Steady State Vs Intermittent Effort

[[old] george nz]

The numbers I have used are purely for convenience and while other durations / paces may be more apt it is actually discussion on the underlying principles that I am interested in discussion.<br /><br />I would be interested in peoples views on the different physiological effect each session might have, and its effectiveness in promoting improvement towards a faster 2k time.<br /><br /><u>Primary disclaimer:</u><br />Taking a single session in isolation from a coordinated ‘program’ and trying to analyze its veracity is at best just a ‘friendly discussion’<br /><u>Secondary disclaimer:</u> This is about the ‘wider erging community’, not individuals.<br /><br /><br />Each session is ‘bounded’ by a warm-up and cooldown, and is carried out at the ergers normal drag.<br /><br /><b>Session 1</b><br />Duration: 40 minutes<br />Distance covered: 10,000m<br />Pace per 500m: 2:00<br />Strokes taken: 800<br />SPM: 20<br />Effort: continuous at constant pace and stroke rate<br /><br /><b>Session 2</b><br />Duration: 40 minutes<br />Distance covered: 10,000m<br />Pace per 500m: 2:00<br />Strokes taken: 835<br />SPM: <21<br />Effort: Alternating 1000m at 1:55 / 24spm & 1000m at 2:05 / 18spm<br /><br /><b>Session 3</b><br />Duration: 40 minutes<br />Distance covered: 10,000m<br />Pace per 500m: 2:00<br />Strokes taken: 733<br />SPM: >18<br />Effort: Alternating 3:40min at 1:50 / 20spm & 0:20sec inactive<br /><br />(if someone could check my maths that would be appreciate but I don’t think it effects the discussion to much)<br /><br />George<br /><br />

[[old] Carl Henrik]

It might be of value to consider the average power output for the sessions:<br />1:202.5w<br />2:204.7w<br />3:241.0w <br /><br /><br />The latter sessions are not only harder because of harder average intensity, but also because of the intermittent work mode in combination with physiological and mechanical inefficiencies that increase in a faster than linear fashion with a higher intensity. <br /><br />The relative "stress" the body on scale from 1-10 I guesstimate very loosely speaking to be something like:<br />1: 3<br />2: 5<br />3: 8

[[old] george nz]

<!--quoteo(post=58398:date=Mar 4 2006, 11:44 PM:name=Carl Henrik)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Carl Henrik @ Mar 4 2006, 11:44 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It might be of value to consider the average power output for the sessions:<br />1:202.5w<br />2:204.7w<br />3:241.0w <br /><br /><br />The latter sessions are not only harder because of harder average intensity, but also because of the intermittent work mode in combination with physiological and mechanical inefficiencies that increase in a faster than linear fashion with a higher intensity. <br /><br />The relative "stress" the body on scale from 1-10 I guesstimate very loosely speaking to be something like:<br />1: 3<br />2: 5<br />3: 8<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Carl they all covered 10,000m in 40 min so the average power output (over the 40 min) is the same for all 3 is it not ? I agree that sessions 2 and 3 have periods of more intense effort but this is then offset by either the paddles of #2 or the inactivity of #3.<br /><br />Just for the sake of the argument if we assume that session 2 is going to have a periods working just below AT and that hence session 3 is going to be above at or above AT then then this changes the affect of the workout considerably ?<br /><br />George

[[old] Carl Henrik]

<!--quoteo(post=58457:date=Mar 4 2006, 10:09 PM:name=george nz)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(george nz @ Mar 4 2006, 10:09 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />Carl they all covered 10,000m in 40 min so the average power output (over the 40 min) is the same for all 3 is it not ? I agree that sessions 2 and 3 have periods of more intense effort but this is then offset by either the paddles of #2 or the inactivity of #3.<br /><br />George<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Well, it seems natural the average wattage would be the same, and the monitor will also tell you this. The problem is that ave-wattage on the monitor is derived from average pace. For a real measure of average wattage you should integrate over time and then divide by it. The result would be the same if the power/pace relationship was linear, however, it is very much not so. <br /><br />The maths for sesssion 3:<br />263w * 220s / 240s = 241w. <br /><br />Doing variations of 50+ watts like here (263w variation) does make the nonlinear characteristics of the power/pace curve quite notable. There is no need to worry about 20w differences though with respect to this, so a 2k for example can be set up with normal negative splitting or so without being effected.<br /><br />

[[old] ljwagner]

My readings in exercise physiology state that recovery is more rapid and thorough at 60% effort, because you get more oxygen into your system than at full rest, but usually more than 20 seconds. 20 seconds of inactivity may be mentally good, and somewhat helpful physically, but a moderate pace on those 20 seconds should be another alternative in variation #3. <br /><br />Something further back than a 2:05 pace, perhaps a 2:10 or 2:20 or 2:30 pace for those 20 seconds good be better. You could actually try multiple "rest" paces and report back as to which seems to provide the greatest benefit. <br /><br /><br /><br />Those victory laps they take in track and field as a reward for 1st place also improve the victor's chance should he have another race.<br /><br />

[[old] george nz]

Tks Carl - ya lost me but I am sure it makes sense <br /><br />George

[[old] johnmcclellan]

<!--quoteo(post=58518:date=Mar 5 2006, 10:46 AM:name=ljwagner)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ljwagner @ Mar 5 2006, 10:46 AM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>My readings in exercise physiology state that recovery is more rapid and thorough at 60% effort, because you get more oxygen into your system than at full rest, but usually more than 20 seconds. 20 seconds of inactivity may be mentally good, and somewhat helpful physically, but a moderate pace on those 20 seconds should be another alternative in variation #3. <br /><br />Something further back than a 2:05 pace, perhaps a 2:10 or 2:20 or 2:30 pace for those 20 seconds good be better. You could actually try multiple "rest" paces and report back as to which seems to provide the greatest benefit. <br /><br />Those victory laps they take in track and field as a reward for 1st place also improve the victor's chance should he have another race.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I'm new to this rowing thing, but the most up-to-date cycling literature would definitely argue for a variation on #3 as your most productive workout. Shorter intervals performed at LT, with a somewhat longer period of active recovery, say 2min at LT (to stay consistent, say, 1:50), 1 min recovery (2:15?), have been shown in studies to improve a lot of performance factors (e.g., development of capillary and mitochondria density, strength of critical Type IIa and IIb muscle fibers, improvement of lactate energy system, etc.) significantly more than a steady state aerobic focused workout. I'm still trying to figure out the relevance of stroke counts in workout quality, because I'm used to spinning at 90rpm, so this 18-24 spm stuff is taking some getting used to.

[[old] TomR/the elder]

John--<br /><br />Didn't I read on another thread that you do ultra-long cycling?<br /><br />How frequently are cyclists doing the intervals and how often do they do longer rides? Perhaps I'm straying from the topic, but I'm curious how you fit a single workout such as you describe into the overall training mix.<br /><br />Tom

[[old] johnmcclellan]

<!--quoteo(post=58811:date=Mar 8 2006, 10:24 PM:name=TomR/the elder)--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(TomR/the elder @ Mar 8 2006, 10:24 PM) </b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>John--<br />I'm curious how you fit a single workout such as you describe into the overall training mix.<br /><br />Tom<br /> </td></tr></table><br />Tom, I put my current training strategy up on the cycling thread (in the General category). I didn't mention this specific workout. If you look at that, the way I would use this workout today would be in place of a longer weekend ride if I had too many soccer, hockey, ballet, etc. events to go to, and also once I've retrained my legs from rowing to cycling, I will probably drop the muscle tension sessions at the end of this month and substitute the shorter LT intervals. For a 1 hour session, I would do 10 min w/u, 2*(8*2min on, 1 off), cool down. If I had a little more time, add a 3rd set. I used that workout both cycling and erging over the winter and I think it was very effective. See "Maximum Performance for Cycling" by Michael Ross. I'm picking and choosing from his program - it is geared towards shorter distances than I ride, and I think I just need more saddle time to toughen up for 600 and 1200k events. Not that I can get enough time w/my family & work schedule, but I try!

[[old] judgedread]

Hi George,<br /><br />All good sessions for improving a 2k time i feel. As you have often stated you need endurance for the 2K race.<br /><br />If i was to rank your sessions: 3 is the most effective with 2 the least - why? Mainly because of benefits of low SPM, the estimated or predicted peaks of HR and RPExertion, and mental strength of short recovery - but enough to clear waste metabolites.<br /><br />...anyone else?