Steady state pacing

[jamesg]

called obese
didn't seem to result in any decent answer.

Odd: you see what's not here but not what is.

I wrote "unusual for oarsmen". Which I think is true, but not for the general population, where sites like https://www.cdc.gov/obesity/data/adult.htm say such things as:

The US obesity prevalence was 41.9% in 2017 – March 2020

For intensity, the suggestions have mostly been: planning a 2k? Go faster.

[jackarabit]

One cool cucumber under fire, James. I admire how you kill your pulse just before taking the shot.

[jamesg]

Let's hope the OP enjoys reading what he provoked; and that it makes sense to him. In that case, job done and he can thank us all.

[G-dub]

As a casual observer, I find it odd at how angry Caviston is and has been for years. What put such a burr in his bonnet? Did someone say back in the day offend his lordship?

[jackarabit]

Hey Glenn. Court & Spark by turns When was it ever not? Wanna buy a set of Level 4 flashcards?

[Cyclingman1]

When talking about training, there are so many variables that no way can one, or almost the same, approach extend very widely. Individuals: younger,older; fitness background,sedentary; fast, slow twitch; short, long term goals goals; time to train; personal preferences. Training has to take into account all of those factors. One thing for sure is that as amazing are training programs for elite athletes, college or otherwise, they are too extreme for most athletes, even good ones. It seems that some of these plans filter down into these forums that place pressure on some to follow them.

When I started seriously using a C2 machine at the start of 2012, I had not a clue about Logbooks, C2 forums, plans, and the like. I had previously at my wife's gym done 7:12. Then I got volunteered for her Crossfit team for the Ga Tech Erg sprints in Feb. I started doing 4-5 1Ks every other day, mixed in with a couple of 5Ks. At Ga Tech, I did 6:57 a couple of weeks before being 66.

By that time I had discovered the C2 sites. I saw that the 65+ WR was 6:41. I felt that I could get there relatively quickly. I added in some interval days, like 5x500 and 8x250. I did a couple of 30mins, more 5Ks and a heavy dose of 1Ks. I never did a slowish row over the next two months. On Apr 10, I did 6:40.7, under the current 65+ WR. Had I done slow 60 min rows for two months, no way do I drop 17 sec off of 2K.

All I'm saying is that training can take many forms and the approach that I took of limited, faster meters every week did work. I threw what I did out there, so the OP would see that there are alternatives. Apparently, he was not really all that interested in the thread he started. I will say that i do not think what I did for a couple of months constitutes a viable long term plan. But I still more or less think that way.

Glenn, down thru the yrs training has been a pretty testy subject. Some are more invested in training plans than others, so there is going to be some of that.

[Jerome]

I started doing 4-5 1Ks every other day, mixed in with a couple of 5Ks. At Ga Tech, I did 6:57 a couple of weeks before being 66.
…
I did a couple of 30mins, more 5Ks and a heavy dose of 1Ks.

Jim,
How much rest did you take between the 1K intervals?

[Dangerscouse]

When talking about training, there are so many variables that no way can one, or almost the same, approach extend very widely. Individuals: younger,older; fitness background,sedentary; fast, slow twitch; short, long term goals goals; time to train; personal preferences. Training has to take into account all of those factors. One thing for sure is that as amazing are training programs for elite athletes, college or otherwise, they are too extreme for most athletes, even good ones. It seems that some of these plans filter down into these forums that place pressure on some to follow them.

So very true. I always think that people think there's a magic bullet but in reality, it's so much more nuanced than people expect it to be.

[hikeplusrow]

When talking about training, there are so many variables that no way can one, or almost the same, approach extend very widely. Individuals: younger,older; fitness background,sedentary; fast, slow twitch; short, long term goals goals; time to train; personal preferences. Training has to take into account all of those factors. One thing for sure is that as amazing are training programs for elite athletes, college or otherwise, they are too extreme for most athletes, even good ones. It seems that some of these plans filter down into these forums that place pressure on some to follow them.

So very true. I always think that people think there's a magic bullet but in reality, it's so much more nuanced than people expect it to be.

The danger is that people become so confused by the differing advice that they never fully commit to a plan they've created. Instead, they endlessly vacillate between differing approaches.

[Cyclingman1]

Cyclingman1 wrote: ↑January 23rd, 2024, 8:12 pm
I started doing 4-5 1Ks every other day, mixed in with a couple of 5Ks. At Ga Tech, I did 6:57 a couple of weeks before being 66.
…
I did a couple of 30mins, more 5Ks and a heavy dose of 1Ks.
Jim,
How much rest did you take between the 1K intervals?

I was not doing intervals, per se. In fact, as I recall, I was doing a set of complete clean and jerks with light weights with some rest between rows. Sort of a cross fit approach. To answer the question, around 2 mins between each activity.

[deadlifting265]

When talking about training, there are so many variables that no way can one, or almost the same, approach extend very widely. Individuals: younger,older; fitness background,sedentary; fast, slow twitch; short, long term goals goals; time to train; personal preferences. Training has to take into account all of those factors. One thing for sure is that as amazing are training programs for elite athletes, college or otherwise, they are too extreme for most athletes, even good ones. It seems that some of these plans filter down into these forums that place pressure on some to follow them.

When I started seriously using a C2 machine at the start of 2012, I had not a clue about Logbooks, C2 forums, plans, and the like. I had previously at my wife's gym done 7:12. Then I got volunteered for her Crossfit team for the Ga Tech Erg sprints in Feb. I started doing 4-5 1Ks every other day, mixed in with a couple of 5Ks. At Ga Tech, I did 6:57 a couple of weeks before being 66.

By that time I had discovered the C2 sites. I saw that the 65+ WR was 6:41. I felt that I could get there relatively quickly. I added in some interval days, like 5x500 and 8x250. I did a couple of 30mins, more 5Ks and a heavy dose of 1Ks. I never did a slowish row over the next two months. On Apr 10, I did 6:40.7, under the current 65+ WR. Had I done slow 60 min rows for two months, no way do I drop 17 sec off of 2K.

All I'm saying is that training can take many forms and the approach that I took of limited, faster meters every week did work. I threw what I did out there, so the OP would see that there are alternatives. Apparently, he was not really all that interested in the thread he started. I will say that i do not think what I did for a couple of months constitutes a viable long term plan. But I still more or less think that way.

Glenn, down thru the yrs training has been a pretty testy subject. Some are more invested in training plans than others, so there is going to be some of that.

All things being equal, talent trumps everthing.

You obviously have/had the natural dispostion for elite standard on a erg(something 95% at least of people haven't got) so the low mileage training you did would not be optimal for the above aforementioned. Also, training as you did wouldn't be sustainable long term. It's testament to your talent that you were able to do that training for two months and not burn out(especially as an older athlete)

So how does one train?

There seem to have been an influx of specimens over the last, say ten years that have produced elite standard times(as an amatuer and age-group) off low mileage and not following the traditonal method of low rate and high volume/duration. Most have come from a pevious high level of sport and quite a few are not the standard build of a rower.

Probably at least 95% of ones genetic ability can be achieved by a low volume and higher intensity approach but that needs to tailored incrementally.

I think working off a longish mesocycle of endurance improving stroking power and all the physiological adaptions that take place followed by multiple microcycles, bringing down the mileage and increasing the splits(initially improving 5/6km then 8weeks ish before a comp/TT performing speed) would work best for most non-professionals. There's just too many variables........

Just to reiterate what I said above about talent.

I used to row alongside someone who was rowing up to 150km a week. That year he hit his PR of 6.12 as a 6ft 2 90kg man of 39.

The greatest amatuer indoor rower of all-time(and one of the best as whole ever) was rowing approx 60km and rowed sub 6 as a 6ft 6 100kg+ man of 29.

Talent is the key.....

[Cyclingman1]

You obviously have/had the natural dispostion for elite standard on a erg

I don't think so. When I was a runner, I did low mileage and just continued the same with the erg.

The greatest amatuer indoor rower of all-time(and one of the best as whole ever) was rowing approx 60km and rowed sub 6 as a 6ft 6 100kg+ man of 29.

And who was that?

[Sakly]

I used to row alongside someone who was rowing up to 150km a week. That year he hit his PR of 6.12 as a 6ft 2 90kg man of 39.

The greatest amatuer indoor rower of all-time(and one of the best as whole ever) was rowing approx 60km and rowed sub 6 as a 6ft 6 100kg+ man of 29.

Talent is the key.....

Height and weight (obviously muscle, not fat) are key factors for a rower. I wouldn't call it talent, I would call it better body predisposition/prerequisite.

[deadlifting265]

You obviously have/had the natural dispostion for elite standard on a erg

I don't think so. When I was a runner, I did low mileage and just continued the same with the erg.

The greatest amatuer indoor rower of all-time(and one of the best as whole ever) was rowing approx 60km and rowed sub 6 as a 6ft 6 100kg+ man of 29.

And who was that?

Yet you were/are a much better erger than were a runner........

Graham Benton

[deadlifting265]

I used to row alongside someone who was rowing up to 150km a week. That year he hit his PR of 6.12 as a 6ft 2 90kg man of 39.

The greatest amatuer indoor rower of all-time(and one of the best as whole ever) was rowing approx 60km and rowed sub 6 as a 6ft 6 100kg+ man of 29.

Talent is the key.....

Height and weight (obviously muscle, not fat) are key factors for a rower. I wouldn't call it talent, I would call it better body predisposition/prerequisite.

Any sport/activity requires talent to get to the highest level.

The aforementioned two ergers is a prime example of the latter having much more "natural" talent than the former.

Yes, 4inches and at least 10kg of useful b/w is a big factor but he rowed nearly 4splits faster per 500m(probably for the same rate) and in much less of a time frame and much less total weekly volume.

There is a you-tube video of him talking about his first race after only a few months training on the erg and rowing 6.03. Very few specific amatuer ergers have ever(and will ever) row this no matter what training they do.

Rower one was never going to row sub 6, rower two was destined to row much quicker than sub 6 and did with an incredible 5.42.

Extreme case but the premise the same....