.

For me one of the key takeaways of that plan is that rest is part of improvement, without one will not improve, the only question in my mind is how rest is structured for any given individual.

Either way, the plan did show me that i didn't need to erg for anywhere near the total time it took me to finish my 116k (11.5hrs) to accomplish that duration. The limitations were my HR was much higher from the off than in training, and PITA, both of which impacted significantly on the duration i ended up taking, i never felt physically i couldn't finish.

How much UT2 did you incorporate into your training if any? I'm surprised to hear yall doing nearly 200k a month of UT1, I don't think I'd be able to recover from that very well

For me probably 80k a week UT2 which would have been 16k r20 sessions. The remainder would be mainly UT1 and AT. Never did any speed work until 3 or 4 weeks before a race.

[GlennUk]

How much UT2 did you incorporate into your training if any? I'm surprised to hear yall doing nearly 200k a month of UT1, I don't think I'd be able to recover from that very well

Id have to work it out but for instance

WK1, day 1- 100k Plan 4x15mins split into 2x7.5min sectors, at 85 and 80% HRmax values with r1.5mions at R18 65% HRmax, repeated second day.

followed by a rest day

Day 2 - 3 x 15min @ 75/85/80% HRmax

So it was a mix of what would be described as UT1/AT levels with a bit of UT2 as well. The duraiont of each rep and the number of reps varied but increased to 210 mins towards the end of the plan.

[ShortAndStout]

For me probably 80k a week UT2 which would have been 16k r20 sessions. The remainder would be mainly UT1 and AT. Never did any speed work until 3 or 4 weeks before a race.

So here's something I've been struggling with lately, this is the approach I would like to take but I'm told that this approach won't provide enough adaptation to see improvements. Something like 50-70% UT2 and the remainder being UT1 / AT work. What has your experience been with this? Have you needed to do hard / short interval sessions (TR or above for ex) to see an improvement in speed on your SS?

[nick rockliff]

For me probably 80k a week UT2 which would have been 16k r20 sessions. The remainder would be mainly UT1 and AT. Never did any speed work until 3 or 4 weeks before a race.

So here's something I've been struggling with lately, this is the approach I would like to take but I'm told that this approach won't provide enough adaptation to see improvements. Something like 50-70% UT2 and the remainder being UT1 / AT work. What has your experience been with this? Have you needed to do hard / short interval sessions (TR or above for ex) to see an improvement in speed on your SS?

Never did speed work during engine building stage, would have been counter productive IMHO. You do need to do some hard test sessions though like 30r20. It also depends how you define UT2, UT1 and AT. Mine were all lactate profile tested.

[jcross485]

A lot of really great discussion in there that I am personally learning from.

It makes a lot of sense that you are not going to train for a FM or longer by doing close or or beyond those distances; it's just not practical at all.

I am curious as to what the consensus here is when it comes to "base" training for the more traditional 2k. What do people see as the point of diminishing returns with respect to the amount of UT2/SS work per session or per week? At what point would it be more beneficial to add more threshold type work or more race-pace type of efforts as opposed to more UT2/! or SS work?