Pondering the Beginner Pete Plan

[Joris]

Week 24

Since I no longer know, even approximately, what my correct heart rate bands are, I tried to row my steady states a bit more by feel.
Day 1 [12k] at a pace of 2:27 and day 3 [30min] at a pace of 2:24.

In between was the second last interval session of the plan and for a long time I had another significant improvement over my previous best time.

Day 2 [5 x 1.5k]: during week 16 I rowed at 2:06 with a final rep of 2:04 and in week 20 I was just able to match these times.
This session I clocked in at 2:05 + a final rep at 2:03, so a second faster on every rep. A good confidence boost ahead of my 2k test after the plan!
But first, two more sessions to go and with a little vacation coming up, unfortunately a short break ahead as well.

[Joris]

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.

If I am not mistaken, your target for a PB 2k will be about 1:52?
So in that case your current steady state of 2:18 is actually rather 2k+26 then 2k+13 if considering current fitness?

I'm aiming for 1:59 for a PB 2k, so if I were to hit that, that means my last steady state of 2:27 equals 2k+28.
So we seem to be running about the same (fairly wide) gap.
But despite that wide gap, I feel like that's about the right pace for me, because at a steady state of 2:23 (2k + 24) I felt like I was (at about five sessions a week) maybe not fully recovering and therefore stagnating in my interval sessions.
I suspect this gap will narrow as fitness increases, but for now I see no reason to rush it.

5x1.5k 3r - ... I didn't feel like I had any real strength or speed at any point in the session, but my HR was OK throughout.

What is your gap between your (long) steady state sessions and interval sessions? Maybe your recent faster steady state sessions come at the expense of your interval sessions?

What do you mean by "HR was OK throughout"? I assume that the harder you do these interval sessions, the more effective they are. So in that respect the higher your heart rate, the better your session? Although in these sessions I don't really pay attention to heart rate and just try to go as fast as possible and use pace as reference.

[PleaseLockIn]

Week 14 day 1 - 10000 m

2:28 r18 pushed me to 160 HR by 20 min and by the end it got to 165 ish HR. It’s as if the HR went up by 10 after the break. I think I’ll need to slow to 2:30 r18 for ut2 now…

Day 2, not looking forward to 3*2000m 4R. Maybe just get something at 2:06-2:07 r20?

I need every training session I can get to…

[reuben]

5x1.5k 3r - ... I didn't feel like I had any real strength or speed at any point in the session, but my HR was OK throughout.

What is your gap between your (long) steady state sessions and interval sessions? Maybe your recent faster steady state sessions come at the expense of your interval sessions?

I noticed your earlier posts, and meant to comment on this.

First - I felt kinda blah that day. Didn't feel weak, didn't feel strong. Didn't feel fast, didn't feel slow. Definitely didn't feel motivated. Some days are like that, and I just grind out the meters and minutes, trying to stay on track. As mentioned, the first interval was lost, but the next 4 averaged 2:16.8, with a surprising 2:16.2 at the end (see below). Looking back at similar sessions in the relatively recent past, this result is actually quite normal, so I guess that my blah feeling was more mental than physical.

Second - I'm using guesstimated HR zones, based on the Free Spirits calculator. My current estimates are:

UT1: 135-145
AT: 146-151
TR: 152-162
AN: 163-168

I estimate my max HR at 170, but that's just because the highest number I've ever seen on the PM5 is 168, I was definitely uncomfortable, and my HR was no longer rising. My resting HR seems a little weird. I can be sitting on the couch and see anything from 50s to 70s, with a fairly up-to-date optical sensor in my Garmin watch. Low 70s is typical, but not necessarily anywhere near accurate.

Long SS (10-12k) - My HR slowly creeps up, usually reaching TR in the last few minutes. I feel fine with this. I'm working, but I don't feel like I'm about to spiral out of control or fall off the erg. Average HR for the session is typically 145-150 (AT).

Long intervals - Using the recent 5x1500 3r as an example, my HR does about the same, ending in upper TR, but with a higher average of 155 or so. As intervals should be rowed faster/harder than SS sessions, I have no worries about this.

Short intervals - They're about the same as my long intervals. Like most people, my HR tends to drift up over the course of a session, with a somewhat steeper ramp for intervals.

I haven't really looked, but I think that it's fair to say that my HR ends up in the TR band for almost all sessions. Call it HR drift, call it working too hard (especially for SS sessions), blame it on Pete for frequently suggesting that we go faster at the end if we can... call it what you will, but that's me.

My 2k target (if I actually try for it) is 2:06. Yours is 1:59, so despite the fact that neither of us have actually tried yet, I think it's safe to say that you're clearly faster than me. BUT -

I row my 10-12k sessions at about 2:26 - 1s faster than you, but that's only 24s over a 12k session, or almost an hour for you and I. Not a big difference, I don't think. I did get into TR for the last 2k or so of the recent 12k session, which is pretty normal for me. For the last 2k my spm stayed the same but my power went up a touch, resulting in a slightly faster split at the end. Combined with HR drift, this pushed me well into my guesstimated TR band.

Code: Select all

Time 	Meters 	Pace 	Watts 	Cal/Hr 	S/M 	
58:15.0 12,000 	2:25.6 	113 	690 	20 	146
9:45.8 	2,000 	2:26.4 	111 	683 	21 	130
9:40.3 	4,000 	2:25.0 	115 	694 	20 	143
9:41.3 	6,000 	2:25.3 	114 	692 	20 	146
9:44.3 	8,000 	2:26.0 	112 	686 	21 	150
9:43.5 	10,000 	2:25.8 	113 	688 	21 	153
9:39.9 	12,000 	2:24.9 	115 	695 	21 	159

I rowed the 5x1.5k 3r at 2:17 - considerably slower than you (2:05). Given our respective estimates of our hypothetical 2k PBs, this isn't surprising. As mentioned elsewhere, the first interval was lost due to a PM5 wig out, so only the last four are shown here.

Code: Select all

Time 	Meters 	Pace 	Watts 	Cal/Hr 	S/M 	
27:21.6 6,000 	2:16.8 	137 	770 	24 	155
6:51.1 	1,500 	2:17.0 	136 	768 	24 	150
6:50.9 	1,500 	2:16.9 	136 	768 	25 	156
6:50.9 	1,500 	2:16.9 	136 	768 	25 	155
6:48.7 	1,500 	2:16.2 	138 	776 	25 	161

I rowed the 30min at 2:18 - considerably faster than you (2:24). As Pete usually suggests, and I often do, I went faster toward the end. This time I went about 2-2.5s faster pace than the earlier splits. My HR got up to 166, so I was definitely working. When I speed up like this, and I do so fairly frequently, it skews a lot of the averages that the PM5 calculates - HR, pace, watts, etc. The median values would often be more useful than the mean (average).

Code: Select all

Time 	Meters 	Pace 	Watts 	Cal/Hr 	S/M 	
30:00.0 6,505 	2:18.3 	132 	754 	23 	155
6:00.0 	1,285 	2:20.0 	127 	738 	23 	142
12:00.0 1,305 	2:17.9 	133 	759 	23 	152
18:00.0 1,299 	2:18.5 	132 	752 	22 	156
24:00.0 1,296 	2:18.8 	131 	749 	23 	159
30:00.0 1,320 	2:16.3 	138 	775 	24 	166

So to finally answer your question about my "gap", I'd say that 2:27 +/-1s is a pretty standard 10-12k SS session for me, and my short interval sessions (e.g. 4x1k 3r, 8x500 2r) are 2:08 +/-1s, making my gap from fastest to slowest 19s or so. Using the long interval sessions instead of the short ones, my gap is about 10s. Is that normal for a typical (median) 67 year old male heavyweight, who's not very well trained? I have no idea. Does it matter? I think probably not.

I don't think that any of these numbers - max HR, training zones, watts, etc. - can say that I'm pushing too hard or you're not pushing hard enough in any of the various types of sessions, or that either one of us is "doing it wrong". First of all, we're both estimating our bands. Second, we're different. We may be genetically better suited for different types of sessions, or love/hate some sessions more than others, have some other athletic background which makes us faster or slower, any of which could lead to comparisons which - ON THE SURFACE - appear to contradict.

I DO know that I'm not letting my sessions or efforts be controlled by trying to stay in an estimated HR band or training zone. I just look at recent similar sessions, aim for the something that seems reasonable, and maybe try to go a bit faster toward the end if possible, as Pete often suggests. If I go into my (estimated) TR band for the last 5 minutes of a 45 minute session (11% by time), I don't consider that to be a failure of discipline. I consider it to be a fairly normal training session. That's just me.

I find resting HR, max HR, and HR/training zones to be interesting, and sometimes useful, but I'm more of a "perceived exertion" kinda guy. If it feels easy, it is easy. If it feels hard, it is hard. And that applies to power, endurance, and speed, whether cycling, hiking, weightlifting, erging or anything else in my tiny world.

What do you mean by "HR was OK throughout"?

I mean that my HR didn't go higher than anticipated, or have a higher than anticapted average over the session. That doesn't mean that I didn't go into TR or maybe even AN.

I assume that the harder you do these interval sessions, the more effective they are. So in that respect the higher your heart rate, the better your session?

Again, I go mostly by RPE since my HR bands are guesstimates, but I do glance at the PM5 to confirm what my body is telling me. For short intervals, and maybe the end of long intervals, I would say, "Yes", if it confirms what my body tells me.

Although in these sessions I don't really pay attention to heart rate and just try to go as fast as possible and use pace as reference.

I do the same. My body will tell me how hard I'm working, how close I am to my limit for the day.

On the flip side, I DO NOT subscribe to the "no pain no gain" mantra of my youth. And I may never again "work to exhaustion" unless maybe I'm trying for a 2k PB or something similar. I can hike in the woods for hours at low intensity, love it, and gain all sorts of mental, physical, and emotional benefits from doing so. I've long referred to my both short and long day hikes in the woods with barely any human contact as my "mental health hikes". As one of my math professors used to emphatically declare, "Is good for your soul!" But I approach erging in a different fashion, as a 10k SS session in UT2 would bore me to tears.

I think that we need to listen more to our hearts and minds and bodies, and, with all due respect to Pete, less to experts, training programs, dogmas, and numbers. And I say that as someone with a math degree who did all sorts of engineering during my career.

Since I no longer know, even approximately, what my correct heart rate bands are, I tried to row my steady states a bit more by feel.

This is the way. IMHO. When you learn to listen to your body, and hear what it tells you, then you can then see what heart rate corresponds to easy, medium, hard, etc., assuming that HR info is still of value to you.



ETA: Sorry for the long-winded post. In trying to explain everything completely, I sometimes say too much, which can add to the confusion.

[Dangerscouse]

I find resting HR, max HR, and HR/training zones to be interesting, and sometimes useful, but I'm more of a "perceived exertion" kinda guy. If it feels easy, it is easy. If it feels hard, it is hard. And that applies to power, endurance, and speed, whether cycling, hiking, weightlifting, erging or anything else in my tiny world.

I like reading this. There's too much emphasis on data and it definitely meaning something on any given day, when on any given day your emotions, hormones, neurotransmitters, CNS etc are all doing their own thing independently of themselves and can be totally misleading readings. Intuition and interoception are very valuable skills in sports, and can be far more reliable.

[Joris]

I think that we need to listen more to our hearts and minds and bodies, and, with all due respect to Pete, less to experts, training programs, dogmas, and numbers. And I say that as someone with a math degree who did all sorts of engineering during my career.

Since I no longer know, even approximately, what my correct heart rate bands are, I tried to row my steady states a bit more by feel.

This is the way. IMHO. When you learn to listen to your body, and hear what it tells you, then you can then see what heart rate corresponds to easy, medium, hard, etc., assuming that HR info is still of value to you.

Perhaps you've had an overdose of data during your career
Personally, I love data (too), so I use data not only because I believe in it, but also because I enjoy making connections, or at least 'trying' to make connections between performance and trainingintensities.
In that regard, I plan to keep using my heart rate as an indicator of my steady states for now. But as you say, I'm going to rely less on heart rate bands, that are probably not correct anyway, but rather basing myself on previous experiences where I can judge which heart rate band seems to work roughly for me (ie. sufficient work, but also sufficient recovery for the next session).
Depending on the session, the number of sessions, etc. this can of course fluctuate, but staying within a predetermined heart rate zone is an approach I personally prefer for steady state sessions for now. Once I get to know my body better, I might start deviating from that approach.

So to finally answer your question about my "gap", I'd say that 2:27 +/-1s is a pretty standard 10-12k SS session for me, and my short interval sessions (e.g. 4x1k 3r, 8x500 2r) are 2:08 +/-1s, making my gap from fastest to slowest 19s or so. Using the long interval sessions instead of the short ones, my gap is about 10s. Is that normal for a typical (median) 67 year old male heavyweight, who's not very well trained? I have no idea. Does it matter? I think probably not.

I'm certainly not in a position to tell others what a good pace is for their steady state sessions, as everyone is different and I don't even know my own optimal pace yet, nor can I present nice reference times.
But since we are somewhat in a similar situation I did want to share my experiences, in the hope that that info may be useful to you as well.
As cited, at some point in the plan I also started to gradually increase the pace of my steady states (from 2:30 to 2:23 for the 10-12k and down to 2:20 for the 30min session). During those sessions I didn't feel like I was going too fast, on the contrary, I felt I could still easily go a little faster. But I noticed that after a few weeks I started to look up more and more to the interval sessions and eventually I started to stagnate at those interval sessions as well. And after that, the steady state sessions also started getting more difficult.
That was when I started doing my steady states a little slower again and I have the impression that I am making more progress again now. But again, everyone is different and if you feel your approach is working for you then by all means don't change it. I had chimed in mainly because you mentioned that your interval session was difficult and I recognized the pattern from my own experiences. But if in hindsight you no longer have a bad feeling about that session there may not be a problem. And it would be premature anyway to draw conclusions after just one bad session.
I also cannot say for sure that slowing down my steady states was at the root of my regained energy level, as it could also be based on coincidence or other variables, such as the extra attention I started paying to adequate nutrition.

That said, if you want to optimize your workouts, there is probably a threshold gap that you don't want to go below.
Pete writes about pace: “The only guideline for pacing the steady distance sessions is that they should be within the bounds of 22 to 25spm, and at such a pace as you recover sufficiently for the hard session the following day. If in doubt, go slower! These sessions should be at least 10seconds slower pace than your endurance interval sessions.”
I don't know if 10 seconds is the holy grail for everyone (because 22 to 25spm is certainly not a consensus rate), but if you are currently doing your steady states at 2:27 and your 5 x 1.5k at 2:17 then be aware that you are currently at that threshold. So it probably can't hurt to keep an eye on this a bit.

[reuben]

As cited, at some point in the plan I also started to gradually increase the pace of my steady states (from 2:30 to 2:23 for the 10-12k

That sounds like a lot (to me). Looking back at my own data, I've only increased my long SS pace by about 2s, and I wouldn't say that I was fit at the start. On the other hand that 2s increase happened while also increasing the distance from 6k to 8 or 10k.

One last monkey wrench to throw into the gears - I did the three core sessions per week, whereas you did the three core plus the two optional, so I may have been recovering better between sessions.

When you were struggling, another option could have been to scale back the number of sessions, at least for a few weeks, similar to slowing your pace. They both help you recover better, albeit in slightly different ways, one lowering intensity and the other lowering frequency. Ack! Another variable!

[Joris]

As cited, at some point in the plan I also started to gradually increase the pace of my steady states (from 2:30 to 2:23 for the 10-12k

That sounds like a lot (to me). Looking back at my own data, I've only increased my long SS pace by about 2s, and I wouldn't say that I was fit at the start. On the other hand that 2s increase happened while also increasing the distance from 6k to 8 or 10k.

I diminished gradually (by one second a week) once the distance stopped increasing.
And I allowed myself to increase the pace as long as my average heart rated stayed below 140 (which I assumed was upper UT1 zone), with the idea to avoid training too long in AT zone.

One last monkey wrench to throw into the gears - I did the three core sessions per week, whereas you did the three core plus the two optional, so I may have been recovering better between sessions.

When you were struggling, another option could have been to scale back the number of sessions, at least for a few weeks, similar to slowing your pace. They both help you recover better, albeit in slightly different ways, one lowering intensity and the other lowering frequency. Ack! Another variable!

Certainly a valid point and at a given moment I indeed considered diminishing the number of weekly sessions.
But since I had the ambition and enthousiasm to evolve as quickly as possible and since I could make enough time for as many sessions, I thought it was more efficient to do many sessions, with steady state a little slower, than fewer sessions with steady state a little faster.

Just like, on another level, pros also aim for a huge amount of training hours (multiple sessions a day, etc), and avoid overtraining by adjusting their intensity level, moreover than limiting the number of sessions.
But indeed, with only three sessions a week I would probably also go a little faster on my steady states.

[PleaseLockIn]

As cited, at some point in the plan I also started to gradually increase the pace of my steady states (from 2:30 to 2:23 for the 10-12k

That sounds like a lot (to me). Looking back at my own data, I've only increased my long SS pace by about 2s, and I wouldn't say that I was fit at the start. On the other hand that 2s increase happened while also increasing the distance from 6k to 8 or 10k.

I diminished gradually (by one second a week) once the distance stopped increasing.
And I allowed myself to increase the pace as long as my average heart rated stayed below 140 (which I assumed was upper UT1 zone), with the idea to avoid training too long in AT zone.

One last monkey wrench to throw into the gears - I did the three core sessions per week, whereas you did the three core plus the two optional, so I may have been recovering better between sessions.

When you were struggling, another option could have been to scale back the number of sessions, at least for a few weeks, similar to slowing your pace. They both help you recover better, albeit in slightly different ways, one lowering intensity and the other lowering frequency. Ack! Another variable!

Certainly a valid point and at a given moment I indeed considered diminishing the number of weekly sessions.
But since I had the ambition and enthousiasm to evolve as quickly as possible and since I could make enough time for as many sessions, I thought it was more efficient to do many sessions, with steady state a little slower, than fewer sessions with steady state a little faster.

Just like, on another level, pros also aim for a huge amount of training hours (multiple sessions a day, etc), and avoid overtraining by adjusting their intensity level, moreover than limiting the number of sessions.
But indeed, with only three sessions a week I would probably also go a little faster on my steady states.

I wonder how do you recover from 5 sessions a week, with all of them at least UT1, maybe even AT? I thought you also had other things to do? Do you have any tips for this?

I also used to do only 3 core sessions, maybe 1 extra if I had time, yet I had to polarize my training significantly to ensure I could recover. Before my break I used to hold 2:28 r18 with average HR below 75% MHR and max HR below 70% HRR or a bit under 80% MHR

I think you were right to slow the SS - oftentimes polarizing/pyramid the training can lead to quicker results. We can see the research from many different athletes. Even down to recreational level athletes.

I find 22-25spm too high for SS and gets my HR too high - I tend to go r18 ish for UT2 and r20 ish for UT1, but we're different. Maybe I rate too low - gotta learn to rate high.

In my opinion, 10 seconds gap is probably the minimum, preferably be larger.

Week 14 Day 2 - I did 3*2000m 4R at a bit under 2:05 at r25, hard but not maxed out. Slower than a couple months ago though at least I got the rate slightly upwards. A little disappointing, but there's that. Gotta push harder! (and also work on my inefficient technique - idk how i almost made pre-varsity with terrible technique)

If I "Steady stated" at 2:15 it would become a TR workout for me. Even 2:20 I can't sustain for an hour without it becoming AT.

Seems the research is partially on our side. Ingham et al (2008) shows high volume low intensity has similar adaptation to 70/30 low/medium intensity, even though the low intensity has less volume. Besides, the athletes on low intensity tended to be more efficient.

It also seems rowers of different levels and training volumes who used more polarization in their training tended to have stronger rowing results to a statistically significant extent. (https://www.britishrowing.org/2020/04/t ... %20mileage.)

Congrats on the 5*1.5k at 2:05, last one 2:03! Honestly not sure if I could do it a lot faster, while keeping the rate to 24... what rate do you do this at?

[DJ1972]

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.

If I am not mistaken, your target for a PB 2k will be about 1:52?
So in that case your current steady state of 2:18 is actually rather 2k+26 then 2k+13 if considering current fitness?

I'm aiming for 1:59 for a PB 2k, so if I were to hit that, that means my last steady state of 2:27 equals 2k+28.
So we seem to be running about the same (fairly wide) gap.
But despite that wide gap, I feel like that's about the right pace for me, because at a steady state of 2:23 (2k + 24) I felt like I was (at about five sessions a week) maybe not fully recovering and therefore stagnating in my interval sessions.
I suspect this gap will narrow as fitness increases, but for now I see no reason to rush it.

Yes that's the theoretical plan to achieve 1:52.0 - 1:52.5 (below 7:30) and later on this year 1:50 if I can withstand the volumes.

Week 23.5: [4 x 2000m / 4min rest] - Target 1:57 - too much gardening and gathering wood for 2 hours only, consequently I could only manage 1:57.0 / 2:04.7 / 2:03.8 / 2:02.8. Most importantly I completed the session somehow and decided one day rest then a steady state 10k session and retrial of W23.5

As discussed, my steady state have been the same since November/December. I tried a higher pace at 2:14-2:15 but settled at 2:18. This is where I started gathering the 'statistics', only methods to follow up improvement. Whichever HR bands you want to use, my aim was a stable pace until I see an improvement in my HR

December 24

Code: Select all

Time	Meters	Pace	Watts	Cal/Hr	S/M	
46:03.5	10,000	2:18.1	133	756	20	142
9:14.7	2,000	2:18.6	131	751	20	135
9:13.8	4,000	2:18.4	132	753	20	142
9:11.1	6,000	2:17.7	134	760	20	148
9:10.4	8,000	2:17.6	134	762	21	145
9:13.4	10,000	2:18.3	132	754	21	144

2 days ago

Code: Select all

Time	Meters	Pace	Watts	Cal/Hr	S/M	
45:55.8	10,000	2:17.7	134	760	21	135
9:09.0	2,000	2:17.2	135	765	21	132
9:11.7	4,000	2:17.9	133	759	22	133
9:12.9	6,000	2:18.2	133	756	22	136
9:10.7	8,000	2:17.6	134	761	22	140
9:11.5	10,000	2:17.8	134	759	22	136

Whilst in November/December last year, I was a lot higher in HR, same exercise 6 months later.

As for the repeat W23.5

Code: Select all

Time	Meters	Pace	Watts	Cal/Hr	S/M	
31:04.5	8,000	1:56.5	221	1061	26	170
7:47.5	2,000	1:56.8	219	1054	26	164
r: 4:00	21						
7:46.1	2,000	1:56.5	221	1061	25	170
r: 4:00	18						
7:47.1	2,000	1:56.7	220	1056	26	172
r: 4:00	15						
7:43.8	2,000	1:55.9	225	1072	28	175
r54		

-0.5 s on 1:57.0 target. PB on my last rep. I could stand HR>170 from 2min 30 in the last rep. Huge improvement on aerobic. One week to go in the plan

[Joris]

I wonder how do you recover from 5 sessions a week, with all of them at least UT1, maybe even AT? I thought you also had other things to do? Do you have any tips for this?

When I mentionned five sessions a week, it was for simplicity reasons for not making the post too long.
In reality I do indeed all five sessions of the BBP plan, but not necessarily within one week. I just do them sequently.
But since I do indoor soccer aside, when combining both, I'm probably close to five sessions a week.
And during (small) holidays, I try to replace my rowing sessions with another workout, like running.
I started the BPP plan about 8 months ago, so when only rowing is considered and if I'm calculating correctly, I did on average about 3,5 sessions a week.

Concerning recovery: as mentionned, I don't know if I was underrecovered at a certain moment, but since I was stagnating I decided to do my steady states a bit slower. Before I was doing them in high UT1 zone, at least that's what I tought back than.
But when discovering the free spirits heart rate calculator recently (the one most others seems to use ), it told me I was 'only' doing these sessions in high UT2 zone.

So long story short, I have no idea anymore in which heart rate zone I'm training, but for my long steady states, I try to pick an intensity that seems to work best for me, which seems to be around 130-135 on average for the long steady state distances and around 135-140 for the shorter steady states.
These are not numbers chiseled in stone, as I am still constantly trying to evaluate and adjust when needed, but I like to have a reference when doing steady states for not getting tempted to go to fast.

I find 22-25spm too high for SS and gets my HR too high - I tend to go r18 ish for UT2 and r20 ish for UT1, but we're different. Maybe I rate too low - gotta learn to rate high.

22-25spm is too high for me as well. I'm around 20-21.

Congrats on the 5*1.5k at 2:05, last one 2:03! Honestly not sure if I could do it a lot faster, while keeping the rate to 24... what rate do you do this at?

I did them at a rate of 25-26 and the last one at 27.7.
If my rate would be capped to 24 I would off course be slower.

As for the repeat W23.5

Code: Select all

Time	Meters	Pace	Watts	Cal/Hr	S/M	
31:04.5	8,000	1:56.5	221	1061	26	170
7:47.5	2,000	1:56.8	219	1054	26	164
r: 4:00	21						
7:46.1	2,000	1:56.5	221	1061	25	170
r: 4:00	18						
7:47.1	2,000	1:56.7	220	1056	26	172
r: 4:00	15						
7:43.8	2,000	1:55.9	225	1072	28	175
r54		

-0.5 s on 1:57.0 target. PB on my last rep. I could stand HR>170 from 2min 30 in the last rep. Huge improvement on aerobic. One week to go in the plan

Congrates with the last session. Compared to your target, your last rep falls only 3,5 seconds short!
When I make the same comparison, I'm still at least 5 seconds short (last rep was at 2:05, goal is sub 8m).


Week 24.4 [2 x 15m]: 2:21.5 with an average heart rate of 133.
I felt a little tired so decided to take it easy. Happy with the pace I was able to achieve given the relatively low intensity. And after the session I felt fitter than before, so that was kind of a nice feeling.

Only one session to go. This 4 x 1k will be a nice ultimate test for the 2k personal best attempt.
But I won't be able to do it until Monday at the earliest.

[DJ1972]

Only one session to go. This 4 x 1k will be a nice ultimate test for the 2k personal best attempt.
But I won't be able to do it until Monday at the earliest.

I am interested in finding out how it went for you as I am also approaching the same and last of of the 120 sessions (if you do all 5/week) of the BPP.
This will be my benchmarck time for my 2k attempt in a couple of days or so. Pacing correctly will be the main focus (Paul's law in mind).

Already thinking about 'what's next'. I was planning the classical lunch Pete plan with 2 or 3 cycles (that I will not be able to start this until mid July)
However, now that I have looked up to the 5k plan, I was wondering which plan would be the most appropriate for me.
I am still far from being an intermediary rower. I can go through the volumes of the weeks 16 to 24 of BPP, but i am a bit wary of the intensity of the interval sessions in the lunch hour plan in the long term. I felt the demanding effect in the BPP despite the positive results and I do not think I would like it that much.
My aim is a good 2k time but not the ultimate best and also a 5k < 20 min.

If I may ask the opinion of the forum, my question is how much the 2 plans differ and would the 5k plan not the best to achieve both PBs at the same time? Indeed, the 5k plan includes a 3x2k that may allow you some sort of 2k trial, whereas I may find it difficult to push for intensive 'hard distances' + all speed intervals within the 2k lunch hour plan.

[iain]

I agree that the as written lunchtime plan is tough. For older or less fit rowers or indeed people whose life provides significant stress and gaps in training I would say modifications would be beneficial. That said, I find doing the plan with inconsistent "long distance" session (CTC or nonathlon TT~) inserted usually in place of nearest interval session with extra rest days as required works quite well for me. However most people take the "achievable" paces (eg 8 x 500 at 2k -3) as the starting pace. This only gives a couple of rotations before it gets too much and makes it a plan to prepare for an upcoming TT. If you do start at the pace of the fastest recent continuous row of the total distance of the interval sessions, then you can keep it up for 6 - 10 rotations and I found it works well from only a couple of weeks back to rowing after a long break.

I am not a great fan of the 5k plan. I take some of the sessions, but prefer the slightly slower long intervals of the lunchtime plan. Probably good if your sole focus is in the 5k to 30 min range, but my 2k dropped off. Also the requirement to do a harder longer row makes longer TTs easier mentally.

Good luck whichever you choose.

[Dangerscouse]

If I may ask the opinion of the forum, my question is how much the 2 plans differ and would the 5k plan not the best to achieve both PBs at the same time? Indeed, the 5k plan includes a 3x2k that may allow you some sort of 2k trial, whereas I may find it difficult to push for intensive 'hard distances' + all speed intervals within the 2k lunch hour plan.

On a basic level, training for 5k should have more crossover benefits, but this doesn't allow for the finer details of what that plan entails, as Iain alludes to.

I say 'should have', as there's generally a +/- 5/6 seconds difference between 2k and 5k, so that swing either way could be harder / easier to cope with depending on your specifics.

[Joris]

Week 24.5 [4 x 1k]

The final session of the BPP plan and the last big test before my 2k time trial.
In week 16 I achieved 4 x 1:59.
In week 21 I collapsed after one rep and put in 1:59, 2:01, 2:05 and 2:05 in which was probably my worst session of the plan.

The result of today was a bit mixed, with 3 x 1:59 + final session at 2:01.
Not fantastic, because secretly I was hoping to achieve around 1:58 on average, or at least for a few reps.
But not very bad either, and given a five-day break, maybe I wasn't quite at my peak either.
So after this session it remains somewhat tense regarding my goal for a sub 8 2k.
Let's see how it will turn out, probably on Friday.

I am interested in finding out how it went for you as I am also approaching the same and last of of the 120 sessions (if you do all 5/week) of the BPP.
This will be my benchmarck time for my 2k attempt in a couple of days or so. Pacing correctly will be the main focus (Paul's law in mind).

As you can read above, I will have to roughly match my last 4 x 1k session to reach my 2k target.
No idea if I will succeed, but even if I don't I'll keep my spirits up.

Already thinking about 'what's next'. I was planning the classical lunch Pete plan with 2 or 3 cycles (that I will not be able to start this until mid July)
However, now that I have looked up to the 5k plan, I was wondering which plan would be the most appropriate for me.

Same here.

As I see it, both plans are similar, each counting three steady state sessions, two interval sessions and one hard distance session every other week. But the interval sessions of the 5k plan seem to be longer?
So if you are looking for fewer or less hard interval sessions, the 5k plan doesn't seem like the answer?

I will probably attempt to follow the classic pete plan, trying to adapt it to my capabilities as best I can. On the one hand not six sessions a week, but spreading the different sessions out over a longer time frame, for example, spreading each week over two weeks.
On the other hand, probably skipping an interval session or a hard distance session once in a while or replace it with a steady state session, because 50% “hard sessions” also seems to me to be quite heavy and maybe not sustainable for a long time.

Maybe we should create a new topic to track our progress after the BPP plan?