Yes, that's it!
It does seem to be more specific to training geared towards 5k - HM type distances or efforts, as there is the caveat that intense 2k work takes care of some of the top end, but I do still believe that a large percentage of people doing polarized training just aren't doing enough volume consistently such that steady state work capped around 70% will be as good as pushing a tad higher into the 75% - 80% area.
To through some kind of arbitrary number out there, if you're doing 100k in volume consistently with some higher intensity efforts thrown in there, I could see there being some value in the aerobic work being more around the 70% mark to ensure adequate recovery for those higher intensity sessions. But in all reality, how many of us are doing that kind of volume, let alone consistently? I know when I was prepping for a marathon row, I was in the 80-100k area pretty consistently but that was also for a marathon. Recently, I did a "hero week" at right around 140k and definitely can see at that volume how modulating intensity would be useful. But that is the rare week, not the norm.
Dangerscouse wrote: ↑July 9th, 2024, 6:10 am
As so often happens, the details matter and can quite easily be lost in the mix.
I do agree that 70% has its place, but I only do that on days when it naturally feels necessary, but I've
generally got a good grip on my ego, so I don't thrash myself for no good reason.
As we know, there's broadly two schools of thought: go hard or go home, or row slower to get faster. Personally I think that it's more about the middle ground of the two as long as you're able to intuitively know when to hold back and when to go all in. This might be why I'm not a big fan of training programmes as they are a little bit too rigid for my liking.
I'm definitely not at this intuitive place with my weight training as I tend to crumble too easily with the usual excuses to justify it, but it does really highlight how I'm able to control it with my erging.
I agree with pretty well all of this.
There seems to be a lot of "hate" towards the grey zones of training since the rise in popularity of polarized training and Z2 / UT2 type work, but I think that is a bit shortsighted. I don't want to discredit Z2 / UT2 by any means, but I think some people aren't training near enough (volume) or aren't nearly to the level where there is huge benefit in training so easy.
There is nuance and there are situational details that matter; I would venture to guess though that by keeping HR down around that 70% mark for the majority of steady state, a lot of people are either short-changing a bit of progress as you still make great aerobic adaptation up to around the 80% mark (albeit with a bit higher recovery cost) or they're ingraining some inefficient technique.
Like you, I am getting a better feel for controlling intensity on the erg and knowing when a steady state session could be pushed a bit or when it should be controlled. As far as modulating it in other areas, I really don't think there's a way to learn how to do it other than just through time and experience. I've crossed the line many, many times when heavily focused on strength training - that's taught me where the line actually is. I would suspect that you've done the same in rowing, hence your ability to toe the line much more closely.
Back to rowing - I could very easily keep HR capped at 70% all the time but I don't think I'm training enough for that to elicit the best response. One of two things would happen - I would drop my stroke rate to be rather low so that power per stroke and technique / efficiency isn't compromised which I don't think is ideal; or, I would drop power per stroke while keeping stroke rate in the 18-24 sweet spot such that I'm just ingraining bad habits.
On the weight training front, the way I have it structured does have a bit of a parallel to the rowing stuff. One day of lighter work but with a bit more volume (call it the UT2 of weight training), one day of moderate work with moderate volume (call it the UT1 of weight training), and one day working up to a heavy-ish effort with low volume (call it AT/TR of weight training). I wouldn't say I am doing true "AN" type work with respect to weight training as I'm not building up to heavy singles at the moment, more or less a relatively heavy set of 5. I'm not avoiding the "UT1" of weight lifting, I think it has its place and a good place at that.
