Father Time?

[Lucasd48]

I’m 59 yers old and have been ergoing for 25 years and some. PB’s for 2k, 5k, 10k etc were all achieved some time ago and I’m realistic enough to realise that getting near those times now is unlikely with work, family etc all taking
precedence.

But here’s the thing that’s annoying me sub 19.30 for 5k once upon a time was easy but these days I’m struggling to pull a sub 20 min 5k. I still row 3/4 times a week my BMI, muscle mass and other numbers aren’t that different from 25 years ago, I can shift the same amount of weight in the gym and yet I know within the first 500m whether a sub 20 min 5k is on or not.

Should I just attribute this to a lack of mitochondrial density (!) decreased NAD production etc etc or Father Time just catching up?

I’m caught between 2 stalls of not knowing whether to train to increase the power ie holding 201 watts at 19/20 spm for 20 min or upping the rate and getting comfortable at 22/23/24spm and having the watts at 200+

Thanks in advance,
Paul

[Dangerscouse]

Should I just attribute this to a lack of mitochondrial density (!) decreased NAD production etc etc or Father Time just catching up?

I’m caught between 2 stalls of not knowing whether to train to increase the power ie holding 201 watts at 19/20 spm for 20 min or upping the rate and getting comfortable at 22/23/24spm and having the watts at 200+

Thanks in advance,
Paul

Has anything else changed in your training regime and/or life? Are you still doing a good range of distance and intensities?

Ageing has a massive splay of difference between us all, so, imo at least, there's no way of knowing what affects it'll have on you specifically.

Are you naturally more inclined to feel comfortable at lower or higher rates? Whichever it is should be your starting point for the aforementioned 200 watts, but both of these will be beneficial in different ways, but I'd have a primary focus on your natural instincts.

[nick rockliff]

I’m 59 yers old and have been ergoing for 25 years and some. PB’s for 2k, 5k, 10k etc were all achieved some time ago and I’m realistic enough to realise that getting near those times now is unlikely with work, family etc all taking
precedence.

But here’s the thing that’s annoying me sub 19.30 for 5k once upon a time was easy but these days I’m struggling to pull a sub 20 min 5k. I still row 3/4 times a week my BMI, muscle mass and other numbers aren’t that different from 25 years ago, I can shift the same amount of weight in the gym and yet I know within the first 500m whether a sub 20 min 5k is on or not.

Should I just attribute this to a lack of mitochondrial density (!) decreased NAD production etc etc or Father Time just catching up?

I’m caught between 2 stalls of not knowing whether to train to increase the power ie holding 201 watts at 19/20 spm for 20 min or upping the rate and getting comfortable at 22/23/24spm and having the watts at 200+

Thanks in advance,
Paul

It's father time catching up. Forget what you did 10, 15 or 25 years ago and set some new base lines to start from.

If you were fully trained at 40 you will be slower at 50.

There may be possibility of keeping the same or similar scores at the very short distances like 100m or 1 min but from 2k upwards you will be slower.

[rickbayko]

I second Nick's observation. I started at age 52, and hit my peak at age 57. You can see from the signature at the bottom how my times at various distances have deteriorated over the past 20 years. I still work out hard, still compete regularly, and still get proper nutrition and sleep. But Father Time will not be denied. He sees to it that the glass is half-empty. I still try to be the best I can be at this age, and use the ranking within my age group and the Nonathlon in order to keep the glass half-full.

[blutow]

I'm a cyclist who just started dabbling with rowing/erg, but I assume the physiological aspects of aging vs. performance is going to be similar for most endurance-centric activities.

Based on my personal experience (I'm 55) and what I've read, one of the biggest challenges as we age is finding the right balance of intensity (v02max and higher) vs. lower zone work. Very few amateurs are hitting up against their genetic limitations/ceiling. But as we age, that ceiling is gradually dropping. So, the potential gets lower, but it's often possible to maintain (or even improve) performance as we age by ramping up training stress. And that gets back to the intensity vs. volume vs. recovery challenge. Most masters athletes can handle a lot of volume, but most of the data (at least on the cycling side) points to limiting a masters athlete to only 2 intense workouts per week. So, you are getting most of your training stress through lower intensity work (which doesn't cause as much fatigue), but still need to work the intense workouts in. That's enough to stimulate v02max (basically slow the slide with aging), but not creating so much stress that you can't do the endurance work. I retired last year and have been playing with this balance with good results. I'll do a couple interval sessions per week when I'm at my freshest, and then pile on as much zone 2 (endurance work) as my body can take. Cycling is a different animal from a volume perspective, but it's not uncommon to ramp up to over 20 hours per week with only 2-3 hours of that being "hard" interval work.

As I've aged, I may not be able to hit the same power numbers for shorter efforts, but my power numbers for longer efforts have held steady and even improved for the really long stuff. Basically, the endurance training allows me to operate at a higher percentage of my ceiling (vo2max). Even though the ceiling is lower, I've improved the percentage enough to offset the drop (at least for longer efforts). But eventually, father time catches up and there isn't any type of training that will offset the physiological decline. And it's different for everyone. If you were a pro at 30, you'll likely never see those numbers again. If you got serious later in life, it's not uncommon to see improvements into 50's or even 60's (more time on your hands as kids are out of house, work less hours, etc.).

Anyways, I'm a bit of data/research nerd with this stuff, so I hope it has some applicability in the rowing/erg world. Apologies if it's off topic or not relevant. Cycling is all about power and there are tools/metrics that bucket training zones and measure training stress vs. recovery (TSS, acute training load, stress balance, etc.). I assume much of that goes on in rowing as well (maybe under different names), but it doesn't seem as prevalent based on my limited research. I just know that the watts I can do on an erg are laughable compared to my cycling watts. And a 20' 5k seems really hard based on what a 2' pace feels like for me. I did a ~21' 5k yesterday and I know my engine is capable of much more, but I'm trying to be patient and take it easy until my body gets used to things (my right knee is already complaining a bit).

[MPx]

I’m 59 yers old and have been ergoing for 25 years and some.

As you well know Paul, your personal physiology makes a huge difference in what figures seem reasonable/attainable and which are only viable for others. You dont give us anything to go on there (size/weight) - just what you were comfortable with in earlier years. A 19 min 5k is around the 69th percentile in the 30-39 rankings, but the 89th in the 50-59, and way over 90th in the group you're about to join. Funnily enough the 20min 5k is back around the 69th percentile in the latter groups...right where the 19min time was for the younger group.

I think there's a stronger point that Nick makes about how well trained you were in earlier years. If you were well trained, the drop of will be more marked. I too am a long time erger. I too have slowed down. However...I've not slowed down as much as Nick has because I was never anywhere close to his level in earlier years. I train more and smarter now than I did then. I didn't set my PBs until my 50s. Its all going horribly downhill now in absolute terms....but there's still light in the rankings - many of my goals are around times I need to set to achieve a ranking position - much more fun (and achievable!) than going after performances I could put in 25 years (or even 15) years ago.

Finally I'm not sure what point you're asking about with rating. Doing a 200w stroke at r20 certainly will give you your 20 min 5k - but if you're expecting to do that in UT2 training then you're presumably looking at a TT time around 18:30 when properly rating up? That's really quite spicey...

[Tsnor]

I’m caught between 2 stalls of not knowing whether to train to increase the power ie holding 201 watts at 19/20 spm for 20 min or upping the rate and getting comfortable at 22/23/24spm and having the watts at 200+

Thanks in advance,
Paul

A lot of modern training is focused on long/slow. NCAA rules limit rowing coaches to 20 hours/week of scheduled workouts and many teams push that. Improvements in your 5K time (which is almost all aerobic load) are likely not coming from 200 watt workouts, but from 130 watt workouts.

Consider this video on training: https://www.ted.com/talks/stephen_seile ... ubtitle=en

Then look at optimal 10 hour/week cyclist training and map to rowing. (Skip the 1.5 minutes it's just noise) https://youtu.be/-Wk0f-Bsw3E?si=6uAJfYzrJhVdBg79&t=99

You'll end up doing some weights, one or two hard days, a lot of long/slow and then crushing that 5K time. GL.

[jamesg]

Father Time just catching up?

My systems seem to know how much reserve power they need to keep me alive. Anything I do that endangers that reserve gets stopped and if cold, the stop is quick.

The only way to push limits seems to be via warmup, which presumably opens any pathways it can.

I did the 27 October WOD 20x45s+45sR on the day after, with a few minutes prior warmup only.

My average was 109W, but with the last three at 136, 145 and 158W. So now I know: warmup helps provide whatever is needed, but the limit remains: at best, 158/80kg=2W/kg.

[iain]

If you can run 2:00 pace at R20, then you should be able to manage 19:30 5k with a bit of practice to get used to holding R24 or so.

As for age, I am not aware of good research to examine variation in when and how quickly performance drops off. Across the population the decline accelerates around 55, so at 59 this will most likely have had a significant impact, so to row as fast will mean you getting much closer to your maximum potential as others have said.

[reevio]

There may be possibility of keeping the same or similar scores at the very short distances like 100m or 1 min but from 2k upwards you will be slower.

I would have thought the opposite was true, but based more on experience of running than rowing.

Older athletes can be pretty competitive still and threaten PBs into their 40s and 50s for longer distance runs, but would really struggle against their younger selves in sprints or low/mid distances.

[Lucasd48]

Thanks to everyone who contributed to this topic. MPx is correct I should have added size and weight. For the record 5ft 11in, 164Lbs so not lightweight or what I’d call a true heavyweight.

The often used phrase ‘row slower to get faster’ and
borne out in the link sent by Tsnor has always intrigued
me ,it’s difficult to argue with the science etc. and I’m definitely guilty of rowing ( and I don’t like the phrase) junk metres whereby it’s neither really easy steady state UT2 or high end anaerobic pieces but somewhere in between.

That’s served me well and I’m sure if I carried on I’d get back to somewhere near 19.30 for 5k. But if someone was dangling a carrot and said actually you could get nearer 19.20 if you abandoned your current regime and adopted something like this


80% of training at 2.07/ 2.08 500m splits UT2 anywhere between 10 and 15k
20% of training at 1.45 / 1.50 500m splits anaerobic threshold workouts . Supplemented with some weight training

……..I’d have to think it’s worth having a go.

Has anyone had success adopting something like this?

Thanks,
Paul

[blutow]

80% of training at 2.07/ 2.08 500m splits UT2 anywhere between 10 and 15k
20% of training at 1.45 / 1.50 500m splits anaerobic threshold workouts . Supplemented with some weight training

……..I’d have to think it’s worth having a go.

Has anyone had success adopting something like this?

Thanks,
Paul

Again, from a cycling perspective - the 80/20 split is a pretty common starting point, but I think it's mainly a question of stress balance and volume. If someone is training 5 hours per week, it's reasonable for 40% of their work (2 hours) to be at higher intensity. If someone is training 20 hours per week, 2 hours (10%) might still be the right amount of intensity to keep the training stress productive. Basically, the body can only take so much intensity per week (varies by age and individual), but most people can ramp up easy Z2 work to very high levels (as long as it's ramped gradually) and still be productive. You can add/maintain a ton of fitness through a little intensity per week (the easy low hanging fruit), but the long/slow stuff is where you make the incremental gains over many months or years. But it's all diminishing returns and every additional training hour gives less fitness in return. At some point, it's a personal decision of whether the juice is worth the squeeze when we're not getting paid to be fast.

Personally, I've had good results at ~15% Z2 when training 15-20 hours per week. The key is to make sure to schedule your week so that the intensity is done when fresh. Hard should be really hard or it's just creating more fatigue with minimal adaptations if you aren't hitting good numbers. Easy is actually where most folks struggle to go easy. On a bike, Z2 is "all day" casual conversation pace. If you go "a little hard" on your easy days, there is no significant training benefit over going easy and you are just creating unproductive fatigue that hurts the quality of the hard days.

I don't have perspective on how easy a 2:07 pace is for you, but just make sure it's really easy. I'm not a big heartrate guy for training, but my HR would be under 120 for my easy work. Another way to figure out the easy target is by power % of threshold power (steady state lactate, max power for ~1 hour). For cycling, most folks will cap their easy Z2 work at around 70-75% of threshold power. So, if my threshold power is 300, my max Z2 power target would be 210-225. Again, this is all cycling based, wattages are different for rowing and long rides are probably much longer than long rowing sessions. But I think the concept would be similar. Easy days should be really easy and hard days should be really, really hard.

[MPx]

80% of training at 2.07/ 2.08 500m splits UT2 anywhere between 10 and 15k
20% of training at 1.45 / 1.50 500m splits anaerobic threshold workouts . Supplemented with some weight training

Has anyone had success adopting something like this?

Errr...yes and no. A few years back I adopted an 80/20 polarised pattern for a year or so. The bits that worked...as advertised, I was able to erg nearly every day and recovered well enough to try really hard on the hard days. I improved my aerobic engine (always my weakest point - and still is!) so that there was less of a gulf between my best sprints and best mid/long distances vs others in the rankings - but still apparant, no miracles!

The main issue for me with it was it also trained me to erg slower and I found the gap between SS and TT pace/rate to be just too big/hard mentally. My scores after the year were actually getting worse and it wasn't about aging. After hours and hours of long and slow, I simply didn't believe I'd be able to maintain a TT pace/rate - and as a result I couldn't, even if maybe I could have physically. So I reintroduced some grey zone stuff in the middle, and that has helped. I still do rather too much at 20r as that's easy to keep steady, I should learn to vary more from say 18 to 24 for the SS sessions. But I've adopted free rate into the grey bits and pace variation into some of the SS 20r sessions and that has helped with both belief and avoiding some of the monotony.

We're all different, so it may affect you in an entirely different way. Best of luck.

[Dangerscouse]

The main issue for me with it was it also trained me to erg slower and I found the gap between SS and TT pace/rate to be just too big/hard mentally. My scores after the year were actually getting worse and it wasn't about aging. After hours and hours of long and slow, I simply didn't believe I'd be able to maintain a TT pace/rate - and as a result I couldn't, even if maybe I could have physically. So I reintroduced some grey zone stuff in the middle, and that has helped. I still do rather too much at 20r as that's easy to keep steady, I should learn to vary more from say 18 to 24 for the SS sessions. But I've adopted free rate into the grey bits and pace variation into some of the SS 20r sessions and that has helped with both belief and avoiding some of the monotony.

We're all different, so it may affect you in an entirely different way. Best of luck.

Same here. I definitely need to keep doing fairly regular grey zone training, for confidence and enjoyment purposes.

[Dutch]

Very interesting topic. I really got myself together about 6 yrs ago with weight training and then brought in rowing about 5 yrs ago, cycling 3 yrs ago.
I have always trained, but never as consistently as now and the last few yrs. I never really touched what I was probably capable of 20 or 30 yrs ago weights wise, but what I did do I can do now and more. I know many in there 50s who do as well.

I have only ever really done the 500m consistently for rowing over the last 23 yrs and did beat my pb from that long ago about 8 weeks ago. So based on my experiences I think yes I can beat power based times for sure. I am still on the 500m time and it could go on until maybe Feb.

Most of my distance training is at ut2 even 3 sometimes and it has paid dues when it comes to fitness. I currently do that cycling and do tabata on rowing.
I dont blow out on press up or pull ups now and can do nrly a 3rd more than 20 to 30 yrs ago. These are possibly powerbased, so prob come from HIIT training. I just test them every 8 weeks or so and seem to turn in more numbers each time.

What really focused me in was getting a coach about 2 yrs ago and being taught to just pick the project you want and gear everything towards it. So a certain weight or distance or time and eat, sleep focus and only the training that will benefit that event.
What I have learnt is not to waste my resources on being good at everything and be selfish when it comes to the mindset.

For me to turn in a sub 7 2k time would take a lot more discipline than 500m training and my current 2k time is 7.29 from about 3.5 yrs ago. Plus, I did not heavy weight train, this was 2nd to rowing, it complemented it with light weights. Recovery was easier because of this as well.

I recently did a martial arts class over a 4mnth period for 1hr a week and it turned into a fortnight after 2mnths then on the 3rd month I could not be bothered as cycle and rowing training was suffering, recovery was hard. But in my 20s I was heavily into kickboxing and did 3 lessons a week but had to give up weights as I was too tired, and this was the early 90s and I was unemployed and had no worries virtually. So based on this, I know recovery for me is important and not a lot has changed into my 50s, little and often for training but I am lucky enough to get away with the bare minimum and still turn in times and weights I want. I also know I am not the most powerful or the best at long distance as others, but will still hold my own.

I feel that I have a few yrs of improvement yet all round but could not tell you where certain limits are on the rower for distance. I know the pain and training for short events like 500m to 1k will be nr to my limits in prob another yr and squats at weight training are certainly proving a bit ominous mind wise.
Maybe that is a result of the amount of training needed to improve is becoming daunting as I am getting older. So the mind loses the edge as the body says no thanks lol or the other way round.