Increase pace or reduce rest?

[michael986]

I'm working on trying to improve my speed, with the aim of getting back to a sub 8min 2k (best ever was a 7:20, but that was 20 years ago!). I've started a new regime of 2 'steady state' rows per week (10k at around 2:15 pace), plus 2 sets of 6 * 1k intervals at increasing pace (so starting at 2:08 through to 2:03) with a 1:30 rest.

As my fitness (hopefully) improves I'll increase the interval pace, and also decrease the rest time, until ultimately I can string together a couple of 1k's at sub 2:00 pace to give me the tools for a sub 8min 2k. But my query is - which should I do first, increase the pace or reduce the rest? What will see me getting to my goal quicker?

[gvcormac]

Increase pace. Increase rest. Decrease number.

[Mike Caviston]

"Increase pace" means going slower, so you should decrease the pace (but increase the speed). Don't reduce the recovery. In fact, increase the recovery if that's what it takes to go faster.

[michael986]

"Increase pace" means going slower, so you should decrease the pace (but increase the speed).

Increasing the pace of something is to speed it up, not slow it down. What you're referring to is the measure of pace - a lower number happens to refer to an increased pace. But increasing the pace is what I want to do.

In fact, increase the recovery if that's what it takes to go faster.

That's what I'm trying to establish. To take it to extremes, I could increase the recovery to an hour, and so would definitely go faster on the next piece. But ultimately I want to string together multiple 1k's with no rest, so shouldn't I be reducing the rest period?

[Sakly]

In fact, increase the recovery if that's what it takes to go faster.

That's what I'm trying to establish. To take it to extremes, I could increase the recovery to an hour, and so would definitely go faster on the next piece. But ultimately I want to string together multiple 1k's with no rest, so shouldn't I be reducing the rest period?

Taking it to the extremes, you must go extremely faster, when you extend your recovery to the extreme. So that doesn't make sense.
Goal should be to accumulate as much time as possible at your target pace or faster.
As your target pace is 2:00 or faster, you should aim for 2:00 in the intervals and take as much rest as needed to get there (but obviously not an hour...). All out in the last one, reassess for the next session. Using the average pace as new target with same rest or same target pace with less rest are useful options.

[Mike Caviston]

Increasing the pace of something is to speed it up, not slow it down.

If the something is expressed as min:sec/500m, then if you decrease from 2:08 to 2:03 you will go faster. But that's a silly thing to argue about, so whatever.

To take it to extremes, I could increase the recovery to an hour, and so would definitely go faster on the next piece. But ultimately I want to string together multiple 1k's with no rest, so shouldn't I be reducing the rest period?

No. An hour recovery is ridiculous. Maximize recovery without losing warm-up (do some active recovery between work intervals). Recovery periods of 2 to 2.5x the work periods is optimal, so for 4:00 1Ks, recover about 8-10'. 3-4x 1K per session is probably better than 6, and 1x per week is probably better than 2. If you are targeting an 8:00 2K, rather than doing 1Ks at 2:08, do shorter pieces at 2:00 or faster and gradually extend the length of the work pieces (so from 250-500m to 600, 700, 800 etc. up to 1K for no more than 4K total work). All the intervals in a workout don't have to be the same length and can be done in different order (short to long, long to short, pyramid) depending on how you feel. If you can do 4 x 1K @ 1:59, you can be confident of 2K @ 2:00. That's my advice.

[iain]

It is not the case that you have to do training workouts like the TT you are attempting. Even with long rests there will be some of previous interval affecting subsequent ones. 4 x 1k can be thought of as a practice for each of the 500s in a 2k. Beginning of 1st about settling to pace and holding it, middle of second is about maintaining a pace that is uncomfortable while maintaining your form despite the knowledge of what is to come. Middle of 3rd is the "deadzone" about maintaining the pace despite how hard this is pushing you, while end of 4th is about increasing the pace in the knowledge that the end is nigh. The knowledge of the rests coming up does help, but you do need to complete twice the distance and push yourself through the ends of the earlier intervals as well even 'though you are near enough the end to provide a boost. Knowing that you have done multiple 1ks at the required pace should give you the confidence to push through half way and then it is the knowledge of what you are achieving that will carry you through.

Many people find that slower 2k intervals also help to dispel 2kphobia as we get used to experiencing the higher countdown as well as making the 1ks seem "quick" and the remainders more doable. You also might like to try some shorter intervals (say 500s) with 3+ min rests as these are quicker than 2k (for the typical 8) and help you get used to the higher rating required. Assuming you are not one of the few who can row optimally with a singl;e breath per stroke for a full 2k, you should try and establish and maintain 2 breaths per stroke on the 500s from early on.

[gvcormac]

Personally, I wear a heart-rate monitor and rest until my heart rate falls below 100 before starting the next interval.

You can set this up on the PM5 or ErgData by selecting "undefined rest time."

[Figlen]

Personally, I wear a heart-rate monitor and rest until my heart rate falls below 100 before starting the next interval.

You can set this up on the PM5 or ErgData by selecting "undefined rest time."

Nice. Didn't know that.

[jamesg]

I've a new regime of 2 'ss' rows a week (10k 2:15 pace), + 2 x 6 * 1k intervals at increasing pace (so starting at 2:08 through to 2:03) with a 1:30 rest.

You can get complete and progressive 4-day schedule here, using the later parts if you've already done the initial work:

http://3.8.144.21/training/interactive

[Dangerscouse]

Many people find that slower 2k intervals also help to dispel 2kphobia as we get used to experiencing the higher countdown as well as making the 1ks seem "quick" and the remainders more doable.

I agree with this, as there can all too easily be a fear around the 2k, but it's just another distance. I'd also add that doing slightly longer than 2k is a good idea too, eg 2250m or 2500m.

Personally, I wear a heart-rate monitor and rest until my heart rate falls below 100 before starting the next interval.

You can set this up on the PM5 or ErgData by selecting "undefined rest time."

I also do this, albeit not as regularly as defined rest, but assessing how quickly your HR recovers is a good sign of fitness. It does feel like 100, or reaching 60% of your max, is a good moment to go again.

[michael986]

Personally, I wear a heart-rate monitor and rest until my heart rate falls below 100 before starting the next interval.

You can set this up on the PM5 or ErgData by selecting "undefined rest time."

As you get fitter, wouldn't you expect the rest period to decrease (ie your heart rate would drop more quickly)? It actually seems quite logical to me as a way to train, but it does seem to be going against the advice of other posters who suggest that I should have a longer rest period.

But as I don't have a heart rate monitor and I've only got a PM3, it's a bit of a moot point!

[gvcormac]

Personally, I wear a heart-rate monitor and rest until my heart rate falls below 100 before starting the next interval.

You can set this up on the PM5 or ErgData by selecting "undefined rest time."

As you get fitter, wouldn't you expect the rest period to decrease (ie your heart rate would drop more quickly)? It actually seems quite logical to me as a way to train, but it does seem to be going against the advice of other posters who suggest that I should have a longer rest period.

But as I don't have a heart rate monitor and I've only got a PM3, it's a bit of a moot point!

You can calculate pulse the old-fashioned way. You don't need to be particularly precise.

You can also get a HR receiver for the PM3, but it only works with old (5khz, Gymlink) chest straps. I just bought one on AliExpress for CA$25. Amazon will sell you a Polar H9 or H10 (as well as the PM3 attachment), which also works.

If you have a smart watch, you'll find its wrist HR to be useless for rowing. But many can pick up the ANT+ or Bluetooth from a chest strap.

Yes, I disagree with the "ultra long rest" advice. HR 100 will take 1-4 minutes after a hard 1km row. Some HIIT advocates suggest very short rests, and I disagree with them, too. You need to rest enough to recover your aerobic capacity, but not to cool off too much.

[Sakly]

Personally, I wear a heart-rate monitor and rest until my heart rate falls below 100 before starting the next interval.

You can set this up on the PM5 or ErgData by selecting "undefined rest time."

As you get fitter, wouldn't you expect the rest period to decrease (ie your heart rate would drop more quickly)? It actually seems quite logical to me as a way to train, but it does seem to be going against the advice of other posters who suggest that I should have a longer rest period.

But as I don't have a heart rate monitor and I've only got a PM3, it's a bit of a moot point!

Your goal is to accumulate as much time at your target pace or faster, not to drop your HR at a certain pace-rest-ratio.
So it's logical to prioritize the pace over HR data. To get into faster paced intervals, you need as much rest, as needed to get to target pace, regardless of HR drop in rest or rise during the interval.
That's my point of view at least.

[Dangerscouse]

As you get fitter, wouldn't you expect the rest period to decrease (ie your heart rate would drop more quickly)? It actually seems quite logical to me as a way to train, but it does seem to be going against the advice of other posters who suggest that I should have a longer rest period.

Only imo, I think that there's a tipping point in the rest period, where that is is subjective. Physically you'll reach a point that you can maximise the next effort, but mentally it can be detrimental to rest too long as it's not going to happen when you do a single unbroken distance / time and it can become a crutch.

As you allude to longer rest periods are definitely something that are widely advocated, and I've even seen 9:55 rest periods from ex-national rowers in their training.

If you've not got a HRM, I'd choose a mid rest, eg three minutes and see how you feel using RPE and intuition. You can always row, at a faster or slower pace in the rest periods if you feel ready to go before the start of the next interval. Personally, I'm not a fan of longer rest periods as they just don't suit me.