Steady state not working

[DWN]

My goal is to improve my 2,000 meter time. Initially, my normal workout was 5,000 meters at fairly high intensity. I was able to get my usual time down to a 1:53 pace, which is respectable for my age - 58. I figured this would be good training for the 2,000, but then I had several people, including an experienced collegiate oarsman, tell me I was going about it all wrong. They said the right training was to do lower intensity "steady state" training, which would lead to a lower rate of heart beat for a given effort. This, they said, would set a better base for more intensive rowing.

So, for six months my primary workout has been 7,500 meters at about a 2:06 pace, which produces an average heart beat of 133 per minute. I had done the VO2 test, which suggested that around 133 was the right rate for steady state training. By the way, I row on average about 4 times a week. In any case, over the last six months, everything has gotten worse. My heartbeat for steady state rowing has not improved and perhaps gotten slightly higher. My times for more intensive rowing have gotten slower. I am about ready to give up on it and go back to the regular intensive workouts. I would appreciate any suggestions. Thanks.

[pmacaula]

DWN -Steady state is good, but only part of the picture. Likely you need a more varied diet of workouts to improve your 2K significantly

Take a look at Nosmo's post (3rd one down) in this thread:

http://www.c2forum.com/viewtopic.php?t=8211

I was doing something similar to you - workouts in the 20-40 minute range with no particular plan other than a target average pace that I wanted to steadily improve on.

I then decided I wanted to actually execute a training plan with some more clearly defined and longer term goals. Did a bit of forum research and found a number of plans, including a few aimed specifically at training for a 2K.

As per the links in Nosmo's note, the Pete Plan is pretty straightforward and would likely be the quickest path to 2K improvement.
It is a derivative of a more involved training program called the Wolverine Plan (WP), which is more suited to people who are stepping up significantly in terms of their overall commitment. It requires a fair bit of reading and work on your part to understand and then execute.

Have been doing a 6 workout/week 'WP-like' program since Sept 20th. Have seen a significant improvement at all distances, including a big jump in my 2K performance.

Each week's schedule includes one high intensity, short interval workout (e.g. 4x800, 5x750, 4x1K, ...), one longer interval high intensity workout (e.g. 4 x 2K, 5x1.5K, ...) and one long free rate workout (e.g. 12-16K, 2 x 6K, 15 x 3' intervals). These are on days 1, 3 and 5. Days 2, 4 & 6 are long restricted-rate, specified-pace pieces (Level 4 in WP-speak). Day 7 is rest.

Cheers. Patrick.

[Nosmo]

Have been doing a 6 workout/week 'WP-like' program since Sept 20th.

"WP-like"? it is a hell of a lot closer then most people who have claimed they were doing the WP plan! I'd think Mike would be ecstatic if everyone who claimed to be following the WP followed at closely as you do.

[Bob S.]

Have been doing a 6 workout/week 'WP-like' program since Sept 20th.

"WP-like"? it is a hell of a lot closer then most people who have claimed they were doing the WP plan! I'd think Mike would be ecstatic if everyone who claimed to be following the WP followed at closely as you do.

I am convinced that the WP is the best way to go for those who seriously want to improve their 2k times, but I have to admit that I would not have the time or patience to work my way through it. However, from what I have read of it, my strong impression is that the essence of it is control of both rate and pace. It appears to me that if this sort of control is not included in a training program, it is not going to be very much like the WP.

Bob S., who hasn't done any session longer than ten minutes for over the last 6 months and is not likely to in the near future.

[jamesg]

DWN, it looks as though there was some misunderstanding between your collegiate oarsmen and yourself. They didn't realise you were fit and proficient already, and you should have added on the long slow, not used it instead of what you were already doing. And it should have been longer, more like an hour.

The 133 HR is too low anyway; if your max is 205 - ½ Age, or 176 and 60 is your rest rate, then 70% of range (UT2) is higher, even forgetting drift.

I think the best controls of what we're actually doing are Watts/kg and Watts/rating. Keep them high even when you do the long pieces, using HR to monitor reactions. That way even low power, low rating work is high intensity, because there's plenty of work in each stroke.

To see what a typical plan suggests, try the Interactive on the UK site.