Training Duration - Are we all crazy?
DanDaRower
A rowing race should take less than 7 minutes, right?
A marathon normally takes atleast 3 hour, right?
So why do rowing coaches want to try to make training sessions so long.
A marthon runner might run for 2 hours in a session, thats 2/3 the race time
but at a slightly higher intensity. So shouldn't we be training for 5
minutes?, not the same 2 hours.
That may be a bit extreme but here in Auckland, New Zealand I watched
all the school 8s train their butts off for up to 3 hours at a time up to 15
times a week when trying to peak for the Nationals. At the national champs I
saw all these crews get beaten convincingly by the Wanganui 8. I was told
that this 8 only trained 5 times a week, their longest training sesssion was
45minutes but a normal one was 25.
Did all the Auckland crews waste their time?
Steve Redgraves website http://195.172.104.1/training/ has his comments
on the subject. He says that ergs should be done over 1800 metres and all
the 1 hour ergs that I've been coaxed into doing have neglegible effect on
2000m performance. Also here in New Zealand we have bimonthly national 5k
tests, not 2k.
Steve Redgrave has obviously had some success using his training
techniques so why isn't the rest of the world following suit? Do people
think that Steve just has a spectacular physique and prospers dispite his
training not because of it.
I think perhaps people should stop trying to outsmart the human body
with base building and the likes and just let their bodies do what it needs
to, its been developed over so many milllions of years after all. ie. the
best training for a 2000m race is a 2000m race.
I'd be interested to hear of any other literature or stories that back
up or flatten this idea
Michael Sullivan
snip
> I'd be interested to hear of any other literature or stories that back
> up or flatten this idea
just be born with 7 plsu liters max Vo2 and you can tell
the friggin world how it's done.
sheesh.
Mike
Michael Sullivan
rather than cancel this, I'll leave it and apologize.
sorry. I'm short fused this week.
Sir Redgrave's the best oarsman in history. His website
was pretty weak on substance, and weaker on motivation.
Then you missed on your interpretation.
Exercise physiology is pretty close to one of the weakest
least scientific sciences short of the social sciences, but
even they have got it right as far as the effect of aerobic
capacity on distance events. They've got it exactly right for
improving aerobic efficiency thru distance training. Sir
Steve glossed it, but mentioned it.
Mike
Ewoud Dronkert
> So why do rowing coaches want to try to make training sessions so long.
Because you can't do intervals every day of the week. You can define 4 types
of training like this: (A) short interval: 5-15 sec work, 30-90 sec rest,
total 3-4 min work; (B) long interval: 3-8 min work, 2-5 min rest, total
15-25 min work; (C) anaerobic treshold: e.g. 3x10'/5' or 2x20'/10'; (D)
steady state: e.g. 3x20'/3' or 1x60'. If you do 6 sessions/week, do one of
A-C, two of D, and one in which you perform worst (your specific workout;
can be different in crews). To assess your weak point do 4 erg tests,
ideally within 1 week or else within 2 weeks: 10", 60", 2k and 6k
(originally developed in Denmark; they also did a 60' piece, but forget
about that). Then compare average speeds (meters divided by seconds). For
heavyweight men the relative scores should be: 123%, 115%, 100%, 93%. You
can't get your 2k score to new levels while other zones are left unattended!
Always train all zones all year long. If you've never done a 10" or 1' test,
practice them a few times (but don't do them for real until the next day!).
Rating in training sessions:
Zone Erg Winter Competition Heart rate
A 36..max 40..max 42..max max
B 30..32 32..34 34..36 max-5
C 24..26 26..28 28..30 max-15
D 20..22 22..24 24..26 max-30
These ratings are for an 8+. Four: subtract 2, Two: subtract 4, Single:
subtract 6.
Allan Bennett
I was right with you up to this point!
Allan Bennett
--
jay
hooray hooray.
this sounds like the training for me.. where do I sign up
yours lazily
Jay
"DanDaRower" <Hay...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in message
news:10009060...@cereal.attica.net.nz...
DanDaRower
race intensity your body can target its own weak links?
Eg. if you run fast every day you'll become very good at running fast, if
you run slowly you'll become very good at running slowly
What about specifity of training intensities as well as training type?
Rachel Q
[snippage]
> Steve Redgraves website http://195.172.104.1/training/ has his comments
>on the subject. He says that ergs should be done over 1800 metres and all
>the 1 hour ergs that I've been coaxed into doing have neglegible effect on
>2000m performance. Also here in New Zealand we have bimonthly national 5k
>tests, not 2k.
> Steve Redgrave has obviously had some success using his training
>techniques so why isn't the rest of the world following suit? Do people
>think that Steve just has a spectacular physique and prospers dispite his
>training not because of it.
OK, Dan's point is an interesting one, though I don't have the
expertise to say anything definitive on it without getting ripped apart by
Anu-the-rottweiler and others. However...
From personal experience I am aware that SSR has very little input
into his website, and it is in theory possible that something has been
published online without him having checked it. Furthermore, and perhaps
more importantly, 'his training techniques' as described above and on the
webpage quoted are NOT the ones he himself followed at any stage in the
years 1991-2000. Steve does have a particularly rowing-friendly physique
- not the height and strength although those help, but his lungs are vast
and his lactate tolerance is superb - and that is a large part of his
success. The remainder is a combination of training and psychology.
So whether there is a valid point about training length or not,
don't use Redgrave's site and achievements to prove it - you're on the
wrong lines. Sorry!
RQ.
Walter Martindale
just about the same question (that's over about 18 years of coaching).
There are a couple of things. First, as with swimmers, a rowing person has
to develop a "feel" for the water and it's interaction with the blade
(swimmers' hands) and the boat. While astute coaching can shorten the time
this takes, the rower needs to develop the sensitivity to be able to respond
to the movements of the wind, water, boat, blade, crew-mates, without having
to think about it. It takes tennis players a decade or more to develop this
ability, and I've seen some athletes approach this level of skill in only a
couple of seasons of rowing but it's usually a rare bird.
Second, as Ewoud points out, you can't train intervals all the time - or,
stated another way, you can't recover from interval training if you do that
all the time. Physiology of exercise is still a bit of a mystery, and as
soon as I get a new print cartridge (died just now) I'm printing Ewoud's bit
about the different tests - that was interesting.
To make a long story so I can understand it - the long duration training adds
up in the long run to a tougher, fitter, and faster athlete. The long
duration training seems to enable athletes to survive the middle thousand m
and still have some "kick" left at the finish.
There must be some trade off - however, as I understand that the DEN
lightweight 4- had some very fast times in their boat, while keeping their
day jobs most of the year.
Here's the part where I stick my neck out a bit...
Please also remember that you're talking about NZ High School. With the VAST
array of different ideas and understanding about technique that I saw bandied
about whilst there (for 3 years), it could be that losing crews that are
doing it "right" physiologically, are being trained with a huge boat-killing
check at the catch, while the crews that aren't training that much might be
getting some pretty good technical training. I'm speculating, here, and
don't really know, but "Doc" in Wanganui seems to understand it pretty well,
and is from the same area that Rob W's coach Dick Tonks is from. Another
consideration is the training year... Most NZ high school rowing programs
that I know of start their school training in about January, for the regatta
at the end of March (Maadi). The Long Duration training takes MONTHS and
YEARS to have it's desired effect, while a few months of judiciously placed
interval training might provide a crew that's fitter and faster over the
short term.
Ah heck, who knows.... As I said before, I've only been coaching since 1983
and tend now to fall back on "what I think I know" rather than continually
pursuing new information - maybe it's time to start scanning physiology
journals again...
Walter
Andy and Abbe Lynch
to lose and lose badly, but have an easy time training, this is the line for
you!"
jay <j...@godfrey.co.uk> wrote in message
news:9o9qp4$lr7$1...@uranium.btinternet.com...
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:Hay...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
> Yeah but we aren't doing a 60" race, don't you think that by training at
> race intensity your body can target its own weak links?
Not to the extent that more intense efforts can.
> Eg. if you run fast every day you'll become very good at running fast, if
> you run slowly you'll become very good at running slowly
Yes and no!
Training (only) at high speeds will diminish endurance capabilities eg by
promoting muscle growth at the expense of blood vessel proliferation (greater
transfusion distances for oxygen etc) and other changes (mitochondria,
myoglobin, enzymes etc).
There is some evidence that training mostly at low speeds results in changes
at the cross-bridges between components of muscle fibres. Resulting, in
other words (as you say), training for running slowly.
However, it is more complicated than that. A good endurance base is required
in order to complete adequate sessions day after day. It is also not
possible to maintain intensive and tempo-based training continuously
throughout the year - many athletes crash out at this time of year I think
because they have been training at (necessary) high intensity levels at the
expense of general fitness. A rest and short 'base-training' period usually
regains the lost fitness.
I am not an advocate of LSD. General fitness needs to be raised above this
level so that the athletes can train at or near VO2max. I can see very
little training effect in any outing over, say, 20-40 minutes of work
(depending upon starting fitness).
Getting the balance of training right is still an art, not a science IMO.
> What about specifity of training intensities as well as training type?
>
Allan Bennett
--
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:anal...@erols.com> wrote:
> When signing up, simply get in the line with the sign that says "If you
> want to lose and lose badly, but have an easy time training, this is the
> line for you!"
>
Not according to much of the research that has been done - that suggests that
20 minutes of work is long enough for most sessions.
This fits in with empirical findings, too. For instance, doing 6-8 minute
efforts at VO2max with equal recovery (threshold boosting) gets pretty tough
after 3 efforts. On the fourth most athletes slow down *and are therefore no
longer doing the prescribed training*. It takes an exceptional athlete at
his peak to do 5 or more. There is no evidence that doing more will bring
greater benefits. Who said anything about having an easy time?
Dr Kenneth Cooper (the man who coined the phrase 'aerobics') found that 12
minutes per session was all that was required to improve fitness...
Challenge it if you like, but there is scant evidence that LSD or ultra-long
sessions produce beneficial training effects.
Allan Bennett
--
Alister Taylor
Sully, it's that easy. My VO2 is up around 7.7 litres, so I'm
qualified by this standard. How it's done is to learn how to row.
It's that bit that's taking all the bloody time. Getting the blades
off the water in the 1x is taking longer than I expected!
Seriously though, Re: DanDa's question. An analogy can be developed
between rowers and 4000m pursuit track cyclists. Greg LeMond's book
details that they have to train most of the time like Tour/Classic
riders because of the massive aerobic demands made on their systems by
the event.
Thus, that's why you do long sessions. Building base so you can cope
with the HARD training sessions that you will need to do. Pre-season
as I'm in now, additional to about 50k a week of water work, we are on
the ergo for 220 mins a week, including 30 mins Threshold piece, and
another 40 minutes AT stuck into our weights warmup. All capped at
21.
The Auckland crews he was talking about seem ridiculous though - 15
sessions, up to 3hrs a session, so up to 45 hours a week? No wonder
they lost. They would have been too shagged out to pull hard.
I make no claim to be an expert on physiology and coaching, but I'd
like to believe that I can do better than that sort of stupidity. A
great runner once said about race prep periods, "Train little, hard
and often",
Cheers,
Al
DanDaRower
Down the bottom in the small print it did actually say it was written by a
proffessor, not the man himself
Freewheeling
I don't really train any more, being basically too old to give a damn. Just
row because I can't stop... But Mr. Armstrong trains for one [bike] race
per season, and wins it almost all the time. By contrast Mr. Beloki placed
second in the TdF (I think) and after leading much of the way in the Vuelta
a Espana just bonked big time to lose 15 - 20 minutes in a single stage.
He's now out of the running. But then, Lance does a lot of other peculiar
stuff too... so who's to say what works really. Puts everyone else in the
position of trying to copy him as best they can.
--
--Scott
freewh...@bigfoot.com
"Walter Martindale" <wmar...@telusplanet.net> wrote in message
news:3BA8FDFD...@telusplanet.net...
Nick Suess
"Freewheeling" <email_in_...@bottomofpost.com> wrote in message
news:lkhq7.8296$0x.19...@typhoon.southeast.rr.com...
> Walter:
>
> I don't really train any more, being basically too old to give a damn.
Just
> row because I can't stop... But Mr. Armstrong trains for one [bike] race
> per season, and wins it almost all the time. By contrast Mr. Beloki
placed
> second in the TdF (I think) and after leading much of the way in the
Vuelta
> a Espana just bonked big time
Well, I never realised!
Maybe I should start watching cycle races. But then, just like Freewheelin
Franklin, I'm also way too old to give a damn.
j...@durge.org
: Yeah but we aren't doing a 60" race, don't you think that by training at
: race intensity your body can target its own weak links?
No, for already given physiological reasons you're missing out on some
important bits of training by only doing short pieces.
: Eg. if you run fast every day you'll become very good at running fast,
Maurice Green never runs for longer than 10 seconds ever?
If you want to go 'back to basics' you ought to look at what winners do
and copy them. Winners do lots of miles on the water, therefore so should
you. Can't put it any simpler than that.
Jon
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Durge: j...@durge.org http://www.durge.org/~jon/
OnStream: acco...@rowing.org.uk http://www.rowing.org.uk/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ruscoe, Mark [LON40:7E58:EXCH]
I found this a while ago - there's a number of appropriate bits.
http://www-rohan.sdsu.edu/dept/coachsci/vol31/rushall1.htm
Freewheeling
I'm not too old to watch, fortunately. Indeed, I'm not too old to ride or
row. I'm just too old to compete. But it was refreshing to get involved in
considerations like whether one should use a "53T ring with a 14 cog" on a
descent, in a race where the term "attack" meant a grimfaced climb at a
speed imperceptibly faster than an opponent's 12mph, rather than what it has
meant for the last week.
The point is that it seems hard to peak twice in a season no matter your
age. That used to not be the case, for some reason. People used to win
both the TdF and the Vuelta, especially if they had a name like Miguel. Has
the same happened in rowing? (Note the name.)
--
--Scott
freewh...@bigfoot.com
"Nick Suess" <use...@scull.com.au> wrote in message
news:3ba9a9d0$0$13...@echo-01.iinet.net.au...
CaptStash
very many people. You use the analogy of marathoners, which is a poor
analogy indeed. The best analogy along those lines would be middle distance
runners, who you will find, put in a considerable amount of road work. They,
like us, race at a near full sprint.
Another group of athletes to consider are swimmers. The amount of time
rowers train pales in comparison to that of compettitive swimmers. My 8
year old son is already doing 3 X 75 minute workouts per week. They build on
that to the elite level where they're spending as much as 4.5 hours per day
in the pool. They train very similarly to us, doing long aerobic swims
several times a week as well as a extraordinary amount of shorter pieces.
Simply training at the distance of the race does not work because the human
body, through the so-called "training effect" will adapt to that distance.
After some improvement, you will have adapted. With no additional stressors,
there is no need to improve and you will plateau. Look at any fitness runner
who regularly does a certain distance, they have a pace, and it rarely
varies. By your theory, they would be getting faster and faster by just
running the same distance every day.
Even marathoners combine many different workouts, including long runs, hills
and even sprints. But remember that marathoners do not regularly train by
running 26 miles because that is an extreme distance. They also can't expect
to run heats, reps and finals in a weekend either!
And finally, as in swimming, rowing is a highly technical sport. Even elite
rowers need a certain amount of time on the water to maintain and improve
their technique. Longer rows are key in developing and maintaining boat
sense, bladework and timing.
In summary, no it is not crazy that we train so much and so hard. But you do
make one valid point, yes we all may very well be crazy anyway, I mean how
many rowers do you know who you would refer to as perfectly sane?
Regards,
CaptStash....
"DanDaRower" <Hay...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote in message
news:10009060...@cereal.attica.net.nz...
Tony Curran
now - and I suspect that includes Big Mig (pure speculation on my behalf) as I
know he's Ewoud's hero.
Tony
Ottawa RC
Mike De.Petris
scrisse al povero All :
H> Yeah but we aren't doing a 60" race, don't you think that by training
H> at race intensity your body can target its own weak links?
H> Eg. if you run fast every day you'll become very good at running fast,
H> if you run slowly you'll become very good at running slowly
H> What about specifity of training intensities as well as training type?
Sure you can't train much at race speed, and adaptation requires time, so
teak it this way: you train a lot at low speed to stay fit and avoid
accumulating (or try to eliminate) fat, keeping on with the boat feelings.
You still need that race pace, ok that's what interval training is for. There
are many different theories and experiences about training with intervals, it
may be true you just have to focus on race pace for each interval, in the
range 0 to 7 minutes, with a rest time and number of repetitions that let you
stay at targeted race pace.
Actual training programs my be different but not far from above, except for
cycling (not on a bicycle, I mean time periods for adaptation) and the main
cycle is the year where you start with a lot of slow "fitness/base" training
to be have all needed resources to do the race pace training before races,
then you can use fantasy for the transition from low to high rates.
Ciao, ** *Mike* ** www.interware.it/users/mike/
--
PENTIUM - Produces Erroneous Numbers Thru Incorrect Understanding of
Mathematics
http://www.studver.uu.nl/triton/rsr/ _*#RSR# Faces*_
http://www.interware.it/users/mike/rowing.html
http://www.triesterivista.it/
*************** _*#Webmaster# TrieSteRivista*_ ***************
*************** _*#Coordinatore# TRieSTeNet*_ ***************
*************** _*#Moderatore# ATARI.ITA*_ ***************
--
Atarian ST -TS! 2:333/608(FidoNet) bbsgate.interware.it
DanDaRower
>body, through the so-called "training effect" will adapt to that distance.
>After some improvement, you will have adapted. With no additional
stressors,
Race faster!!! :-)
ehr...@widomaker.com
>DanDaRower <Hay...@slingshot.co.nz> wrote:
>
>If you want to go 'back to basics' you ought to look at what winners do
>and copy them. Winners do lots of miles on the water, therefore so should
>you. Can't put it any simpler than that.
>
I have found in some cases that the benefits of a long steady-state row
come not just in the base-training but are often beneficial simply for
taking a LOT of strokes. When crews are learning a stroke, especially if
they need to work together as a set line-up, the more strokes they row the
better the row (generally - without proper coaching they could really just
be cementing bad habits, but even uncoached they will learn what makes
their boat move if they are paying attention). People can not take
several thousand strokes in a row rating 40+ at max. So dropping the
intensity and the rating a rowing for an hour is an effective
training tool in areas other than just physiology.
I once sent a crew (eight, set line-up, racing season) which was having
trouble with balance and rush out on a 60-minute piece at ratings in the
low-teens with their eyes closed. They learned how to feel the boat, the
balance, the rhythm, and each other in ways they just could not do while
doing short high-rate pieces or 2Ks.
If Redgrave does not think he needs to do steady-state, which I think is
what started this thread, maybe it is because he's already got a fair
amount of water under his boat. He knows the motion. Even if he is
technically flawed in the abstract, he has found how he personally moves
boats best, and that appears to be fast enough for anyone's purpose. His
physiological base is also pretty established, to put it mildly. But for
younger rowers, even if there were no physiological advantage (and I think
there is, as explained by several other posters on this thread), there is
a huge technical and mechanical advantage to such training.
Charles Ehrlich
Belvoir Ruderclub Zuerich
--
_____
=======||==================< |
`----
Mike De.Petris
scrisse al povero All :
c> Interesting thoughts but as we have seen in this thread not agreed on
c> by very many people. You use the analogy of marathoners, which is a
c> poor analogy indeed. The best analogy along those lines would be middle
c> distance runners, who you will find, put in a considerable amount of road
c> work. They, like us, race at a near full sprint.
This is a wrong assumption IMO, it may be true you are much nearer top speed
then LSD but consider that the higher the speed the higher the extra power
needed to increase the speed of the same amount (cubic trend or close), so I
think it can be said that the race pace is still far from a full sprint.
c> Another group of athletes to consider are swimmers. The amount of time
c> rowers train pales in comparison to that of compettitive swimmers. My
c> 8 year old son is already doing 3 X 75 minute workouts per week. They
My 7 year and 9 years old children did average 5X90' sessions per week this
season, with a lot of speed intervals near final races. They've just started
this year, doing 5 sessions per week for the moment, 3 running/gymn and 2
swimming (long and exercizes).
c> Simply training at the distance of the race does not work because the
c> human body, through the so-called "training effect" will adapt to that
c> distance. After some improvement, you will have adapted. With no
c> additional stressors, there is no need to improve and you will plateau.
How true, I tested this year doing 2X2K each sunday, second sunday gain 5",
third was 2", 4th few decs. For a less trained guy the plateau may come
later, but I think not so far, and consider I was still doing regular
training during the rest of the weel.
c> And finally, as in swimming, rowing is a highly technical sport. Even
c> elite rowers need a certain amount of time on the water to maintain and
c> improve their technique. Longer rows are key in developing and
c> maintaining boat sense, bladework and timing.
Here I can say that is much more important in rowing then swimming, just
consider the synch problem in a crew, but even in the single, in swimming you
do not have a thing like "balance".
c> In summary, no it is not crazy that we train so much and so hard. But you
c> do make one valid point, yes we all may very well be crazy anyway, I mean
c> how many rowers do you know who you would refer to as perfectly sane?
Those who compensate with beer!
Ciao, ** *Mike* ** www.interware.it/users/mike/
--
Ferranti, Laser Ecosse, Howden Laser.... where will we go ?
chris harrison
> If you want to go 'back to basics' you ought to look at what winners do
> and copy them. Winners do lots of miles on the water, therefore so should
> you. Can't put it any simpler than that.
Surely much of the argument for longer steady state outings isn't about
physiology, it's about more fundamental technical aspects.
Mileage helps make champions not because they grow fitter in useful
directions because of it per se (although these will be useful effects),
but because they are taking thousands of strokes in each of those outings
and, if in a squad, are learning to row together in a crew style which
will make their subsequent racing more productive.
--
chris harrison
webmaster, vesta rowing club
http://www.vesta.rowing.org.uk/
will
the
Redgrave website is basically rehashed from something Millea wrote a few
years ago (the link is somewhere on the Rowing Service).
Millea's argument is pretty simplistic, and ignores all the benefits of UT2
and UT1 training, both physiological and technical. Crucially, it appears to
have passed him by that all of the top rowing and sculling programmes in the
world today follow high volume programmes (ie lots of UT1 and UT2).
will
DanDaRower wrote in message <10010102...@cereal.attica.net.nz>...
Allan Bennett
<URL:mailto:william.tr...@sjc.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
> I think you'll find the professor was a certain Tim Millea. What appears on
> the
> Redgrave website is basically rehashed from something Millea wrote a few
> years ago (the link is somewhere on the Rowing Service).
> Millea's argument is pretty simplistic, and ignores all the benefits of UT2
> and UT1 training, both physiological and technical. Crucially, it appears
> to have passed him by that all of the top rowing and sculling programmes in
> the world today follow high volume programmes (ie lots of UT1 and UT2).
>
But, that does not mean they are right.
Allan Bennett
--
will
Crucially, it appears
>> to have passed him by that all of the top rowing and sculling programmes
in
>> the world today follow high volume programmes (ie lots of UT1 and UT2).
>>
>
>But, that does not mean they are right.
>
>Allan Bennett
ok then, suppose they're wrong - when are we going to see the Millea trained
crew win Olympic medals?
Rachel Q
I'm answering to.
A few years ago I met someone who had been following a short-distance
training programme similar to the one on the Redgrave site, on the advice
of his (experienced and both idiosyncratic and well-known) coach.
As a result, obviously, he was unable to impress anyone in his national
long-distance trials. So far, so obvious. What was more interesting is
that he complained of running out of steam 7/8ths of the way through 2 km
erg tests, which also did his selection chances no favours. Since he had
never trained a piece longer than about 1800 metres, it did make sense to
me, but I know there are several international coaches who swear the
method is sane.
All I can say is one empirical observation, though it does not make a
survey, suggests a simple short-train programme does not work miracles and
may ruin your chances especially if you are being tested on longer
distances.
BTW I also hosted a public science event in Oxford this summer at which
the guest speaker was Professor Will Hopkins, an NZ sports science expert
who runs http://www.sportsci.org/ in his spare time. It was obvious that
he favoured UT2 training. (He also had some interesting things to suggest
about rowing performances, particularly that the major limit on speed over
a 2 km, 6-minuteish race might be pH within the muscles rather than oxygen
or glycogen availability.... Unproven, though.)
Anywhich, my 2p's worth done.
RQ.
> From: Allan Bennett <albe...@eclipse2k.freeserve.co.uk>
Sorry for quoting>
>--