Sprints and Stuff- training/questions 1k and below

[Cyclingman1]

As much as I would like to say something different, I don't think the LSD work I did (maybe I did it wrong) advanced me as much as it did some. Galeere and Bisqueet took off after a steady diet. I stayed the same (actually got worse for a while) But I also notice my sprint interval times are decent and improvable. I'm totally stuck on mid distance - Jim Gratton stuff like 5K. I can't hang long enough. This is kind of fun, sort of a way to talk about this stuff from the other end.

So what would a program look like that worked the other end of the stick?

Might not be the right thread for this. But I've been trying to say for a while that there may be alternatives. If things aren't working up to expectations, then something has to change. I basically row in what the Interactive Plan would call AT and TR bands , with a little AN thrown in. I don't do mega-meters. 4-5K is a staple for me. One cannot do all sprints and get good at 2K. I really feel that being a good 5Ker is almost necessary for being good at 2K. So, I approach 2K from two sides. But I pretty much leave out the long UTx meters. Of course, I've said before that I pay the price at anything over 30min.

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

I'm going to break this into separate posts, just to keep things clear and easy to follow:

I don't think it is questioned that there is a aerobic part to sprint distance (with exception of 100m),

Actually, people who train for 100m do include some aerobic work into their training programs. One of my favorite books on training is Jack Daniels' Running Formula. Jack is recognized as one of the best running coaches in the history of running and the training insights he shares in his book are phenomenal, and frankly, hard to argue with. Anyway I only bring him up because he specifically devotes a full chapter to sprinters and their training regimens, and how they have a steady diet of aerobic training in that regimen. Obviously the 100m athlete will do less than the 400m athlete, though both are sprinters, but I'd be careful about saying the 100m has no aerobic component.

Incidentally, there was also a great post on RowingIllustrated a month ago or so that essentially boiled down to this (the post was quite long, I'm summarizing): Suggest to a sprinter that they should spend time doing aerobic work and they may laugh at you. Suggest to a marathoner that they practice sprinting and no one finds that weird. Why? It makes no sense. A sprinter needs aerobic work as much as a marathoner needs sprint work. For whatever reason the majority of people don't get that, though.

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

As much as I would like to say something different, I don't think the LSD work I did (maybe I did it wrong) advanced me as much as it did some. Galeere and Bisqueet took off after a steady diet. I stayed the same (actually got worse for a while) But I also notice my sprint interval times are decent and improvable. I'm totally stuck on mid distance - Jim Gratton stuff like 5K. I can't hang long enough. This is kind of fun, sort of a way to talk about this stuff from the other end.

So what would a program look like that worked the other end of the stick?

Correction: when I say didn't improve I meant in the context of 2K. I was able to PB at the longer distances while doing it but when I got back to 2K training, I didn't feel better off for it.

Something to keep in mind here is that just because we follow a given plan doesn't mean that the plan was structured properly. And I have to be careful here and point out I'm not referring to you necessarily. But my bigger point is this: there are over a thousand rowing coaches out there and tens of thousands of rowers. Each might have his/her own training plan and I guarantee you the vast majority won't actually be good training plans. So it could be that you don't respond well to a polarized, SS-centric plan, but I wouldn't be so fast to draw that conclusion just because for a few months you didn't get better while following a certain plan.

There is a proper way to structure a polarized program and many, many more NOT proper ways to structure it. That's where the science comes in. The science isn't "SS is better than no SS" - the key is to actually come up with a well structured, well planned, well researched program. Same goes if you follow a HIIT plan or something that is NOT SS - you could not improve under that plan but that doesn't mean you don't respond to HIIT, it could just mean your plan was garbage.

Anyway, I just think this is a very, very important point that people forget or dismiss. It's like buying a pizza from a run-down store in the middle of the woods and saying "this pizza taste awful, all pizza is bad" vs "this particular pizza is bad, but when done well, pizza is delicious".

One last point: I am not saying a plan that is not polarized or is not SS focused will not yield good results or the best results for a given individual. Just want to clear that up. Everyone is different and will respond to training differently. But as I've said before, there is a mountain of evidence that shows that polarized, SS focused plans are far superior for any given person than any other plan.

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

So I'll start off with a few questions

1. Does focusing on the sprints confer a net benefit with regards to health in comparison to more endurance based training?

2. What is required for a good 100m, 500m, 1k - strength levels, intervals, long distance stuff

3. Role of Creatine, Beta Alanine, Sodium Bicarbonate and sprinting

4. Squats, Deadlifts, Olympic lifts- what helps the most and how much/often

5. Pacing/fly and die strategies

6. Ideal body type- NFL vs NBA vs Rugby etc..

7. Sprint competitions? (Where are they?)

8. Can a sprinter win Crash-B s?

Feel free to add more.

1. What is your definition of health, in this regard?

2. A 1k on the erg is still over 50% aerobic (closer to 60-70%), so draw from that what you will. A 500m sprint is definitely less than 50% aerobic and 100m even less so.

3. Creatine, aside from coffee, is probably the only other supplement that has been indisputably shown to have positive ergogenic effect when taken properly. It's a proven supplement. Beta-alanine doesn't have as much scientific literature behind it as creatine, but doesn't fall far behind. It's more likely than not that it has positive effects. I know a lot of people who take it.

4. Any of the ones listed are good. But keep in mind they are not necessary - the NZ team does not do any weight-lifting, yet they have some of the fastest athletes in the world.

5. I'm not sure this one is worth going too much into. You're basically arguing against physics, which is a losing argument - take the fact that humans aren't computers, and the even split is the best and most efficient way to go through a 2k, or any distance, for that matter. Now throw in the fact that we're imperfect humans and that's where you get the negative split strategy as being better, though from a purely physics/math perspective even split is still best. If you've been rowing/erging for more than a year and you still fly-and-die.... well... no comment.

6. Not even going there

7. No idea

8. Yes. Crash-B's aren't attended by the fastest rowers in the world. You can win Crash-B's depending on the year without even breaking 5:50. So sure, a "sprinter" can win Crash-B's. But there is an ENORMOUS difference between winning Crash-B's and being the fastest on an erg over 2k. Going 5:39 vs going 5:53 (just somewhat random numbers) is night and day.

[RBFC]

Incidentally, there was also a great post on RowingIllustrated a month ago or so that essentially boiled down to this (the post was quite long, I'm summarizing): Suggest to a sprinter that they should spend time doing aerobic work and they may laugh at you. Suggest to a marathoner that they practice sprinting and no one finds that weird. Why? It makes no sense. A sprinter needs aerobic work as much as a marathoner needs sprint work. For whatever reason the majority of people don't get that, though.

The simple fact is that the limit of one's aerobic ability is set by one's max output. For instance, a weightlifter who can lift 500 lbs. can lift 100 lbs many, many times without fatigue (lactate accumulation), while a lifter who can lift 150 lbs. will find the same 100 lbs. much closer to his max effort. In the rowing world, it doesn't matter how aerobically fit one is, a 6:00 2K is not possible if you cannot pull a 1:30 500m (you may translate that down to an appropriate 100m, etc.), the power simply isn't there. Each stroke being much closer to one's absolute max is the goal, so how about having a higher max? We've all seen the recommendations for us sprinters to do more aerobic work, but sprinters recommending power work to "distance" rowers hasn't been so well received.

What we have for many rowers is that they get fitter so that they may pull for several minutes at closer and closer to their max power. What I don't see discussed is how they can raise that threshold so they have a new ceiling. "Limit strength" is the absolute wall that restricts us, and I see Leo Young's comments above pointed at addressing that need.

Lee

[Shawn Baker]

http://www.adriansprints.com/2011/06/ch ... g.html?m=1

Interesting post about sprint training for the 100m per Charlie Francis

Good stuff above- Thanks for the reposts Lindsay (Leo Youngs post was very insightful)

Armando- if you were going to train for a 100m sprint, How would you do it?

[hjs]

The simple fact is that the limit of one's aerobic ability is set by one's max output. For instance, a weightlifter who can lift 500 lbs. can lift 100 lbs many, many times without fatigue (lactate accumulation), while a lifter who can lift 150 lbs. will find the same 100 lbs. much closer to his max effort. In the rowing world, it doesn't matter how aerobically fit one is, a 6:00 2K is not possible if you cannot pull a 1:30 500m (you may translate that down to an appropriate 100m, etc.), the power simply isn't there. Each stroke being much closer to one's absolute max is the goal, so how about having a higher max? We've all seen the recommendations for us sprinters to do more aerobic work, but sprinters recommending power work to "distance" rowers hasn't been so well received.

What we have for many rowers is that they get fitter so that they may pull for several minutes at closer and closer to their max power. What I don't see discussed is how they can raise that threshold so they have a new ceiling. "Limit strength" is the absolute wall that restricts us, and I see Leo Young's comments above pointed at addressing that need.

Lee

True, but if we look at toprowers they often not pull harder so much, but rate higher. The top guys often close to 2.00m rate mid, sometimes high 30 on the erg while keeping the stroke at the same power.
A 5.40 being 1.25, al toprowers easily pull 1.25, doing it 200 times is the point. Strenght is seldom the limiting factor.

For 500 strenght is the limit, we proberly need a low pull roughly 8/10 seconds below 500 race pace. No fitness can compensate for that.

[ArmandoChavezUNC]

The simple fact is that the limit of one's aerobic ability is set by one's max output. For instance, a weightlifter who can lift 500 lbs. can lift 100 lbs many, many times without fatigue (lactate accumulation), while a lifter who can lift 150 lbs. will find the same 100 lbs. much closer to his max effort. In the rowing world, it doesn't matter how aerobically fit one is, a 6:00 2K is not possible if you cannot pull a 1:30 500m (you may translate that down to an appropriate 100m, etc.), the power simply isn't there. Each stroke being much closer to one's absolute max is the goal, so how about having a higher max? We've all seen the recommendations for us sprinters to do more aerobic work, but sprinters recommending power work to "distance" rowers hasn't been so well received.

I get your point, and in general it's the right idea, but you can't really compare max lifting and %of max reps with rowing and your max watts output over one stroke. Two completely different things.

Armando- if you were going to train for a 100m sprint, How would you do it?

On the erg? I'd try to bulk up as much as possible and hit the weight room HARD. With my frame though I'd never get close to the fastest times. 100m sprint on the erg benefits mass over anything else.

If it were running, it's a different story. You're carrying all that mass when you run, so size isn't favored. On a boat, size is still favored but not nearly as much as on the erg because of the increased resistance with the water. But anyway, if we're sticking to erg only, then definitely mass.

[G-dub]

Armondo, there is lots of good stuff in here and I only have a second to write. I am not going to abandon aerobic conditioning work. I believe in the pizza, just haven't made the right choices yet as you say. But I do wonder if there will be benefit from not only finding the right way to train the aerobic parts, but also maximizing the strength and power component as part of squeezing some seconds off. This is a fun thread that will no doubt overlap with that other thread.

[Shawn Baker]

Since this thread is primarily designed to address 1k an below- I'd be curios to see what the thoughts are regarding how much and what type of aerobic conditioning on would do to maximize performance for

1K
500m
100m

At present my focus is 500m- my instinct says fairly hard 2k ish work is likely sufficient??- obviously a fair bit of interval work at or below projected 500m pace as well as plenty of strength training - anyone have a contrasting view

Also how about Drag Factor- looks like Leo train some very low Drag stuff and competing at well above 200? (Ross Love said he liked 140 ish for comps)

Also (and I certainly may be wrong) but I think the low rate 20 ish stuff at decent pace sub 1:40 is helpful from my recent experience!

[G-dub]

The knock that steady state gets is that it's boring or it takes too long or it trains me to be slow, which I am pretty sure can be overcome. It used to be that 20-30 minutes created an aerobic workout. Now we talk about 60-90. What I find interesting is looking at running training plans for 5K (which is clearly way longer than you are talking about). They don't seem to require the volume that we talk about here for even a 2K.

[christopherregisryan]

Another problem with high volume steady state is that it takes a while to yield observable benefits. In the end, I reaped benefits from it as I PRd across the distance spectrum this year at age 54. It took a couple of months before I really started to see significant improvement though. I get much quicker results from HIIT. I just seem to hit a wall after 8 - 10 weeks. Hence the periodization. This year I went with: 85-15 in base phase (April - November). 70-30 during build phase (December-Jan). 50-50 during peak phase (Feb). A lot of my build phase interval work was at around 1k pace. I feel like I got a lot of adaptation by going fast for those intervals.

[Shawn Baker]

To reply to Armandos question about my definition of health- I think it is important to be strong, fast and fit- vague terms I know but nonetheless they are all important and we can argue the relative importance of each component- from my perspective strength training is vitally important as we age successfully, being fast is a product of strength and training for it, fit can arguably be achieved several ways -HIiT, LSD

[RBFC]

Maintenance of muscle mass and dynamic capability are proven markers for delaying the onset of senescence. Being able to enjoy a wider variety of life activities, some of which include unforeseen high-intensity occurrences, preserves both mental and ohysical health. Another way to look at this: strokes and heart attacks both have dynamic demand components as one of their primary causative factors. Having the vasculature that can withstand blood pressure spikes and the cardiorespiratory protective effect of coronary artery dilation and increased stroke volume definitely act to save us when an unexpected stressor is introduced. I know this is a ROWING thread, but Shawn has approached the topic from the viewpoint of the health benefits conveyed by sprint-level intensity. While rowing harder than we are accustomed to is a voluntary event, the things that overload us in real life are non-negotiable.

I will maintain that most rowers would benefit from a strength training program. While increasing rate will provide greater speed with the same wattage per pull, rate increases carry a metabolic cost. Higher rates leave less time for diaphragmatic excursion and produce higher average intra-thoracic pressures (which inhibit venous return to the heart and force the heart to work even harder). The "crunched" both-knees-up posture at the catch is virtually unique to rowing and creates more pressure because of this.

Simply put, do you think that a rower with a low pull of 1:05 or the guy with a 1:15 will have a harder time with a 1:20 500m? The added power means that he won't be running as close to maximum. For sprinting, which is conducted at higher rates anyway, one cannot simply "rate up" to go faster. The maximum pull power forms the "asymptote" of this function. I understand that events over 500m progressively are less affected by this, but maintain that increased single pull power would benefit any of these events.

For the 100m, the start is probably the largest variable once you have experimented with different rates and lengths of pull. For the 1 minute, it pays to look at the training information for the ¼ mile run, which has a huge amount of intellectual study covering it.

Lee

[Bob S.]

To reply to Armandos question about my definition of health- I think it is important to be strong, fast and fit- vague terms I know but nonetheless they are all important and we can argue the relative importance of each component- from my perspective strength training is vitally important as we age successfully, being fast is a product of strength and training for it, fit can arguably be achieved several ways -HIiT, LSD

There reaches a time when weight begins to put more stress on the frame than it can handle.

A major edit here. I decided that this was too far off the topic of the thread, so I copied it and pasted it into a new thread "geriatric aspects of resistance," posted in the health and fitness subforum.

Mostly it consists of asking Shawn about his thoughts of the effects of resistance work on an aging skeletal structure.

Bob S.