Sometime the foundation is not what it seems

GeorgeD · Post by **GeorgeD** » August 29th, 2006, 5:22 am

Lydiard I believe said that the height of the peak is directly attributable to the extent of the base.

I am sure that many who have read anything about periodisation have seen those graphical representations of a season with the gradually rising plain (the base) moving into a series of ever taller hills each followed by a valley (themselves a little higher than the last) until the highest peak is reached (hopefully in conjunction with the main event) and then falling into the valley of the off season.

So the bigger the aerobic base hopefully the more stress our body will be able to handle (without collapsing) as we build the peak. BUT and there is always a BUT

, what happens if we get so fixated on building a base so wide (for so long) that when we start to build we find we have created something so wide that it is in fact wafer thin or that the edges start to crumble.

eg I have a goal that is about 2 years out, so obviously if I start building the base now then I will be able to build a higher peak come the crunch, yes

, no

I think the answer is no

I think what we need to do is build a base, climb the mountain and then traipse down the other side BUT and here is the key, we dont go back down the way we came up, we go down the other side of the mountain to a valley that is higher than the one we started in .... we hang around and smell the roses and then we begin the building process again and climb the next mountain and so on and so on.

The base determines not only the height of the mountain in the immediate future but the height at which we start building again next season. If we build and build and build the base, one year, two years, three years, without ever bringing it to a peak then what we are doing is in fact limiting the height of the peak that we will achieve when we eventually start to build.

IMHO George

TabbRows · Post by **TabbRows** » August 29th, 2006, 8:42 am

Wise musings George. Arthur would be proud.

I remember he had us hopping and skipping and jumping all over mountain meadows in California back in the 80s before all that stuff became common place. We thought we looked silly and hadn't a clue as to how that stuff could improve our marathoning abilities. But it did.

In essence, long slow rate erging gets you "down the river" at a long slow rate. And you're doomed to stay there unless you mix it up and get to the higher valley.

"Just punting lazily down the old mill stream."

ST

TomR · Post by **TomR** » August 29th, 2006, 1:29 pm

George--

Have a look at a part of Stephen Seiler's site related to XC skiing.

http://home.hia.no/~stephens/xctheory.htm

Several points:

1) Do the long work at "low-moderate" intensity. The physiological adaptations to be successful at higher intensity take YEARS.

2) Do one or two "high" intensity interval sessions each week (except a couple of months each years, following race season).

3) Avoid training in the middle intensities.

Seiler says the principles apply to rowing.

Tom

GeorgeD · Post by **GeorgeD** » August 29th, 2006, 3:19 pm

Tom the way I read that Seiler is recommending UT2 predominantly in respect to volume, less UT1 than the IP would recommend, then into the AT and above. That's interesting

I guess it could be argued that UT2 intensities allow us to do large volumes without risk of injury or over-training and physical adaptation follow (aerobic efficiencies) - then the next threshold we are looking to change is the AT, and to do this we need to be working just above AT to create an environment for adaptation.

UT1 work is by definition below AT yet more stressful than UT2 - what is it doing

Something I am sure but what, it would be good for the more knowledgeable to enlighten us.

George

jjpisano · Post by **jjpisano** » August 29th, 2006, 3:29 pm

GeorgeD:

I think of my training as hiking through a series of hills with the valleys and hill tops slightly higher than the preceding hills and valleys. When I get to the hill tops, I can view the distant peak that I'm hiking toward.

My hill tops are rounded out by tuneup 2k's. My next tuneup 2k is in two weeks.

I should be visiting the familiar 7:00 2k hill top. Off in the distance is a 6:40 peak. There are definitely challenges ahead in reaching that distant peak. There several hills and valleys on the way which I've yet to reach.

RowtheRockies · Post by **RowtheRockies** » August 29th, 2006, 4:37 pm

There is a great story about Priscilla Welch in a book I have called Running with the Legends. Priscilla did not start running until she was in her 30's. For something like the first two years she did no speed work, just long base miles. After building a good base, she added in speedwork and reached the elite levels of Women't marathon running.

I think if one is patient enough, spending 2 years building base is a great idea. That said, once the base is built, you should incorporate some form of speed work year around with a goal to peak once or twice a season.and should not need to spend large chunks of time base building.

Unfortunately, I am neither patient nor have the time in my schedule to spend two years building base.

Rich

GeorgeD · Post by **GeorgeD** » August 29th, 2006, 6:27 pm

RowtheRockies wrote:There is a great story about Priscilla Welch in a book I have called Running with the Legends. Priscilla did not start running until she was in her 30's. For something like the first two years she did no speed work, just long base miles. After building a good base, she added in speedwork and reached the elite levels of Women't marathon running.

I think if one is patient enough, spending 2 years building base is a great idea. That said, once the base is built, you should incorporate some form of speed work year around with a goal to peak once or twice a season.and should not need to spend large chunks of time base building.

Unfortunately, I am neither patient nor have the time in my schedule to spend two years building base.

Rich

Interesting point you make in your example which raises another question

and that is 'building a base relative to a goal'

The difference between the relative physiological demands of doing 'base pace and distances' for a racing a marathon would I think be somewhat different to the 'base pace and distances' for then racing a 2k.

That is not very clear

but I am guessing that if I trained for a marathon then I would probably not run / row it much quicker than I did my long base building rows, but when training for a 2k there is a huge leap between my base building rows and the demands required for a 2k.

Does that make sense, and if so how does it add to our discussion

George

mpukita · Post by **mpukita** » August 29th, 2006, 7:05 pm

George:

I would propose that there is more of a demand on the structure and the execution of the workouts to row a fast 2K than there is to row (or run) a fast marathon. This is probably more a matter of convenience.

If we assume that to row a good 2K, one needs to do lots of base building, relative to the distance, as well as fast intervals to recruit the adaptive response, that's one scenario.

If the goal is to row a good marathon, that's another thing altogether, The base building rows would likely need to be waaaaaaaaay longer, and much slower, and the interval to get the best adaptive response might be things like 4 x 10K, or 2 x 15K? Wow, lots of time to be devoted ... more than most mortals have available after family and occupation. And, not so much focus on stroke rate and pace ... or maybe better said it would be easier to hit a specific stroke rate and pace because everything would be less intense, and this there would be more time (or strokes) to compensate for missed rate or pace. Slow motion so to speak.

An interesting question though!

Regards -- Mark

RowtheRockies · Post by **RowtheRockies** » August 29th, 2006, 7:21 pm

George,

You are correct. The longer the event the more important becomes the base but for optimal performance at the highest level, the difference would not be as much as you imagine. . My experience comes from 17 years of running. I have only been erging since Dec. so I don't think I can talk as well to that. However, both rowing and running being primarily aerobic should benefit from similar training strategies. The primary difference being the lack of impact in erging which I think allows you to train at a higher intensity more often than in running.

One thing to keep in mind however is that the difference between a world class 1500 Meter runner and a world class Marathon runner's training plan is really not that much. Elite milers still will do 20 mile Sunday runs during the buildup phase just like Marathoners. The difference between the two is that the 1500 runner will taper his long run down to around 12 miles during the pre comp and competition phase whereas the marothoner will keep his weekly long run at 20 or more for most of the year. The 1500 runner will have a larger % of work dedicated to speed than the Marothoner but they are still putting in upwards of 85 and some 100 miles a week.

What does this have to do with rowing. I think a lot actually. I don't know enough about the training habbits of the most elite ergers to be certain but I would suspect that the top 10% of the erging community is not putting in 12 hours of training a week. I could be very wrong and someone please tell me if it is so.

If I did not have to work full time, My training week would look something like: A 32,000M row done in a single session each Sunday up to three months out from a competition I wish to peak for, Two days of interval sessions with the work or "on" portions totalling between 8,000 Meters and 16,000 meters. The other 4 days would consist of rows ranging from 13,000 meters to 23,000. With the exception of the interval days, all of the training would be done at about 70% of max HR. Total for the week about 136,000 to 160,000 Meters a week.

Now since I do not get paid to erg, my training week currently is more like 30,000 Meters a week but I will just consider myself lucky that I can fit in that much.

Though I am being very long winded, my point is that I believe that base building would be very important to somone who wanted to take a crack at the world record for the 2K.

Rich

TomR · Post by **TomR** » August 29th, 2006, 8:08 pm

Define "base."

If you think of it as training the cardiovascular system--bigger, stronger heart; more extensive capillaries; changes in muscle cells--then the "base" is essential to rowing an optimal 2k. A well-trained base allows you to row a greater portion of the race aerobically, and all other things being equal (they never are), the rower who completes the greater portion of the race aerobically wins.

A 2k requires substantial power, so big guys can muscle a row to an extent, but if you're like George and relatively better at 1k than longer rows, then improving your base is the path to greater speed over 2k.

By the way, when Seiler describes intervals for x/c skiers (who race 30k and 50k), he's talking about intervals of 3-8 minutes, not longer.

Tom

hjs · Post by **hjs** » August 30th, 2006, 4:52 am

GeorgeD wrote:
RowtheRockies wrote:There is a great story about Priscilla Welch in a book I have called Running with the Legends. Priscilla did not start running until she was in her 30's. For something like the first two years she did no speed work, just long base miles. After building a good base, she added in speedwork and reached the elite levels of Women't marathon running.

I think if one is patient enough, spending 2 years building base is a great idea. That said, once the base is built, you should incorporate some form of speed work year around with a goal to peak once or twice a season.and should not need to spend large chunks of time base building.

Unfortunately, I am neither patient nor have the time in my schedule to spend two years building base.

Rich
Interesting point you make in your example which raises another question and that is 'building a base relative to a goal' The difference between the relative physiological demands of doing 'base pace and distances' for a racing a marathon would I think be somewhat different to the 'base pace and distances' for then racing a 2k.

That is not very clear but I am guessing that if I trained for a marathon then I would probably not run / row it much quicker than I did my long base building rows, but when training for a 2k there is a huge leap between my base building rows and the demands required for a 2k.

Does that make sense, and if so how does it add to our discussion

George

I also think that a 2/3 hour effort can,t be compared to a 6/7 minute effort. For a marathon the speedfactor is almost Non existing.
Building a base for 2k rowing can,t be the same as building one for a marathon.

Than the long term goal, modern training principles are build around smaller cycles. Doing something to long the same way doesn,t make adaptions , you get used to it.
You have to give your body a reason to adapt. Shorterm cycles work best for this.

GeorgeD · Post by **GeorgeD** » August 30th, 2006, 5:03 am

Henry what sort of cycle lengths are used in modern athletics now - how long an off season as well?

tks George

hjs · Post by **hjs** » August 30th, 2006, 5:53 am

GeorgeD wrote:Henry what sort of cycle lengths are used in modern athletics now - how long an off season as well?

tks George

I have seen 6 weeks cycles. But those would drive you mad, very big changes were used.
Off season quit long. Doing very little for 4/6 weeks is not uncommon. Goal is to get rested very well and heal all little pains.

For me it is always very difficult to rest enough although I know I react good on it and don,t loose much.
Most of my athletic pb's I have set after an easy period.

TomR · Post by **TomR** » August 31st, 2006, 1:58 pm

George--

Huw Jenkins offered this observation on a thread in the UK. Think it's relevant:

"In an endurance sport like rowing, top rowers train longer for much of the time (rather than shorter and harder) because this gives a shorter recovery time between sessions, so they can do more sessions which, overall, is better.

"However, most club rowers don't have as much time to train but do have more time for recovery between sessions. In this, case they are better off with more intense sessions as they can only do fewer sessions. Overall it's not as good, but it does get the most benefit for the time available."

Tom

GeorgeD · Post by **GeorgeD** » August 31st, 2006, 3:26 pm

TomR wrote:George--

Huw Jenkins offered this observation on a thread in the UK. Think it's relevant:

"In an endurance sport like rowing, top rowers train longer for much of the time (rather than shorter and harder) because this gives a shorter recovery time between sessions, so they can do more sessions which, overall, is better.

"However, most club rowers don't have as much time to train but do have more time for recovery between sessions. In this, case they are better off with more intense sessions as they can only do fewer sessions. Overall it's not as good, but it does get the most benefit for the time available."

Tom

Hi Tom,

yes read that and agreed. Just commented to someone today that the IP takes this into account by dropping UT2 sessions after 3 weeks if you are only training 5 days a week.

George