Pondering the Beginner Pete Plan

[iain]

Sorry for the confusion, I was replying to Joris re the 7:50 just commenting on your reply to him.

Whew! That's a relief! Maybe I misread your post.


Week 23

10k - Despite various niggles, I rowed steadily and equaled my best pace at 10k or above without much trouble at all.

8x500 2r - The last time I did this I averaged 2:07, including a last rep of 2:05. So this time I decided to do the first four at 2:07, try to speed up by 1s on the next three, then speed up again for the last one. Well, impatience got the better of me, and after rowing the first two at 2:07 and feeling only slightly stressed, I did the next 5 at 2:06, then took a bit of a flyer on the last rep, managing 2:03.5, for an average pace of just under 2:06. Overall my heart rate spent about 70% of the time in the AT zone, 30% in TR, with maybe 1% in AN, so I guess I didn't try hard enough, at least on the first two reps. But this HRmax is based on the max I've seen while erging, so it's not terribly scientific.

2x15min 2r - I last did this workout about 1.5 months ago, with intervals just above and below 2:20, the second interval being about 0.5s slower than the first. About 3 weeks ago I did a 30min row at 2:20, and last week I did a 30min row at 2:23, but that was capped at r20. Hmmm... 2:20 sounded pretty reasonable, and that's what I did for the first interval. I rowed the second interval the same, except I sped up in the last three minutes to 2:15-2:17 pace, making the average for the interval 2:19. Heart rate was reasonable, UT1/AT in ergspeak.

Steady state in the polarized model is done below Seiler's Zone 1. He identified it at below ~78-80% HR, ~2 mmol lactate. He explains steady state is done here not just for recovery but to develop mitochondria and other systems. If your HR drifts to AT... it may be worthwhile to slow a little for steady state.

When I last did 8*500 2R at r20, sub 2 pace (https://log.concept2.com/profile/2501432/log/101657648) I didn't reach AN, only TR. For me, heart rate often is too short to come up for these sprints.

Back in December when I could do 2:04 r24 12*500m 1R, 2:20 would send me into AT (when I got a HR monitor) straight away, even if RPE wise it was still tough UT1. 2:35-ish was my true UT2 pace.

Perhaps you lack power? How much do you lift?

Remember that we are all different! Seiler's work was done on elite athletes so may not apply to us mere mortals! There is no known "true" UT2 value as the term is used differently by different people. the AT is characterised by the limit beyond which HR or anaerobic byproducts climb rapidly (ie more than drift). The 2mmol lactate is a useful marker as lactate increases significantly. 1mmol for many can be maintained while 3mmol cannot and the increase for most is rapid so it is within tolerance to use 2mmol. Remember lactate is an excellent fuel and NOT one of the anaerobic byproducts that cause issues, it is just readily measured and is a proxy for the ones that are.

In addition, the recovery required from a session is dependent on duration so there is no one pace appropriate for SS sessions of different durations.

SS training is the bedrock of any endurance program. As well as stimulating mitochodrial reproduction it stimulates capilliary growth and has been linked to increased heart stroke volume. However I am not aware of research showing that these effects are not produced by exercise at higher intensities. Yes training consistently at and above threshold has been shown to be less effective than polarised training, but this may well be due to a lowering of the quality of the higher intensity sessions. For the elite athletes studied by Seiler, they were training multiple times per day and so the impact of increasing the intensity of the slower sessions had a larger impact on the pace that could be maintained on the higher intensity sessions. But how this works for people working out only once daily is a different question.

Reubin did not say how much time was in AT (this might have been predominantly from the increased pace at the end) or indeed how the lower AT bound was determined. Instead he stated that Max HR was not definitive suggesting uncertainty on the inputs to the formula used (which was based on max achieved and so might be an under estimate) so as well as the usual caveats that the formulas are only guides there is additional uncertainty.

Re 500 R20, this is a whole different beast to unrestricted 500 intervals HR wise. Putting maximum work per stroke will significantly increase HR above that from the HR for an optimum efficiency rate for a row at the same pace. But personally I find HR climbs more rapidly when performing at the same RPE unrestricted (and hence greater pace). That said, I agree that I have not achieved maximum HR on a 500. The HR will depend upon how fast the rower recovers in the rest interval. I can get close to HR max on 15 x 500 r1' due to incomplete recovery. But I believe Stu has said he can almost fully recover from similar RPE efforts to me in the 1' rests, so we cannot generalise.

Finally I am confused at your reference to "lacking power". Relative to what? Do you mean strength? As power is a function of pace so you could paraphrase your comment from "are you too slow"! The relevance of strength to Reubin is uncertain as I believed that his objective from doing the BPP was to increase endurance, so strength is irrelevant. Regular rowing will help to maintain / increase strength to some extent. While losing muscle is one of the penalties of getting older (all things being equal), it is up to each of us to prioritise what we work on.

[reuben]

1) I'm a mere mortal, not an elite athlete.

2) Yes, my max HR is based on the highest number I've seen on the PM5, namely 168. So I typically assume a max of 170 just to use round numbers. Given that this is an estimate, all calculations, percentages, and zones, are necessarily suspect. To determine zones as used in the erg world, I use the calculator at Free Spirits Rowing. Honestly, I still tend to think in terms of the Z1-Z4 system from decades ago, which seems to have added a Z5 somewhere along the line. I mention erg zones solely in order to better converse on this forum.
https://www.freespiritsrowing.com/forum ... calculator

3) For the 8x500 session, my HR might have gotten into the AN zone for the last few seconds of the last rep. I row short intervals like this hard, so that's no surprise.

4) For the 2x15min session, my HR was in my estimated AT and TR zones in the last rep for about 10:00 - roughly 7:00 AT and 3:00 TR (the last 3 minutes when I increased the pace by several seconds). Part of this is due to normal heart rate drift, and part of it is the fact that I raised my pace and spm for the last 3:00. I consider sessions like 2x15min to be a sort of middle ground between long SS such as 10k and intervals like the 8x500, and I pace them as such, with my heart rate spending most of the time in UT1, but often going higher if I increase my pace toward the end, which is something Pete often suggests, as he did for this session:

2 x 15min / 2min rest – Do you feel good? If so, row the first 15min slightly slower than your best ever 30min row, then try to beat yourself on the second 15min!

5) I've never heard of Seiler, and that's fine. There are many programs that specify all sorts of HR training zones for many different activities. None of them are dogma, although a few probably think that they are.

6) The BPP is working for me.

[PleaseLockIn]

Whew! That's a relief! Maybe I misread your post.


Week 23

10k - Despite various niggles, I rowed steadily and equaled my best pace at 10k or above without much trouble at all.

8x500 2r - The last time I did this I averaged 2:07, including a last rep of 2:05. So this time I decided to do the first four at 2:07, try to speed up by 1s on the next three, then speed up again for the last one. Well, impatience got the better of me, and after rowing the first two at 2:07 and feeling only slightly stressed, I did the next 5 at 2:06, then took a bit of a flyer on the last rep, managing 2:03.5, for an average pace of just under 2:06. Overall my heart rate spent about 70% of the time in the AT zone, 30% in TR, with maybe 1% in AN, so I guess I didn't try hard enough, at least on the first two reps. But this HRmax is based on the max I've seen while erging, so it's not terribly scientific.

2x15min 2r - I last did this workout about 1.5 months ago, with intervals just above and below 2:20, the second interval being about 0.5s slower than the first. About 3 weeks ago I did a 30min row at 2:20, and last week I did a 30min row at 2:23, but that was capped at r20. Hmmm... 2:20 sounded pretty reasonable, and that's what I did for the first interval. I rowed the second interval the same, except I sped up in the last three minutes to 2:15-2:17 pace, making the average for the interval 2:19. Heart rate was reasonable, UT1/AT in ergspeak.

Steady state in the polarized model is done below Seiler's Zone 1. He identified it at below ~78-80% HR, ~2 mmol lactate. He explains steady state is done here not just for recovery but to develop mitochondria and other systems. If your HR drifts to AT... it may be worthwhile to slow a little for steady state.

When I last did 8*500 2R at r20, sub 2 pace (https://log.concept2.com/profile/2501432/log/101657648) I didn't reach AN, only TR. For me, heart rate often is too short to come up for these sprints.

Back in December when I could do 2:04 r24 12*500m 1R, 2:20 would send me into AT (when I got a HR monitor) straight away, even if RPE wise it was still tough UT1. 2:35-ish was my true UT2 pace.

Perhaps you lack power? How much do you lift?

Remember that we are all different! Seiler's work was done on elite athletes so may not apply to us mere mortals! There is no known "true" UT2 value as the term is used differently by different people. the AT is characterised by the limit beyond which HR or anaerobic byproducts climb rapidly (ie more than drift). The 2mmol lactate is a useful marker as lactate increases significantly. 1mmol for many can be maintained while 3mmol cannot and the increase for most is rapid so it is within tolerance to use 2mmol. Remember lactate is an excellent fuel and NOT one of the anaerobic byproducts that cause issues, it is just readily measured and is a proxy for the ones that are.

In addition, the recovery required from a session is dependent on duration so there is no one pace appropriate for SS sessions of different durations.

SS training is the bedrock of any endurance program. As well as stimulating mitochodrial reproduction it stimulates capilliary growth and has been linked to increased heart stroke volume. However I am not aware of research showing that these effects are not produced by exercise at higher intensities. Yes training consistently at and above threshold has been shown to be less effective than polarised training, but this may well be due to a lowering of the quality of the higher intensity sessions. For the elite athletes studied by Seiler, they were training multiple times per day and so the impact of increasing the intensity of the slower sessions had a larger impact on the pace that could be maintained on the higher intensity sessions. But how this works for people working out only once daily is a different question.

Reubin did not say how much time was in AT (this might have been predominantly from the increased pace at the end) or indeed how the lower AT bound was determined. Instead he stated that Max HR was not definitive suggesting uncertainty on the inputs to the formula used (which was based on max achieved and so might be an under estimate) so as well as the usual caveats that the formulas are only guides there is additional uncertainty.

Re 500 R20, this is a whole different beast to unrestricted 500 intervals HR wise. Putting maximum work per stroke will significantly increase HR above that from the HR for an optimum efficiency rate for a row at the same pace. But personally I find HR climbs more rapidly when performing at the same RPE unrestricted (and hence greater pace). That said, I agree that I have not achieved maximum HR on a 500. The HR will depend upon how fast the rower recovers in the rest interval. I can get close to HR max on 15 x 500 r1' due to incomplete recovery. But I believe Stu has said he can almost fully recover from similar RPE efforts to me in the 1' rests, so we cannot generalise.

Finally I am confused at your reference to "lacking power". Relative to what? Do you mean strength? As power is a function of pace so you could paraphrase your comment from "are you too slow"! The relevance of strength to Reubin is uncertain as I believed that his objective from doing the BPP was to increase endurance, so strength is irrelevant. Regular rowing will help to maintain / increase strength to some extent. While losing muscle is one of the penalties of getting older (all things being equal), it is up to each of us to prioritise what we work on.

Yes, ssiler’s work was originally based on elite athletes. However there are various studies showing polarized training is superior to non polarized for non elite athletes

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4621419/ For a meta review showing polarized training significantly better in well trained (but non elite) athletes.

I meant lacking top speed and strength relative to his aerobic capabilities. Yes, it is for endurance… but also to improve fitness and rowing times. And the increased strength could help in getting that eventual 2k to 2:04 pace or even 1:59 ish later…

While regular rowing will help maintain strength, often it is insufficient for fully maintaining strength. That’s why many coaches recommend to keep strength training off season to maintain strength. Especially if you have a decent foundation - without 2x strength a week I really could not have maintained 100kg PB squat and 100kg PB deadlift - I’d probably have regressed to 85-ish kg. But we’re all different…

[alex9026]

Yes, ssiler’s work was originally based on elite athletes. However there are various studies showing polarized training is superior to non polarized for non elite athletes

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4621419/ For a meta review showing polarized training significantly better in well trained (but non elite) athletes.

I meant lacking top speed and strength relative to his aerobic capabilities. Yes, it is for endurance… but also to improve fitness and rowing times. And the increased strength could help in getting that eventual 2k to 2:04 pace or even 1:59 ish later…

While regular rowing will help maintain strength, often it is insufficient for fully maintaining strength. That’s why many coaches recommend to keep strength training off season to maintain strength. Especially if you have a decent foundation - without 2x strength a week I really could not have maintained 100kg PB squat and 100kg PB deadlift - I’d probably have regressed to 85-ish kg. But we’re all different…

There has to be an element of context to this, though. A polarised approach may be most suitable for an athlete training high volume and is competitive all season round. For an athlete whose sole competition is once a year, other methods have been tried and tested other the years, think a pyramid approach.

If training time is limited, I'm not wasting my time and energy on 80 minutes steady state stressing over what heart rate zone I'm drifting in to. Plenty of fast erg'ers train on low volume and don't overthink the work. Plenty of fast erg'ers don't lift weights. It's rowing, row first. If we want to talk strength work, I'm intrigued as to how your deadlift numbers are identical to your squat, how many reps are we talking here? Can you complete five reps at this weight? 1RM is frankly meaningless unless you're a powerlifter, especially for the squat.

[Joris]

How have you defined your heart rate zones? Since my max heart rate seems to be close to yours but your UT2 zone seems to be my UT1 zone, with 143 being my UT1/OT border instead of UT2/UT1 border.

Previously I also rowed my steady state sessions around a heart rate of 130-140, but although I don't know my exact heart rate zones, the basic 220-age formula does seem like a pretty good rule of thumb for me where the accompanying UT1 doesn't make me dip into my reserves, but at the same time I also need to exert enough effort that I can no longer hold a relaxed conversation or listen to a podcast in a relaxed manner. For that reason, I think the zone you use as UT2 is definitely UT1 for me, even though our maximum heart rates seem to be about the same.
You experience sessions like the above one as UT2?

I found it on the Heart Rate band Calculator - you need to know your RHR and MHR
https://www.freespiritsrowing.com/forum ... /utilities

it takes into account your resting heart rate and this may be the reason.

I have been training in my 'UT2' feeling confortable, not out of breath and easily talking. I have kept the same zone to follow up progress. Below a threshold HR < 130, it is too slow and time is my limit.

So I've tried this formula as well, and to my surprise the result is completely differtent than when using the formula with max heart rate.
According to the maximum heart rate formula, my UT1 range is 125-142. But according to the above formula with RHR and MHR, almost the exact same bandwidth (namely 123-141) appearts to be UT2 this time. So there is a difference of a full band.
That means that what I considered so far as to be the upper limit for UT2 (namely 124) turns out to be the lower limit in the new formula.
Just as the upper limit for UT1 (namely 142) actually turns out to be the lower limit in the RHR + MHR formula.

I have always assumed that thoses zones shouldn't be followed too strictly because they can have large margins of error, but that those margens can be so large I did not expect. I'm also starting to understand better and better why more experienced rowers argue why you shouldn't look too much at heart rate, but as a beginner who doesn't know his own capabilities well yet, heart rate, did seem to be the best rough guidance until now. Along with feeling of course, but that feeling gave me the impression that the old formula was pretty accurate.
So for now, I will continue to experiment with the different intensity levels and try to estimate what works best for me.

* Week 23.4 [10k]

If the calculation of heart rate zones based on RHR and MHR turns out to be more accurate for me than the formula I used before then my last steady state sessions suddenly threaten to have been at a slower pace than UT2. Based on feeling, that seems unlikely to me. But there also doesn't seem to be much risk of overtraining in ramping up the intensity a bit again.
Pace 2:31 (av HR 130)

* Week 13.3 [2 x 15 min]
Average pace 2:22.5 (av HR 137)

Week 13.5 [4 x 2k]
My best performance so far was 2:07 + last rep at 2:02 in week 18.
In week 22 I achieved 2:07 + last rep at 2:06
This time I achieved 2:07 + last rep at 2:05.

Another tiny improvement.
And if I would have paced my last rep a little better, I could have clocked 2:04 I think. (I naively tried to match the 2:02 time from week 18, but ended up with positive splitting 2:02 - 2:03 - 2:06 - 2:09).

Up to the final week of the plan!

[Joris]

If training time is limited, I'm not wasting my time and energy on 80 minutes steady state stressing over what heart rate zone I'm drifting in to. Plenty of fast erg'ers train on low volume and don't overthink the work.

I don't have time to train multiple sessions a day or to row 15k regularly, but I currently manage to train about five sessions a week, with about two sessions of 10 to 12 kilometers.

I understand that experienced rowers/endurance athletes like yourself consider this to be few training hours and thus acceptable at medium/high intensity (minimum high UT1).

But as a novice endurance athlete (as presumably most here in this topic), exercising an hour daily does represent a big increase from the situation before where I was exercising maybe only one hour a week.

In that respect, beginners like me are starting with a much smaller condition base compared to more experienced athletes.
So for (some of) us, doing steady state in UT2/low UT1 zone is just an efficient way to improve general fitness without too much risk of overtraining?
Or do you think it is also a waste of time for beginners to train at low intensity/to focus on heart rate?

[alex9026]

I don't have time to train multiple sessions a day or to row 15k regularly, but I currently manage to train about five sessions a week, with about two sessions of 10 to 12 kilometers.

I understand that experienced rowers/endurance athletes like yourself consider this to be few training hours and thus acceptable at medium/high intensity (minimum high UT1).

But as a novice endurance athlete (as presumably most here in this topic), exercising an hour daily does represent a big increase from the situation before where I was exercising maybe only one hour a week.

In that respect, beginners like me are starting with a much smaller condition base compared to more experienced athletes.
So for (some of) us, doing steady state in UT2/low UT1 zone is just an efficient way to improve general fitness without too much risk of overtraining?
Or do you think it is also a waste of time for beginners to train at low intensity/to focus on heart rate?

Nope, you make valid points and I should have caveated the above, but was conscious of not wanting to drift too far off the thread topic...

For anyone new to a sport, or experienced athletes returning from injury, a block of steady state low intensity work is absolutely a sensible approach. As you highlight, it reduces the chances of overtraining (which can warrant it's own thread entirely, as I'd say 99% of it is under-recovering) and definitely reduces the risk of injury, or just encouraging someone to become frustrated and lose interest.

I haven't ran the BPP, when new to the Erg I just built up comfortably rowing for 60:00, this was 12-18 months ago. Granted, my "adaption" phase was perhaps quicker than most because of a running background. Outside eye looking on in this thread, the BPP does develop that foundation with a mix of steady pieces and interval training? I have ran a few cycles of Pete's lunch hour plan, which has a similar approach. There, the distance pieces are recommended to be 8-15km, alternated with the interval days and one "hard distance" piece. So doable for those with one hour a day to devote to training.

If I'm applying my point of not wasting my time with very long steady pieces, if pressed for time I'd drop the SS before the interval work. The plan is geared towards the 2k, so one *could* get away with low volume and still progress on the interval work. Especially if you have built that foundation you mention. I'm also a believer in pushing those UT1 pieces, there is great value in them for those not putting in massive mileage.

I hope the above makes sense and I'm not detailing the thread entirely!

[iain]

Pete is not a fan of UT2 rowing and his plans might be seen to be designed for those not intending to do high volumes of training. These plan's were also developed at a time when there were a significant number of races available in UK and so are aimed at maintaining a high level of fitness rather than slowly developing fitness. So are they appropriate for uncompetitive rowers? I would say that to those that are motivated by seeing improvements and challenging themselves then they are a good approach. It is likely that they do not provide the ideal program for maximising fitness improvement over 12+ months, but the majority don't manage to keep to their planned programs and so I firmly believe that the key requirement of any program is that it maintains the interest of the participants as no plan helps when it is not being followed!

Personally I have found more rapid improvement from reducing the number of more intense sessions and adding volume to the steady state, the majority of which I do slower than Pete intended as I do not fully recover from a 10k UT1 sessions in 24 hours. However, I would say that the modest pace increases for the early interval sessions on the BPP means that they are not high intensity sessions. Later pace targets are based on gradual increases to these paces and so it is not until quite late in the plan that these sessions become truly high intensity. Unfortunately people ignore the suggested incremental improvements and so rapidly find that the program becomes much more intense. I think it is often this that means that the SS at UT1 becomes too hard! No issue with this and everyone if free to modify the plan for their use.

Re HR, as many will have read before, I am a firm believer that there is a wide range in the %ages that the different zones will be between different rowers whether based on HRR or HRmax. I am also not convinced that the bands are at all useful for those without a significant fitness base as the aerobic threshold can be down in UT2 for some and so a different approach is required!

[p_b82]

I've not run the BPP - but I do poke my nose in the thread as I kinda still think of myself as a n00b even if I realise I'm in my 4th season now - and there's a often a similar theme of questions that come up with those that are new to the plan from a new to the erg perspective.

I started off rowing very slowly with a very low Wmin; my back wasn't in a good place and I needed to be gentle with it.
As a result I followed the low HR approach often used in polarised training for SS pace - even as I built the volume from 10mins to an eventual HM in 6 months.

I have/had a hiking background so long slow sessions was very easy for me to adapt to because a 3-4 hour hike is "normal" (10-15k) - harder hikes for me are 4.5-6hrs (though I don't tend to do many of those in recent times since getting the erg)

I soon realised that my HR really didn't correspond to the bands as traditionally written using MHR or MHR-HRR & in terms of recovery, my body doesn't really care what Wmin I do things at, it only really cares about a combo of total power outputs and duration.

With my low rowing volume - in terms of sessions per week and distances, (I typically do 3 rows a week on nights I don't have to cook something - I cook in 2 day batches and just nuke leftovers on rowing days) as a result I tend to do almost everything at 170 bpm plus - and if I'm not "feeling it" on a given day, just do a shorter session rather than a longer session at a lower pace. If I do an easy session it's at a pace that keeps my HR around 160bpm - but those are exceptions generally.

I'm still making incremental gains to my fitness - and my pb's as a result - and I'm still getting on the erg regularly. - My aim was to change my body shape & improve my fitness, which I have done and continue to do, so in that respect I'm achieving my aims with my approach.

I think there is a proclivity for people to look at min/maxing exercise routines - and for a lot of us, where our goals are not not to hit top 20% in our respective age brackets, I personally don't think it really matters what we do, as long as we do overload things slightly, consistently.

[Dangerscouse]

Or do you think it is also a waste of time for beginners to train at low intensity/to focus on heart rate?

Just to add to the above great advice, it all depends on your 'why'. If you want to just stay fit and healthy, then most, possibly all things will work ideally for you, but if you want to improve / get faster, that's when you need to add another layer of nuance to your training as that's when there are so many different variations that can change your specific ideal type of training.

Your age, your physiology, your fitness, your personal life , and many other things all play a role in shaping what works and what doesn't, and that can change on any given day.

That's why I always advocate to adapt and assess continually. What worked a year ago might not be right anymore, so don't assume that's what I always do / that's what an experienced rower does.

HR is a bit of a minefield imo. It can become a target in itself when you could have intuitively pushed a bit harder or needed to back off, so if not used correctly, I think it can be detrimental. I use it as more of a general guide and something to be casually interested in, rather than worrying that it's jumped too much, especially if it feels manageable. Having failed sessions at circa 143bpm (about 80%), I know it's not an infallible data point, as I've also rowed for thousands of metres at circa 90% +.

[Joris]

I hope the above makes sense and I'm not detailing the thread entirely!

Thanks for all the useful comments Alex9026, iain, pb_82 and Dangerscouse.
So not at all a derailement of the thread, because it is very helpful and encouraging to get some advice from faster and more experienced rowers.

If I'm applying my point of not wasting my time with very long steady pieces, if pressed for time I'd drop the SS before the interval work.

Personally I have found more rapid improvement from reducing the number of more intense sessions and adding volume to the steady state, the majority of which I do slower than Pete intended as I do not fully recover from a 10k UT1 sessions in 24 hours.

I started off rowing very slowly with a very low Wmin; my back wasn't in a good place and I needed to be gentle with it.
As a result I followed the low HR approach often used in polarised training for SS pace - even as I built the volume from 10mins to an eventual HM in 6 months.

Judging from the various expierences above, I recall that there is no one unique way to improve, and that relatively quiet steady states are certainly an option as well, especially at the beginning when you still need to work on good basic fitness.
But to set a good pace for steady state, inuition and experience may be more important than heart rate, and there is no reason to go slower based on heart rate if your body is not giving that signal for it.

Just to add to the above great advice, it all depends on your 'why'. If you want to just stay fit and healthy, then most, possibly all things will work ideally for you, but if you want to improve / get faster, that's when you need to add another layer of nuance to your training ...

... That's why I always advocate to adapt and assess continually.

HR is a bit of a minefield imo. It can become a target in itself when you could have intuitively pushed a bit harder or needed to back off, so if not used correctly, I think it can be detrimental. I use it as more of a general guide and something to be casually interested in, rather than worrying that it's jumped too much, especially if it feels manageable.

Of course I want to improve and get faster, otherwise I wouldn't spend time on this forum.
But I also don't want to burn myself out (physically or mentally) by wanting to build up too fast.
Getting to the top 20% may not be within my capabilities, but that doesn't mean I don't want to test how far I can get.
Trying to get faster and challenging yourself makes part of the fun for me and keeps me motivated to continue rowing, but If I end up not climbing high up the ladder, so be it.

[reuben]

I've not run the BPP - but I do poke my nose in the thread as I kinda still think of myself as a n00b even if I realise I'm in my 4th season now - and there's a often a similar theme of questions that come up with those that are new to the plan from a new to the erg perspective.

I started off rowing very slowly with a very low Wmin; my back wasn't in a good place and I needed to be gentle with it.
As a result I followed the low HR approach often used in polarised training for SS pace - even as I built the volume from 10mins to an eventual HM in 6 months.

I have/had a hiking background so long slow sessions was very easy for me to adapt to because a 3-4 hour hike is "normal" (10-15k) - harder hikes for me are 4.5-6hrs (though I don't tend to do many of those in recent times since getting the erg)

I soon realised that my HR really didn't correspond to the bands as traditionally written using MHR or MHR-HRR & in terms of recovery, my body doesn't really care what Wmin I do things at, it only really cares about a combo of total power outputs and duration.

As a hiker/backpacker with hereditary, but relatively minor back/spine issues which can slow me down but rarely stop me, I absolutely empathize and agree with this. While, "First, do no harm", is often attributed to the Hippocratic Oath, it's not actually in there. Nevertheless, I think that it's an enormously important concept, especially for beginners. Don't hurt yourself. Push, but be reasonable. Listen to your body. Consistency is more important than intensity, IMHO.

When hiking, it's all about low intensity for hours. When backpacking, it's all about the same for days on end with your world on your back. Erging, weight lifting, core exercises, other strength (legs, back, torso...) are imporant when you start going longer, and especially if you're carrying a load.

My aim was to change my body shape & improve my fitness, which I have done and continue to do, so in that respect I'm achieving my aims with my approach.

Where's the clapping hands emoji?

I personally don't think it really matters what we do, as long as we do overload things slightly, consistently.

+1

[DJ1972]

If training time is limited, I'm not wasting my time and energy on 80 minutes steady state stressing over what heart rate zone I'm drifting in to. Plenty of fast erg'ers train on low volume and don't overthink the work.

I don't have time to train multiple sessions a day or to row 15k regularly, but I currently manage to train about five sessions a week, with about two sessions of 10 to 12 kilometers.

I understand that experienced rowers/endurance athletes like yourself consider this to be few training hours and thus acceptable at medium/high intensity (minimum high UT1).

But as a novice endurance athlete (as presumably most here in this topic), exercising an hour daily does represent a big increase from the situation before where I was exercising maybe only one hour a week.

In that respect, beginners like me are starting with a much smaller condition base compared to more experienced athletes.
So for (some of) us, doing steady state in UT2/low UT1 zone is just an efficient way to improve general fitness without too much risk of overtraining?
Or do you think it is also a waste of time for beginners to train at low intensity/to focus on heart rate?

I can only talk for myself on this. I defined my UT1 and UT2 based on the FreeSpirits tool and worked at 2k+15 when I started, and kept it as basis for the rest of the BPP. First 3 months, I was most of the time going into my UT1, drifting easily to higher HR, all depending on the tiredness and conditions of the day, but distance were shorter at the time.

As I mentioned in the past, eventually overall HR dropped and does not drift anymore for 2k+13 (2min18) and it took 1 million meters to get there. So I am training fully in UT2 at the moment for steady state but will the volumes of speed intervals and other, this is enough to allow recovery, although I could take 1 second off or more.

From what I have read, going at low heart rate requires longer distances to improve your CV. In my case I chose UT1 due to lack of training time, and I was lucky that it worked for me. I kept the same strategy all along, I had to be patient and believed this was the right way (may be adjusted slightly for DF) and it paid off.

As many mentioned, this is a trade-off between many parameters (time, recovery, etc..) . The key for me was to use the same strategy and pace, improve techniques and follow HR to see improvements.

W23.2
8x500m - the last one of the plan. Target 1min48.9 and below. Adjusted DF to 110 (from my normal 105).

Code: Select all

Time	Meters	Pace	Watts	Cal/Hr	S/M	
14:27.2	4,000	1:48.4	275	1245	28	166
1:48.8	500	1:48.8	272	1235	27	158
r: 2:00	19						
1:48.8	500	1:48.8	272	1235	28	162
r: 2:00	23						
1:48.8	500	1:48.8	272	1235	28	165
r: 2:00	16						
1:48.7	500	1:48.7	273	1237	28	167
r: 2:00	19						
1:48.7	500	1:48.7	273	1237	29	168
r: 2:00	20						
1:48.7	500	1:48.7	273	1237	29	170
r: 2:00	17						
1:48.6	500	1:48.6	273	1240	29	171
r: 2:00	20						
1:46.1	500	1:46.1	293	1308	31	173
r134		

Small gain but major gain in the feeling that I can hold higher pace for longer.

[iain]

Getting to the top 20% may not be within my capabilities, but that doesn't mean I don't want to test how far I can get.

You'd be surprised. You might not make top 20% of C2 rankings, but especially at younger age groups the people who rank distances are very skewed to the fittest. I suspect that just being able to do 10k probably puts you in the top half! Very good attitude!

[reuben]

Week 24 - The end of the BPP as we know it.

12k - After procrastinating for a few hours, I averaged r20 and my fastest ever pace at 10k or above by a few tenths of a second.

5x1.5k 3r - With less than a minute left in the first rest period I got a message that my HR disconnected, and ergData went to all zeros. Seems as though both BT and ANT suddenly went kaflooey due to a PM5 hiccup. So I reconnected everything, reprogrammed the session in the PM5, and kept going. That first rep was lost to the luminiferous ether, but it was at exactly the pace I planned, so no problem. I didn't feel like I had any real strength or speed at any point in the session, but my HR was OK throughout.

30min - Felt pretty good. Lowered my best 30min pace by 2.1s, with a slow ramp up to start, a fairly steady middle, and another increase the last 4-5min.