interesting training plan!!!

[Nosmo]

Would breaking long efforts up apply if one were training for a marathon or half maration instead of a 2K? How about a 5K? I do wonder about the studies since they are testing for a 2K.

I've also never heard of runners breaking say a 10 mile run up into two 5 milers.

I come from more of a cycling background where continuous efforts are almost impossible. Between traffic hills and trading off with other riders, there is almost always a large variation in power output. So this is an interesting question.

These day's since I am only rowing a max of 4 days a week I tend to make all my long rows hard. Saturday I did a HM, and after an hour I was wondering if I would finish. I did it at a 1:58.8 pace , where as my seasons best 10K was at 1:58, (although I'm sure I can do a sub 1:57 pace), and my 5K was 1:53.9. I wouldn't have gone much faster if I did two 10k rather then the HM.

Basically I'm skeptical that breaking up longer rows are benifitial for longer races. But for 2K I would believe it.

Nosmo
46 yrs
5'7.25"
68Kg

[igoeja]

Your demanding proof that it doesn't work, but present no proof that it does, other than your opinion. Hagerman, the author of the quoted material, has been researching rowers for decades (published studies via PubMed date back to 1971) and is a world-renowned physiologist.

Is there any published data to show that long workouts, lasting 60 or more minutes, are better than shorter but more intense intervals?

[igoeja]

Runners running 5K or 10K's often do overdistance work, putting in one long run per week of up to 15 miles, often focusing on periodized training that builds to speed work, but includes steady state training, as well as hard pace training.

A rower's race, in this case a 2K, is 7 minutes or less. The level of overdistance that 60 minute workouts entail would be incredible, the equivalent long day run would be 30 miles for a 5K, and 60 miles for a 10K.

Bicyclists on the other hand, can do a century (100+ miles) a day, but even then, the requirements of the sport are similar to the training, and not multiples of ten.

Unless one discards the running and biking analogies, it makes the idea of 60 minutes rowing workouts seem extreme, at least for 2K competitions.

[Kinley]

A rower's race, in this case a 2K

You didn't read the question. Nosmo asked about training for a marathon.

[TomR]

Regarding the relevance of long rows to 2k training, read chapter five of the book "Rowing Faster." The chapter is written by Marty Aitken, former coach of Olympic gold medalist Xeno Mueller and a British national coach. He recommends regular 100-120 min steady state workouts. (In the training plan he posted, Xeno included short breaks during longer workouts).

[becz]

Regarding the relevance of long rows to 2k training, read chapter five of the book "Rowing Faster." The chapter is written by Marty Aitken, former coach of Olympic gold medalist Xeno Mueller and a British national coach. He recommends regular 100-120 min steady state workouts. (In the training plan he posted, Xeno included short breaks during longer workouts).

It didn't seem to me that the article by Hagerman indicated that long steady work wasn't necessary or beneficial. It's the notion that long continuous distance at the lower aerobic levels isn't beneficial after 30 minutes, and that the training response is significantly improved by increasing output by 10 to 20% (still aerobic however) and breaking the work up into 30 minute pieces with about 7' rest between them.

For me, this might mean something like: rather than rowing 90' continuous at 2:00 pace (which gives me avg heart rate of 140 or so), do 3x30' at 1:56 with a 7' break between each (which gives a heart rate of about 160 at the end of each piece).

[Mike Caviston]

Your demanding proof that it doesn't work, but present no proof that it does, other than your opinion. Hagerman, the author of the quoted material, has been researching rowers for decades (published studies via PubMed date back to 1971) and is a world-renowned physiologist.

I know who Hagerman is and what he’s accomplished. I’ve read much of his published research and I’ve spoken with him at rowing conferences. All I asked was if the “convincing data, including histochemical and biochemical indicators” is available. As a physiologist, I’d like a chance to evaluate this data myself.

Is there any published data to show that long workouts, lasting 60 or more minutes, are better than shorter but more intense intervals?

It’s not a question of what is “better”, since there’s no need to perform only one type of training and avoid the other. There is plenty of published data to show that long workouts, lasting 60 or more minutes stimulate qualitatively different adaptations than shorter but more intense intervals. My personal experience – and you can take it or leave it as you like, but I’ve worked with hundreds of competitive collegiate athletes – is that including long, continuous sessions in the training plan produces better results (faster 2K times and more wins OTW) than training without long continuous sessions.

For me, this might mean something like: rather than rowing 90' continuous at 2:00 pace (which gives me avg heart rate of 140 or so), do 3x30' at 1:56 with a 7' break between each (which gives a heart rate of about 160 at the end of each piece).

My point here is that the 3 x 30’ format creates a fundamentally different workout. It would be a great workout, contributing greatly to 2K fitness. But to add another small but important piece to the total fitness puzzle requires some long, continuous work – to stimulate adaptations that won’t occur using any other format. Again, for me it’s not a question of either/or – I do both. Depending on an individual’s personal goals and level of commitment, there may not be any need to do long continuous sessions. But my feeling is that they are necessary for maximum 2K fitness.

Mike Caviston

[Sean Seamus]

If 60min rows are useless, and the same benefit can be derived from 30min rows, then that means 30min rows are useless.

brilliant and succinct ! thank you for a clear and insightful statement

Everything - EVERYTHING - depends upon the goal that is being attempted, and the circumstances enveloping the situation.

To say that THIS or THAT is Right / Wrong / Correct, without clear context, is rhetoric without reason.

[Nosmo]

There is plenty of published data to show that long workouts, lasting 60 or more minutes stimulate qualitatively different adaptations than shorter but more intense intervals.
Mike Caviston

Mike,
What are those adaptations? is it just a matter of time working out continuously, or is the slower pace necessary for those adaptations.

The reason I ask is that several years ago in the local cycling community, the recieved wisdom was that you need a solid base in the winter and begining of the season where you put a lot of miles in without ever letting your heart rate get very high (< something like 65% MHR), and if it does get higher you loose some adaptation. I think it had something to do with development of capilary structure. I don't think that philosophy is as prevelant anymore.

Also looking at the info about the interactive plan on the C2 UK web site, I have been doing almost all my long rows (10K to HM) in the AT range. Is this a mistake? Perhaps because of my history of more endurance sports, the chart is a bit skewed for me (or perhaps I can do 2K a lot faster then I think), but I usually erg pretty hard. I am more interested in longer distances at the moment. My next goal a full marathon under a 2:00 pace. Once I get a really good base and my time start to level off at the longer distances, I'll work on the 2K and shorter.

Thanks,

Nosmo
---
68 kg
175cm
2K: 7:15.6 (148.9)
5K: 18:58.8 (1:53.9)
10K: 38:49.9 (1:56.5)
60min: 15137 (1:58.9)
HM: 1:23:34 (1:58.8)

[ancho]

Nosmo: You should take a closer look at Mike Caviston's Wolverine Plan http://www.concept2.com/forums/wolverine_plan.htm,
specially at the level 4 workouts.

It will take you a while reading it, but its 100% worthwile!

[Mike Caviston]

You can get more details if you research my writing regarding the Wolverine Plan in the forum archives, but in short the extended time is necessary to first exhaust the oxidative muscle fibers (which inherently have a high level of endurance) so you will be forced to recruit glycolytic fibers. Glycolytic fibers are of course recruited during short duration/high intensity work, but under these conditions the metabolic adaptations involve the glycolytic pathway – in other words making these fibers better at what they already do well! For a well-trained endurance athlete, 60’ of continuous work may not be enough to exhaust the oxidative fibers, so I try to work close to 90’ if possible. Since oxidative fibers have fast recovery rates, breaking the session into 3 x 30’ with even short breaks may allow the oxidative fibers to remain active without a need to recruit glycolytic fibers. This is partly conjectural on my part, so if others don’t want to buy into it, it’s no skin off my nose. But the idea is to stimulate endurance adaptations (mitochondria, capillaries, etc.) in the glycolytic fibers so that during an all-out 2K, they will be better equipped and more resistant to fatigue. I believe these types of workouts have had a small but measurable effect (2 seconds?) on my 2K potential. I can categorically state that 2K races aren’t as painful as they used to be, and I recover more quickly. But the ratio of time & effort required, relative to returns in performance, are higher than most people are willing to accept, and that’s fine.

I never relate training paces to heart rate, but I flat-out reject the notion that you would lose any specific adaptations simply because your HR climbed above some arbitrary value. Without going into another long discussion (since I’ve already done so eslewhere), the general idea is to find a pace that is challenging but sustainable for the duration of the session. Good luck with your marathon.

Mike Caviston

[Nosmo]

Thanks Mike,
That makes a lot of sense to me. I never did believe those who insisted on riding in a certain heart rate range all the time. Not only did I not think it was not terribly useful, it seemed like the plan was so strict it took all the fun out of riding.

I have found the heart rate monitor useful for two things: 1) If I'm getting sick and feeling bad, it is one more warning that I should not ignore how I'm feeling. 2) When doing long bike rides that I am mostly trying to survive, it can help me avoid going anaerobic. Other then that I've found it a fun but useless toy.

Its also good to hear that my intuition is not wrong. I think I have enough experience to put together a plan that will work for me. The goal of 2:00 pace for the FM, should not be too much of a stretch. Don't know if it will take 3 weeks or 2 months but it shouldn't take any longer. I am currently debating whether to emphasize increasing my distance gradually while keeping the pace high, or emphasize increasing the distance first and then bring up the pace. I'll probably do much more of the former simply because I never have the time to train as much as I want.

[Mike Caviston]

I am currently debating whether to emphasize increasing my distance gradually while keeping the pace high, or emphasize increasing the distance first and then bring up the pace. I'll probably do much more of the former simply because I never have the time to train as much as I want.

I've had that debate myself and after many years still haven't determined which works better, and I usually end up doing a combination of both approaches. In the long run, and especially for marathon training, distance is probably a little more important than pace, but as you say there are only so many hours in a day that we can devote to training. Again, good luck.

Mike Caviston