How to factor in non-Erg training

[Dangerscouse]

Interesting comments all. However, I don't think anyone answered my original question. I just completed 70km of riding, I had time for a nice coffee along the way. It was a mix of Zone 3 (over 90 mins) and Zone 4 (last 40 minutes mostly on the final climb home). With respect to Erging would you just skip your next regular long row and move on to Sprint work? Or would you do the 7km because it is next on the schedule? With the warm weather, as a Canadian, my inclination is to spend every extra second outside.

I agree with Alex, as it all depends on what you want to achieve (e.g do you want to get fitter and/or faster on the erg, on the bike or just generally?) and how you feel after the bike ride ie what feels possible.

I'd advocate doing whatever feels best and manageable, and as your inclined to spend time outside, I'd do more of that, but it will hinge on your goals as specificity will play a role in some decisions. Not enough erging will lead to a slight drop off in erg specific sharpness, which may, or may not be an issue.

[dabatey]

Purely cycling, if I was doing shedloads of Zone 3 and Zone 4 as part of a 70km bike ride that would necessitate an easier cycling day (or probably even a rest day) for me on the following day. Mixing rowing and cycling I think it's a bit individual determined, as it will differ dependant on how much you rely on strength vs aerobic endurance (both cycling and rowing). That big zone 4 hill will certainly have zapped your legs a fair bit I imagine. I certainly myself wouldn't be contemplating a rowing Intervals day the next day.

50km at the 'easier' end of zone 2 cycling would be a slightly different matter to the above for me and probably allow a hard day the next day.

[hikeplusrow]

One thing I don't agree with is using other forms of endurance exercise to replace steady state erging, and only doing hard sessions on the erg. Those hard erg sessions need to be supported by the movement specific base work that only erging itself can provide. (This is particularly important for newbies who are still trying to nail down technique.) Biking, running etc should be used as an addition to, not a replacement for, erging sessions if erging is to be you're main focus.

[dabatey]

One thing I don't agree with is using other forms of endurance exercise to replace steady state erging, and only doing hard sessions on the erg. Those hard erg sessions need to be supported by the movement specific base work that only erging itself can provide. (This is particularly important for newbies who are still trying to nail down technique.) Biking, running etc should be used as an addition to, not a replacement for, erging sessions if erging is to be you're main focus.

I pretty much agree with this. However, the OP has stated he 'will' be doing the bike/hike, so in his case it would almost certainly be correct to swap it in for a SS row if his current training plan is as full timewise as he can afford to make it. (Looking at past posts he seems to be on a 'Pete Plan' type schedule).

[hikeplusrow]

One thing I don't agree with is using other forms of endurance exercise to replace steady state erging, and only doing hard sessions on the erg. Those hard erg sessions need to be supported by the movement specific base work that only erging itself can provide. (This is particularly important for newbies who are still trying to nail down technique.) Biking, running etc should be used as an addition to, not a replacement for, erging sessions if erging is to be you're main focus.

I pretty much agree with this. However, the OP has stated he 'will' be doing the bike/hike, so in his case it would almost certainly be correct to swap it in for a SS row if his current training plan is as full timewise as he can afford to make it. (Looking at past posts he seems to be on a 'Pete Plan' type schedule).

I'm actually the world's leading authority on ignoring the original question and writing what I feel like just to get it off my chest

[iain]

The alternative is to extend the period of the training program, so PP weeks are longer eg the 3 sessions and 3 SS in 8-10 days rather than a week. (or perhaps BPP with less optional sessions).

- Iain

[Mlevison]

Thanks to all of my favourite responders for answering. FWIW This isn't about exclusively doing anything on the bike. I wondered about replacing the occasional longer rowing workout with a much longer bike ride. Context the previous week the day after a 50km ride, I simply couldn't push myself during the Steady State row. I had a target time and missed it 2.5secs/500m. This is what made me post.

@Dangerscouse goal - at 90+ to be discussing rowing with you on this forum. More seriously, I want to continue to push my VO2 Max through the roof.

@Dabatey - wow 50km at the 'easier' end of Zone 2. I have something to aspire to. And good catch - I'm on Pete's Plan

@Hikeplusrow - love the nickname, I see what you're saying. (Newbie - I'm 2yrs in so fairly new). Glad to meet another world leading authority

@Iain - agreed the alternative is to extend PP to longer weeks.

Going downstairs for Steady State row.

[dabatey]

50km at the easier end of Zone 2 isn't something you need to 'aspire' to if you are capable of a 70km ride. Just slow down a bit (and make sure the route isn't too hilly).

Of course make sure the z2 (power/HR whatever you are using) is correct !!!!

[jamesg]

I find myself using a Threshold, but this is simple on C2 ergs. This can be either force seen in Ergdata or Watts: I can't do more than 60 minutes a week at over 350N or 1.5W/kg.

So all the rest, if any, is slower.

[mjhatten]

Is walking training? It is if you walk fast enough or on slopes. The test is heart rate. If it gets in the aerobic Zone (70% of MHR or higher), it has a training effect and calories are burned.

[hikeplusrow]

Is walking training? It is if you walk fast enough or on slopes. The test is heart rate. If it gets in the aerobic Zone (70% of MHR or higher), it has a training effect and calories are burned.

Exactly. However, I think the issue is that if you're aerobically very fit it's actually rather difficult to raise your HR to a meaningful level through walking.

I've worn my Polar H10 on a couple of recent fast 5/6 mile walks over gently undulating mixed terrain - I live in the East Midlands, so not super hilly. Max HR recorded was near the top of UT2, while the average was low UT2 - and that was giving it some stick. On a normal, brisk walk over similar terrain I'd be in UT3. To get into UT1, I'd need some really serious hills - and long ones at that.

About ten years ago, I endeavoured to master racewalking form. This is very technical, and probably on a par with learning proper rowing/erging technique. Eventually, on flat roads, I was able to walk a mile in well under ten minutes. The highest HR I saw was 167 - much more like it! Sadly, I got knee issues and had to pack it in

[jamesg]

When 60y I could manage a 1000m+ climb in an hour.

The difference in potential energy so power is soon estimated:

1000m x say 90kg all up x g / 3600 = 1000*100xg/3600 = 245W.

I had to go down too, which if done by walking involves eccentric contraction; so quite a nice days work.

[iain]

When 60y I could manage a 1000m+ climb in an hour...

That is quite a feat and requires the right hill (good tracks and steep paths as well as space to gvet past anyone in your way). Even at 1 in 5 that is over 3 miles an hour! That said, the point is that hill walking is serious exercise. I suspect that on most walks the energy consumed staying upright and moving (inefficiencies, air resistance etc) is probably higher than the climbs. But I think the point is that the fitter we are, the faster we need to go to maintain that level. For the majority of the population a one mile brisk walk would have a positive training effect.

[hikeplusrow]

When 60y I could manage a 1000m+ climb in an hour...

That is quite a feat and requires the right hill (good tracks and steep paths as well as space to gvet past anyone in your way). Even at 1 in 5 that is over 3 miles an hour! That said, the point is that hill walking is serious exercise. I suspect that on most walks the energy consumed staying upright and moving (inefficiencies, air resistance etc) is probably higher than the climbs. But I think the point is that the fitter we are, the faster we need to go to maintain that level. For the majority of the population a one mile brisk walk would have a positive training effect.

Spot on about the majority of the population. With hill walking, the less technical terrain is best for increasing HR. Technical bits slow you down and therefore lower HR. I've done some alpine mountaineering, and non-technical snow plods are great for raising HR.

[alex9026]

With hill walking, the less technical terrain is best for increasing HR. Technical bits slow you down and therefore lower HR. I've done some alpine mountaineering, and non-technical snow plods are great for raising HR.

The technical elements of hillwork were one heck of an eye opener to me. I ran a couple of fell races with a strong road running background (but no off road experience). Give me a tarmac incline and I'll give anyone in the field a good run, but the moment it gets gnarly, rocky, wet, borderline scramble...some of these guys (and gals) were on a different level, they just preserve energy so well on these parts. And their descending is scary to witness. To me, it was just a miserable experience this is my roundabout way of saying I agree wholeheartedly with your statement, a non technical hike does a fine job in raising heart rate, and keeping it their.