UT1 or AT

[jackarabit]

With regard to interval sessions, reducing HR below zone boundaries is the goal of interval rest periods--heartrate as the measure of recovery. The HR measured at the conclusion of a rest period--which informs the condition of being "fully to partially recovered"--has always fallen well below 65% HRR in my case. It is nearly impossible to do interval work in which one's HR jumps from say 108bpm to 150bpm on the first stroke of the first iteration or of subsequent reps. If heart rate is crossing into zone during the interval, one's HR is not in zone for the entire interval. Presumably one is warm and loose enuf to register prescribed pace on the first pull. The pace-based IPs eliminate the problem of HR which is forced into service as an indicator of two opposing physiological conditions or states.

[jackarabit]

Simple-minded as my previous post must seem to most here, it has convinced me to dump HR as a pacing governor and do the full dress 26 wk ISS IP 2K prep on pace recs derived from test (current 2k PR). All timed pieces therein which will bipass the limitations of RowPro interval programming for intervals set as distance and get me clear of the connotation of "racing" which associates with the competed and ranked distances. RowPro can keep the records on HR, Excel can organize, Ron Burpee templates can collect time-in-zone HR records. All I have to do is produce a pace in the target range specified daily.

Glancing at the weekly sched, It appears that I could sub LSD for one of two AT interval sessions and one of two TR interval sessions in week eight and thereafter if the 80:20 ratio gets out of bounds. Opinions or experience tweaking the IP?

[Bob S.]

Tweaking the IP? Yeah, I was never happy with the very broad range of the pace-based TR zone, 25%, as compared to 10% for 3 of the others and 15% for the UT2. Also the lower three zones seemed too soft (my error, really - they should be done at relatively low intensity). So I used the next higher range for each of the UTs, and the lower 12% of the TR range for AT. Did that for a couple of years and then decided to revert back to the regular recommendations.

My original reason for upping the first three ranges was that my HR always seemed too low when I followed the proper zones.

[jamesg]

What I want: To improve aerobic performance

The model I think in terms of nowadays is waste product removal, not HR.

Keep trying. Anything long steady and sustainable can be called aerobic. But to improve performance, you have to go faster; faster than last month. If you can't, then it''s not aerobic. In your daily 10 k or hour, do the last quarter a bit faster, then extend it.. we all have our systems.

Failing Lactate testing, which will have exactly that effect, there's no other method.

If Lactate is low, waste products are being removed as fast as they are produced. If we then try to go faster, but are forced to stop, it's the waste that stops us. So we try again: the pressure on the waste removal system will force it to increase it's capacity. It's called Training and it's a growth function, so can't be accelerated any more than we can make our hair or nails grow faster. So we have to do lots of long steady state work for years. When that that waste system is very fast and efficent, LSS will become Long Fast Steady, maybe in the high AT band. Well done. You can see this approach in the Interactives, where the same work such as 3*15' is first at UT2, then UT1, then AT. The limits of HR bands for governing training have been known for years; clearly fixed bands are absurd when training and performance are dynamic, i.e. changing.

Using HR is fine for beginners who can't get it up, not for keeping it down. Too low means their technique is no good, they're not doing any work. Most try to get around this by rating high. Try that afloat in a single, or any other boat under the eye of a coach. Far better to learn to row.

Rowing is a full body sport with performance depending, supply side, on the CV system. But there's a limit to how much a heart can grow; when it can't grow any more, if we want to go faster, we have to make the heart work faster too. Technique, if we want to race, must be good enough to get HR up even at low ratings. This is what the 30/20 piece is for: to see how to row well and so work hard. In any case 20 is not mandatory, 22, 24 or 26 will have the same effect. You don't need to fall into the usual trap of pulling a special long stroke to your chin just to stay at 20: the same large stroke you use every day will do fine.

Eventually we'll reach a peak and can race. Then we take a holiday and start all over again.

I of course do not follow this dynamic approach. I'm static: I just keep plodding along at 130-140W, HR 130-140. If that's what I do, that's what I get.

[jackarabit]

JackHoare: Please excuse jumping into your thread with both feet.

Bob: Been there before but never bored (or boring)! Thanks.

JamesG: Also been down the block a couple times. Thanks for your comments to the OP.

Like Goldilocks among the bears
Dare to sit in ALL the chairs!

[JackHoare]

Many thanks guys, appreciate all your opinions.

The goal for this coming season is a 6:10 erg time, this info will help a lot.

[G-dub]

I found this article useful. It tells me that "tempo" sessions to improve pace at AT aren't done too fast. I would think the theory translates between modes. I do find it interesting that pacing suggestions in running seem a lot slower than edging.

[Bob S.]

I found this article useful. It tells me that "tempo" sessions to improve pace at AT aren't done too fast. I would think the theory translates between modes. I do find it interesting that pacing suggestions in running seem a lot slower than edging.

That's a new one. My automatic spell-check usually comes up with urging or merging.

[G-dub]

Dang it spell check!

[christopherregisryan]

Many thanks guys, appreciate all your opinions.

The goal for this coming season is a 6:10 erg time, this info will help a lot.

Whoa! Good luck chasing 6:10, Jack! That is very fast.

[Galeere]

I think you've raised an interesting question. I'm not sure if I am doing it right, but the way I have interpreted the guidelines to implement polarized training is that the easy stuff should be below AT and the hard stuff should be above AT. In other words, the only time I rowed in the AT zone was on my way up to TR where I did almost all of my intervals and hard distance rowing.

I got very pedantic about it over the winter of 2013/2014 and logged the time I spent in each HR zone to check if I was doing what I set out to do.

Here is my personal report card for January of 2014.

Amazing amount of data that you are collecting Greg. Thanks for sharing. Do you do that with Exel or do you use another program and if so which is it?

[Galeere]

From Seiller: "The most powerful stimulus for change in skeletal muscle aerobic capacity is different from the most powerful stmulus for cardiac functional changes! Hard but short interval training fails here. We MUST put in the hours of continuous constant intensity exercise to maximize these adaptations! This will range from steady state efforts at 65-75% of VO2max lasting 45 to 120 minutes to repeated "Anaerobic Threshold work" at 80-90% of VO2 max for 15 to 30 minutes."
http://web.archive.org/web/200710210338 ... terval.htm

Very interesting read, thanks Glenn. Another protagonist for plenty long steady rows to make improvements on the aerobic system.

[gregsmith01748]

I think you've raised an interesting question. I'm not sure if I am doing it right, but the way I have interpreted the guidelines to implement polarized training is that the easy stuff should be below AT and the hard stuff should be above AT. In other words, the only time I rowed in the AT zone was on my way up to TR where I did almost all of my intervals and hard distance rowing.

I got very pedantic about it over the winter of 2013/2014 and logged the time I spent in each HR zone to check if I was doing what I set out to do.

Here is my personal report card for January of 2014.

Amazing amount of data that you are collecting Greg. Thanks for sharing. Do you do that with Exel or do you use another program and if so which is it?

I do everything in excel. Tracking intensity was a manual process of updating a sheet with minutes per zone after each workout. It was a pain in the butt to keep up, so I stopped, but after doing it for a year, it ingrained some habits.
- keep it below 155 for steady state.
- if I don't get my hr higher than 178 in a long interval session, I'm not trying hard enough.
- Business travel wreaks havoc on a training plan.
- I don't make much progress unless I do at least 4 hours of steady state a week in 3 or more sessions.

Now when I see this stuff happen in a workout, I tend to correct it more quickly.

[Galeere]

Now when I see this stuff happen in a workout, I tend to correct it more quickly.

It is a good idea to keep track of progress as well as the ways that lead to it. I don´t have the means of analyzing more than 3 HR-bands yet but guess I will start a similar data collection procedure as well. Totally agree on the havoc that business trips produce. Would have to add colds and other illnesses. Going 80k one week and nothing or lousy UT2-ks the next.

[hjs]

I think you've raised an interesting question. I'm not sure if I am doing it right, but the way I have interpreted the guidelines to implement polarized training is that the easy stuff should be below AT and the hard stuff should be above AT. In other words, the only time I rowed in the AT zone was on my way up to TR where I did almost all of my intervals and hard distance rowing.

I got very pedantic about it over the winter of 2013/2014 and logged the time I spent in each HR zone to check if I was doing what I set out to do.

Here is my personal report card for January of 2014.

Amazing amount of data that you are collecting Greg. Thanks for sharing. Do you do that with Exel or do you use another program and if so which is it?

I do everything in excel. Tracking intensity was a manual process of updating a sheet with minutes per zone after each workout. It was a pain in the butt to keep up, so I stopped, but after doing it for a year, it ingrained some habits.
- keep it below 155 for steady state.
- if I don't get my hr higher than 178 in a long interval session, I'm not trying hard enough.
- Business travel wreaks havoc on a training plan.
- I don't make much progress unless I do at least 4 hours of steady state a week in 3 or more sessions.

Now when I see this stuff happen in a workout, I tend to correct it more quickly.

Not a critic but an to important observation. All nice and well, and I do understand people liking data, but not a word about the effect of the training. I roughly know what you did, giving your posting. But I see no reflexion on your training. The number one reason for training is its effect.

I am more on the other side of the spectrum, never use hf rates, row almost everything on feel, log my stuff, but only the basics. Do weights, although Those are tough of me, and often am focussed on body composition. I also bike quit a bit in daily life. Don,t log that, but on a yearly bases the hours add up.

Now in my late 40 ies, I found that my endurance, although I have not trained it less slowly seems to get weaker. My raw speed on the other hand has not. Big minus, My body has many weakpoints. Lots of joint and backtrouble.

I am consistant though, most years I train between 10,5 and 12 months. Only vacations or real injurees stop me.