interesting training plan!!!

[azink]

hi! i was wondering if you think that doing a 90 minute piece every day at like 18-20 spm would be a good training plan?

[PaulS]

I don't think so, but opinons vary.

Perhaps making it 3 x 30', or better yet 3 x 20' would be a bit better, though since there is no indication of how intensity might be measured or kept track of, I would be curious as to what that might be.

[Dreadnought]

hi! i was wondering if you think that doing a 90 minute piece every day at like 18-20 spm would be a good training plan?

What are your goals?

[Ducatista]

If your goal is to bore yourself to death, better get your affairs in order.

[igoeja]

Hagerman, the former US National Team medical director, has written that 60 minute workouts are useless, and the same benefit can be derived from 30 minute workouts. Along these lines, he also wrote that performing 20 minute workouts at a higher aerobic level would provide the same benefits as 60 minute pieces. To implement this, you could do 2 x 20' interval with a 2:1 (interval:recovery) recovery time.

As for learning technique, the best way to develop the muscle memory for good technique is to row at higher speeds, although there might be benefits to rowing at lower rates, particularly when developing base endurance, and as part of focused interval work.

[Pete Marston]

Hagerman, the former US National Team medical director, has written that 60 minute workouts are useless, and the same benefit can be derived from 30 minute workouts.

Do you have a reference for this to see the context? If 60min rows are useless, and the same benefit can be derived from 30min rows, then that means 30min rows are useless. I take it you mean there is no benefit of 60min rows over 30min rows, and it's that I'd like to see a reference for to see the context.

Thanks,
Pete

[becz]

Hagerman, the former US National Team medical director, has written that 60 minute workouts are useless, and the same benefit can be derived from 30 minute workouts.

Do you have a reference for this to see the context? If 60min rows are useless, and the same benefit can be derived from 30min rows, then that means 30min rows are useless. I take it you mean there is no benefit of 60min rows over 30min rows, and it's that I'd like to see a reference for to see the context.

Thanks,
Pete

igoeja posted an article by Fritz Hagerman on this topic here. It basically says that you gain significantly more benefit from breaking a 60' row into two or three higher intensity shorter segments, i.e. 2 x 30' with a work to rest ratio of 1:.5 or 1:.25.

[dlholmes]

Depends on what you are training for. I spend most of my summer doing 100min to 2hr pieces either on the water, bike, or erg. In the fall and winter interval training, as those above mention, is a much better choice in preparation for sprinting. I wouldn't do a 90 min every day though maybe 4-5 per week.

[Nosmo]

It doesn't make sense to do the same workout everyday no matter what you are training for!
Much better off doing some longer and some shorter. Varying the stroke rating and the intensity. These long rows are good for getting a solid base, or if you are cross trianing for another endurance sport that requires long efforts.

[hjs]

hi! i was wondering if you think that doing a 90 minute piece every day at like 18-20 spm would be a good training plan?

No

[csabour]

guys

i dont see a problem here.

in season competitve rowers easily do over 90' on the water every morning.

whats the difference?

azink, my friend at school has been doing 90' of aerobic work 5 times a week day this winter. and trust me he is fast. the kid pulled 6:23 in june and is 165lbs. he is also junior. look him up on the C2 rankings.

[PaulS]

guys

i dont see a problem here.

in season competitve rowers easily do over 90' on the water every morning.

whats the difference?

You see no difference between 90' in a boat and 90' on the Erg?

This was the subject of some UK study regarding lower back stress, and though it's highly unlikely that the 90' in a boat would not contain a few short breaks (which is what we are suggesting here for the Erg), the Erg doesn't really necessitate a break, so folks don't take one, and that is not a good thing at all. 40 minutes without a break would be the outside limit I would ever schedule, and it certainly would be well below a maximum capacity effort level. The breaks do not have to be long, 1-2 minutes for 20-30 minute intervals.

[becz]

guys

i dont see a problem here.

in season competitve rowers easily do over 90' on the water every morning.

whats the difference?

azink, my friend at school has been doing 90' of aerobic work 5 times a week day this winter. and trust me he is fast. the kid pulled 6:23 in june and is 165lbs. he is also junior. look him up on the C2 rankings.

Aside from the benefits that PaulS describes regarding giving your back a break (which I know from unfortunate experience is important), the article I referenced says in no uncertain terms that you do not gain any _more_ benefit from, say, 90 minutes continuous rowing at a low steady state pace than you do by doing, say, 3x30' at 10-20% more power output. In fact, you gain _significantly_ more by doing this. If you're going to spend that much time on the erg, you should get as much benefit as possible. Here is the most pertinent section:
______________________________________________________
Many coaches and athletes are convinced that 60-120 minutes of continuous low intensity or steady-state rowing is an important part of developing and maintaining an adequate aerobic base. We have convincing data, including muscle biopsy histochemical and biochemical indicators, which support that rowing continuously at a low steady state intensity for 60 minutes or longer for any calibre of rower, is not more effective in maintaining aerobic capacity than 30 minutes of rowing at the same work intensity.

Not only do these results apply to a single bout of rowing, but also to 5, 10, 15, and 20 week training responses after the aerobically-trained subjects had completed a total of 20, 40, 60 and 80 training sessions respectively. Furthermore, performing 2 intermittent 30 minute exercise bouts of relatively high aerobic work intensity (10-20 % more average power than for the low intensity work) with a 7-10 minute recovery period between the 30 minute work bouts is a much stronger aerobic training stimulus than lower intensity continuous rowing.

This higher work intensity for continuous rowing could not be tolerated by most subjects for more than 32-36 minutes and still maintain a steady-state. The increased energy expenditure of the intermittent high intensity work not only proved significantly more effective than either 30 or 60 minutes of rowing in the improvement of aerobic capacity, but it was also more neuromuscularly task specific.

[TabbRows]

Just as slow long distance running creates a slow long distance runner, so to slow long distance erging/rowing creates a slow long distance erger/rower.

I even break up my "steady state" training sessions into smaller pieces (2-4minutes) of erging at different ratings just to keep my mind focused.

[Mike Caviston]

Many coaches and athletes are convinced that 60-120 minutes of continuous low intensity or steady-state rowing is an important part of developing and maintaining an adequate aerobic base. We have convincing data, including muscle biopsy histochemical and biochemical indicators, which support that rowing continuously at a low steady state intensity for 60 minutes or longer for any calibre of rower, is not more effective in maintaining aerobic capacity than 30 minutes of rowing at the same work intensity.

I have a couple comments regarding this passage. First: show me the “convincing data”! Does anyone know if this has actually been published, and if so, where? Second, a common error by physiologists and laypeople alike is to equate some physiological measure with actual performance. Changes in VO2max, Lactate Threshold, resting heart rate, mitochondrial density, “histochemical and biochemical indicators”, etc. etc. are all well and good, but the relevant measure is 2K time, pure and simple. I would like to see well-conducted controlled clinical studies that show long, continuous sessions are not beneficial to performance. My personal experience, as both an athlete and coach for over 25 years, is just the opposite.

I’ve detailed my training guidelines elsewhere (re: Wolverine Plan), but just to quickly summarize my beliefs on this point. For almost everyone interested in improving 2K performance, clearly a certain amount of low-moderate intensity endurance training is beneficial. Breaking 60-90’ of total work into 20-30’ blocks won’t measurably reduce the benefit in most cases, certainly not for recreational level or mid-level competitive athletes. But to achieve absolute peak performance, I advocate a weekly session of at least 60’ (and ideally approaching 90’) of continuous, uninterrupted rowing. (I also include sessions where total volume is broken down into smaller increments.) Injury can be avoided with correct application of intensity and a slow, gradual buildup of volume beginning from a modest value. Of course, I also advocate focus on proper technique and a certain amount of core strength and flexibility training.

Mike Caviston