1k pace for a 7min 2K?

[robhely]

You have not specified anything about intensity, so I have no idea of it. 27 sets could be fine at lower intensities, but on high intensity probably not. It all depends on your capabilities and strength you already built.
My approach looks quite different, as I tend to react better on more frequent stimulus and it gives me more room for rowing. I have two training sessions, full body, I alternate 3 times per week. So week 1 it's session A - B - A and next week B - A - B.
The pattern is mainly the same for both:
A:
Each 4 Sets every 3:30 - heavy squat variant, heavy pull exercise, heavy push exercise
Each 8 Sets every 70s for 25s - lower intensity pull, lower intensity push, weight selection in a way, that the last 2 or 3 sets are really on the edge.
5 rounds 25on/10off: alternating leg and core exercise, so summed up 10 25/10 cycles
5 rounds 25on/10off: alternating triceps/biceps exercise.
B:
Same like above, but exercise order changes:
Heavy lift variant, heavy push, heavy pull
Lower intensity push, pull
Different leg/core exercises
No biceps/triceps, another push/pull combo.

Exercises change every few weeks, bodyweight and machines mixed.
This gives me a hard training with high intensity, as well as a good long cvs stimulus.
Every week in one of the sessions the last two combos are exchanged with a kind of intervals on rower or skierg.
Typically I incorporated longer steadies (10k, 60min, HM) on non-gym days, summing up ca. 60km.
That was the volume I could cope with.
But I must say - since we incorporated the interval sessions on a weekly basis at the gym days, I got a good bit faster. Even doing the intervals at the end of the gym session.

That is a very comprehensive program! But cleverly designed to accomodate lots of rowing volume and speed work.

I'm very new to gym work, so probably approaching it in a very "old school" way. My main focus has been hypertrophy, so keeping in the 5 - 15 rep range with approximately 3 separate exercises per muscle group. I would say high intensity for all sets (apart from the warm-up set), the amount of weight I've been lifting has increased dramatically over 10 weeks. I'm doing all of my sets as slowly as possible, focussing on good technique and the "time under tension" strategy. I usually rest for 3 mins between all sets, so 27 sets takes a long time!

[alex9026]

I'm very new to gym work, so probably approaching it in a very "old school" way. My main focus has been hypertrophy, so keeping in the 5 - 15 rep range with approximately 3 separate exercises per muscle group. I would say high intensity for all sets (apart from the warm-up set), the amount of weight I've been lifting has increased dramatically over 10 weeks. I'm doing all of my sets as slowly as possible, focussing on good technique and the "time under tension" strategy. I usually rest for 3 mins between all sets, so 27 sets takes a long time!

Are you training to be a bodybuilder, a rower, or general health? There is a massive difference in training stimuli between 5 reps and 15 reps. I would be seriously questioning level of intensity at 27 sets. Well established bodybuilding programs will incorporate one, maybe two all out sets on a given exercise if intensity is the marker of their program. And guys (and girls) really pushing it will have others forms of "assistance" to aid recovery. What are you basing your program on?

If you want an athletes approach to training ie lift and move well, but still look good (absolutely nothing wrong with this!) then take a look at Jim Wendler's 5/3/1. It's a simple no bs approach with a progression scheme (where does one progress from 27 sets?) and offers plenty of flexibility to fit the conditioning ie your rowing in. Absolutely no reason you can't go under 7 mins whilst still enjoying your gym work, just seems your approach screams "more is better".

EDIT: I've ran "old school" bodybuilding programs courtesy of John McCullum's fantastic book, Keys to Progress, off the top of my head it looked a little something like this (all working sets):
Press 2 sets
Rows 2 sets
Bench 2 sets
Squat 2 sets (often one would be a back off set)
Deadlift variant 1 set
Pullovers 1 set
Curls if I could be bothered

I won't go in to the nuances, but that's ten hard sets full body 3x a week. This was typical back in the pre Arnold and excess gear era. Not a chance I could do this and row. Days off were just that, doing the above in an hour kept my heart rate up.

[Dangerscouse]

I've never tried 1500 intervals, I'll give them a go. It'll be hard to know how to pace them the first time, probably a lot slower than 6 x 500 @ 1:45.

I'd probably aim for + 6/7 for the first one and then gauge how it feels. You want it to be a notable but not really tough, as you're aiming to maintain the same pace for three more and then give it everything on the last.

Managing the mind games when you see still four figures left to go can be valuable

[robhely]

Are you training to be a bodybuilder, a rower, or general health? There is a massive difference in training stimuli between 5 reps and 15 reps. I would be seriously questioning level of intensity at 27 sets. Well established bodybuilding programs will incorporate one, maybe two all out sets on a given exercise if intensity is the marker of their program. And guys (and girls) really pushing it will have others forms of "assistance" to aid recovery. What are you basing your program on?

If you want an athletes approach to training ie lift and move well, but still look good (absolutely nothing wrong with this!) then take a look at Jim Wendler's 5/3/1. It's a simple no bs approach with a progression scheme (where does one progress from 27 sets?) and offers plenty of flexibility to fit the conditioning ie your rowing in. Absolutely no reason you can't go under 7 mins whilst still enjoying your gym work, just seems your approach screams "more is better".

EDIT: I've ran "old school" bodybuilding programs courtesy of John McCullum's fantastic book, Keys to Progress, off the top of my head it looked a little something like this (all working sets):
Press 2 sets
Rows 2 sets
Bench 2 sets
Squat 2 sets (often one would be a back off set)
Deadlift variant 1 set
Pullovers 1 set
Curls if I could be bothered

I won't go in to the nuances, but that's ten hard sets full body 3x a week. This was typical back in the pre Arnold and excess gear era. Not a chance I could do this and row. Days off were just that, doing the above in an hour kept my heart rate up.

I'm training for general health, not body building or competitive rowing. I like to be competitive with myself with rowing, which is why I have a target of a 7 min 2k and reaching the 90th percentile for my age group in all of my longer rows. I also struggle to put on and maintain weight, which is why hypertrophy is important to me.

My idea was to start strength training with a lot of volume to build up bulk relatively quickly and then back off to more of a maintenance routine. I've achieved my goal of getting to my ideal weight/amount of muscle mass, the 27 sets per workout worked well for me. Yes, the rowing suffered, but now I'm looking to get a better balance happening.

My program isn't a "prescribed" one, more just the result of listening to a lot of podcasts and reading up on hypertrophy approaches. I enjoy lifting, so I haven't been bothered about the amount of time I've been spending in the gym over the last few weeks.

I looked into the Wendler approach, but for me it seems to be more of a strength training strategy rather than hypertrophy. Sure, hypertrophy will be a byproduct of strength training (as strength will increase with a hypertrophy program), but the 5/3/1 is not designed specifically for hypertrophy. I know that there's the 5/3/1 BBB which is designed for hypertrophy, but the number of sets involved makes it more time consuming than what I'm doing now. Also, whilst Wendler's core idea is simplicity, I don't find the 5/3/1 particularly simple. There's maths involved, quite a lot to remember and it's really ambiguous in terms of "assistance" work, which one could argue could be just about anything and takes up time.

I always focus mainly on the compound lifts and each week am upping the amount of weight.

There are so many different ideas on how to approach hypertrophy training, although the most common theme that emerges is a need for 10 - 15 hard sets per week per muscle group, ideally working each muscle group at least twice per week. 1 - 5 reps for strength, 5 - 15 for hypertrophy.

[robhely]

I'd probably aim for + 6/7 for the first one and then gauge how it feels. You want it to be a notable but not really tough, as you're aiming to maintain the same pace for three more and then give it everything on the last.

Managing the mind games when you see still four figures left to go can be valuable

Thanks Stu, I've found in the past your pace predictions to be absolutely bang on.

I need to spend more time managing the mind games.

[robhely]

I am still new to all this so might be wrong, I just feel that works for me.

That works for everyone, as this relates directly to the main target.
If your main work is at target pace or faster, the adaptation of the physiological properties is done to exactly fulfill the needs for it.

This totally makes sense to me. I don't think I'd ever be able to average 1:45 across 7 minutes unless I'd spent a lot of time at that pace in training. At the moment, I don't think I'd be able to hold it across 4 x 1000m, so I've got a ways to go.

[Sakly]

I am still new to all this so might be wrong, I just feel that works for me.

That works for everyone, as this relates directly to the main target.
If your main work is at target pace or faster, the adaptation of the physiological properties is done to exactly fulfill the needs for it.

This totally makes sense to me. I don't think I'd ever be able to average 1:45 across 7 minutes unless I'd spent a lot of time at that pace in training. At the moment, I don't think I'd be able to hold it across 4 x 1000m, so I've got a ways to go.

And I wish you luck with it

[Dangerscouse]

Thanks Stu, I've found in the past your pace predictions to be absolutely bang on.

I need to spend more time managing the mind games.

All I'd add is that I've found it's best to take a little bit of advice from many different people and see what works.

I know some of us don't suffer from mind games, but if you do you definitely will benefit from training that in parallel with your fitness.

[AndyNewland]

3:18 for me. I probably have relatively more power than stamina.

[dabatey]

Been reading this thread with interest. I went from a base of zero fitness and 8.30 2k to 7.37 2k over a period of around 6-8 months of pretty intensive training a couple of years ago. I then switched to cycling in an effort to involve the other half and be a bit more outdoorsey. Since then I've brought my cycling FTP from 180W to 260W with a much better aerobic fitness base and I wonder how
the extra fitness would transfer to rowing. In particular i wonder if (as a 52 year old 61kg featherweight) I could contemplate shooting for a 7 minute 2k, or does that sound completely out of reach.

[lindsayh]

In particular i wonder if (as a 52 year old 61kg featherweight) I could contemplate shooting for a 7 minute 2k, or does that sound completely out of reach.

Sub7 is a real test but is definitely possible. My mate Rod Stewart is about 70kg and did it at 70y more than once - although he was right at the top of his game - he was the first 70+ lwt.

[Cyclingman1]

Adding my two cents for the OP's pursuit of sub-7.

First, the OP's 1- 2 - 5 - 10K times are consistent. Pace: 143.1, 1:47.5, 1:52.6, 7 1:56.8. Nothing jumps out as too slow or fast.

Two things are needed. One: You have to get comfortable pulling out of your comfort zone. Doing 1:41.x for 1K is not the ticket. You need speed and power work, that is shortish intervals. Maybe 5-6 x 200@1:35. 1:45 will be a whole lot easier after dealing with 1:35 or thereabouts.

Two: endurance must be improved to lower times across the board. Your current 2K pace is 5.1sec below your 5K pace. That is a good difference. But you need around 1:50 for 5K or 18:20. Subtract 5 and you got your 1:45. Longer intervals may help in getting to 1:50, although I never have done longer intervals. I used to do lots of 5Ks, fast. 2Ks are a lot more doable with that kind of endurance in your back pocket.

Feel free to ignore all this, but I have had some success at this rowing business. Verified 7:02.6 and 7:03 the last 2 yrs for 2K, at age 76-77, ~200lb. Way below the official WR. Whatever.

Lindsay, could not find Rod in the rankings with sub-7. I saw 7:02.x. Now someone is about 5 sec below 7 min.

[HornetMaX]

Imo, I think that 5 x 1500m is a better option, but I do know that a lot of others really like 4 x 1k.

Apologies for an aside, but Stu, why 5 x 1.5k? Most people say this is around 5k pace. The advantage of the 4 x 1k is that it is close to 2k pace. It may well be that Stu's approach would be better for OP as he acknowledges that fitness is currently his weakness. But as I said above (if somewhat patronisingly, sorry) a big part of improving 2k is getting comfortable at 2k pace and rating as well as building the confidence that you can achieve the target to draw on when doubts arise and establishing appropriate pace targets. So I think at least one attempt of 4 x 1k prior to your next attempt would be a good idea.

Good point, and I view the first four as challenging and the last one as all out, so there's a better combination of close enough to the full distance, a good degree of pre-exhaustion and then a bigger required for the last one.

For me, and possibly only me, this is a better confidence booster as I find 1k doesn't really feel disgusting enough in that very particular style of disgustingness. Obviously it can be horrific if you go full throttle, but when it starts to notably bite, you're probably at 750m to go, rather than 1250m.

Don't get me wrong 4 x 1k definitely play an important role, but I'd also recommend doing longer distances as these add something different too, and might be the slight edge that you need to pull through near the end.

I think I'm in the same camp: I need some level of disgustingness to prepare for a 2K.
I've recently done a 8x500m+3R averaging 2KP - 4s: my 2KP is a bit old, but I'm not even sure I can actually repeat it right now so I'm not confident this predicts my current 2KP.

I've also done a 4x1K+6R at my 2K pace (targetting to hold the same pace on the 4 intervals). Questions:

• 3x1.5K: what pace ? Same for all the intervals or not ? Which pace (wrt 2KP) ? How much rest ?
• 5x1.5K: you seem to say you have slower pace for the 4 first intervals and then you go all out on the 5th (and, I assume, the pace of the 5th is the 2K pace prediction), right ? What would be the pace for the 1st 4 intervals ?

[robhely]

Sub7 is a real test but is definitely possible. My mate Rod Stewart is about 70kg and did it at 70y more than once - although he was right at the top of his game - he was the first 70+ lwt.

A 70 year old LW achieving sub 7 is very impressive. If you look at LWs across all ages, the 90th percentile is 6:58.

[robhely]

Adding my two cents for the OP's pursuit of sub-7.

First, the OP's 1- 2 - 5 - 10K times are consistent. Pace: 143.1, 1:47.5, 1:52.6, 7 1:56.8. Nothing jumps out as too slow or fast.

Two things are needed. One: You have to get comfortable pulling out of your comfort zone. Doing 1:41.x for 1K is not the ticket. You need speed and power work, that is shortish intervals. Maybe 5-6 x 200@1:35. 1:45 will be a whole lot easier after dealing with 1:35 or thereabouts.

Two: endurance must be improved to lower times across the board. Your current 2K pace is 5.1sec below your 5K pace. That is a good difference. But you need around 1:50 for 5K or 18:20. Subtract 5 and you got your 1:45. Longer intervals may help in getting to 1:50, although I never have done longer intervals. I used to do lots of 5Ks, fast. 2Ks are a lot more doable with that kind of endurance in your back pocket.

Feel free to ignore all this, but I have had some success at this rowing business. Verified 7:02.6 and 7:03 the last 2 yrs for 2K, at age 76-77, ~200lb. Way below the official WR. Whatever.

Lindsay, could not find Rod in the rankings with sub-7. I saw 7:02.x. Now someone is about 5 sec below 7 min.

Thanks Lindsay, lots to think about there. I've never done intervals shorter than 500m, so I'd be really keen to try some 200s at a faster pace. I'm rubbish when it comes to rating up over 35, but perhaps I'd have the power to pull 1:35s for such short distances? It would certainly be good to spend time going faster than 1:45.

I see what you mean about the gap between my 2k and 5k, it would be interesting to see how much I could get the 5k down. Going from 18:46 - 18:20 seems like a lot right now, but I could chip away at it.