How to spend your limited time wisely?

[Jerome]

Hi All,

I've been reading and browsing this forum for quite some time now, and I've got a classical case of 'paralysis by analysis'..

My dilemma:
if you erg three sessions a week, what would give you the most return on your time?

The prevailing opinion on this board seems to be that steady state should be the backbone of your training.
However, if you train only three times a week, wouldn't the total weekly volume be too low for the necessary adaptations?
And would it be necessary (or best) to restrict the intensity or not?

It makes sense to me to increase the intensity and focus primarily on (longer) intervals when training on limited volume.
For example, I found a post by Henry/HJS about training 3 times a week, 5-10k total leading to a 6.14 2K?

Anyway, lately I've been trying different approaches, but somehow I'm 'afraid' to commit, because I don't want to be sweating a lot and going nowhere.
Which, interestinly, is exactly what I'm doing now..

Thanks!

[ampire]

I'd try doing three medium-hard 10Ks per week.

[KeithT]

Is this the only training you are doing? If you are doing weights, CrossFit or some other HIIT training then I would spend the 3 rowing sessions on more steady state. If the rows are all your are doing, I would then mix in different intensity sessions, like one hard/short one medium and one long assuming you have built up good form and some aerobic base.

[MartinSH4321]

I would say it very much depends on what else you train and what targets you have. If you do 2x weights and/or crossfit and your target is 2k/5k I would do one long SS row, one hard 5-10k and one interval, switching between long and short intervals, if that's too demanding 2 SS rows and only one hard row.

[Dangerscouse]

What about doing alternative weeks, of a mixture of easy, medium and hard?

For example, Monday- easy; Wednesday easy; Friday hard. Following week Monday- hard; Wednesday- Easy; Friday- hard. The next week Monday- medium; Wednesday- slow; Friday- hard. Personally I'd try and mix up the sessions rather than sticking to the same type of sessions over and over.

These are all just examples so it obviously can be split however it works for you, and it's more important how you react to specific training sessions, and how long you can row for when you do row. Ideally doing circa 60 mins + for your longer sessions will be more beneficial if you are only doing three sessions.

[Jerome]

Thanks for the replies!

I don’t do crossfit, weights, etc.

My primary training is heavy bag work & sparring.
Rowing helps me for the necessary conditioning, but I hope to break 7min for the 2k.

Kind of unstructured interval training got me to a sub 19 5k and 2k around 7.06-7.08.

I would like to focus more seriously on a respectable 2K. The rotating intensities is an interesting approach.

[Jerome]

Side note:
A while back I emailed Dr. Ulrich Wislof (norwegian 4x4 interval, cerg) to ask his opinion on interval vs liss.

He was very clear:
Based on their research, Liss is not necessary for aerobic adapatation or development. 4x4m or longer was recommended.

[hjs]

Hi All,

I've been reading and browsing this forum for quite some time now, and I've got a classical case of 'paralysis by analysis'..

My dilemma:
if you erg three sessions a week, what would give you the most return on your time?

The prevailing opinion on this board seems to be that steady state should be the backbone of your training.
However, if you train only three times a week, wouldn't the total weekly volume be too low for the necessary adaptations?
And would it be necessary (or best) to restrict the intensity or not?

It makes sense to me to increase the intensity and focus primarily on (longer) intervals when training on limited volume.
For example, I found a post by Henry/HJS about training 3 times a week, 5-10k total leading to a 6.14 2K?

Anyway, lately I've been trying different approaches, but somehow I'm 'afraid' to commit, because I don't want to be sweating a lot and going nowhere.
Which, interestinly, is exactly what I'm doing now..

Thanks!

Have to reply.

Its true, I pulled 6.14 and ceveral sub 6.20 ish on three rowing sessions a week, and in the summer no rowing at all.
But I did train more, often 6 days a week, 3/4 times a week weights. And used the bike for transport, not real training but still got me moving most days.
Volume was a bit higher, but most sessions where, 3x1500 or 5x1k, or 4x1250 or 5k. All sessions on hf, used my hf reserve, and capped the sessions on 88/93% of my reserve. Thats hard, but not at max. Rest was partner pause. I trained with a friend. One erged other rested.

My very first row, was after a short wu, 6.38, 6 weeks later 6.31, and after a half year 6.19. After that I did plateau. Pulled a few winters between 6.14/18. 30 min 143.2 and a few 6k races at 142 pace. This was in my late 20 ies.

I know know I did not have enough aerobic base to get faster. And with more volume could have done better. How much
I really can’t say. But do not think far below 6 min. For that I am not enough an aerobic gifted guy.

Maybe this helps.

[mict450]

What about doing alternative weeks, of a mixture of easy, medium and hard?

Ideally doing circa 60 mins + for your longer sessions will be more beneficial if you are only doing three sessions.

Clarification needed: is this three 60+ min per week along with other training days in the week? OR only three 60+ min per week & rest for 4 days? I'm assuming this is for recovery?

[Jerome]

Hi All,

I've been reading and browsing this forum for quite some time now, and I've got a classical case of 'paralysis by analysis'..

My dilemma:
if you erg three sessions a week, what would give you the most return on your time?

The prevailing opinion on this board seems to be that steady state should be the backbone of your training.
However, if you train only three times a week, wouldn't the total weekly volume be too low for the necessary adaptations?
And would it be necessary (or best) to restrict the intensity or not?

It makes sense to me to increase the intensity and focus primarily on (longer) intervals when training on limited volume.
For example, I found a post by Henry/HJS about training 3 times a week, 5-10k total leading to a 6.14 2K?

Anyway, lately I've been trying different approaches, but somehow I'm 'afraid' to commit, because I don't want to be sweating a lot and going nowhere.
Which, interestinly, is exactly what I'm doing now..

Thanks!

Have to reply.

Its true, I pulled 6.14 and ceveral sub 6.20 ish on three rowing sessions a week, and in the summer no rowing at all.
But I did train more, often 6 days a week, 3/4 times a week weights. And used the bike for transport, not real training but still got me moving most days.
Volume was a bit higher, but most sessions where, 3x1500 or 5x1k, or 4x1250 or 5k. All sessions on hf, used my hf reserve, and capped the sessions on 88/93% of my reserve. Thats hard, but not at max. Rest was partner pause. I trained with a friend. One erged other rested.

My very first row, was after a short wu, 6.38, 6 weeks later 6.31, and after a half year 6.19. After that I did plateau. Pulled a few winters between 6.14/18. 30 min 143.2 and a few 6k races at 142 pace. This was in my late 20 ies.

I know know I did not have enough aerobic base to get faster. And with more volume could have done better. How much
I really can’t say. But do not think far below 6 min. For that I am not enough an aerobic gifted guy.

Maybe this helps.

Dank, exact waar ik naar op zoek was!!

[Thanks]

That’s impressive, especially on such a low volume.

It reminds me of an article on the scientific analysis of the training of Marit Börgen (XC Ski). Made a lot of gains with interval training early in her career, but plateaued after a few years. Then increased the volume, and did most of her training in the 60-70%HR range, if I remember correctly.

[Dangerscouse]

Clarification needed: is this three 60+ min per week along with other training days in the week? OR only three 60+ min per week & rest for 4 days? I'm assuming this is for recovery?

Three sessions is only because that's all they can do, so I'd suggest only one of them a week is a long session, or possibly splitting it into a 10 day rotation?

[Jerome]

A related question regarding the intensity and pacing of the steady state pieces:

Guidelines I've found:

Pace:
2K pace + 18-22s, 18-22spm, endurance interval + 10s;

Percentages of HR:
max 70% Seidler, 50%-70%MHR U2, 70-80%U1, anywhere from 50%-75%, Maffetone 180-age and 10 beats below, anywhere between 120-150 range;

%HRR:
60-70% U2,70-80% U2
50-75%HRR (C2)

%2K Power:
60%U1, 70%U2

SPM:
low rate (Wolverine), medium rate (22-25, Pete plan).

Length:
preferably 45min and over, prevailing opion.
anything longer than 40 is pretty much redundant for athletes (Helgerud?)

Intensity:
easy work to optimise specific left ventricular cardiac adaptations,
Go as hard as you like or sustain and succesfully recover from (PP, others)
Go Hard (85-95% HRmax, interval), than no steady state is needed (Wislof).

Is there any consensus at all, besides:
'sit down and row, preferably longer than 30 minutes..?'

[Jerome]

Oh, and the talk test

[Dangerscouse]

A related question regarding the intensity and pacing of the steady state pieces:

Guidelines I've found:

Pace:
2K pace + 18-22s, 18-22spm, endurance interval + 10s;

Percentages of HR:
max 70% Seidler, 50%-70%MHR U2, 70-80%U1, anywhere from 50%-75%, Maffetone 180-age and 10 beats below, anywhere between 120-150 range;

%HRR:
60-70% U2,70-80% U2
50-75%HRR (C2)

%2K Power:
60%U1, 70%U2

SPM:
low rate (Wolverine), medium rate (22-25, Pete plan).

Length:
preferably 45min and over, prevailing opion.
anything longer than 40 is pretty much redundant for athletes (Helgerud?)

Intensity:
easy work to optimise specific left ventricular cardiac adaptations,
Go as hard as you like or sustain and succesfully recover from (PP, others)
Go Hard (85-95% HRmax, interval), than no steady state is needed (Wislof).

Is there any consensus at all, besides:
'sit down and row, preferably longer than 30 minutes..?'

Hahaha, that's about it. There are far too many physiological variations in people to apply a proper set of rules that work for everyone. I know people who have rowed every day for over two years, and they have done some very fast results regularly too, so it's not all long and slow. If I rowed more than four or five days a week, I'd be destroyed before too long.

There are two predominant schools of thought: Go Hard or Go Home & Go Slow to Get Fast. I have benefited from both over the years, but the latter is more preferable to me, and my recovery rates.

Imo, nothing beats the try it for 4-6 weeks, assess and adapt if necessary. It's not ideal, as it takes patience, and a strong intuition of how you are reacting, but it's the best option as it's only you that's answering the questions so you know instinctively what is right or wrong.

It's also important to add the enjoyment test to that list. If you're not enjoying it because you're going too slow, or hard, too regularly, then you shouldn't slavishly follow a specific plan / stroke rate / HR. Lots of mind games are prevalent in rowing, and these can subtly, and overtly, undermine or bolster your confidence.

[max_ratcliffe]

A related question regarding the intensity and pacing of the steady state pieces:

Guidelines I've found:

<>

Is there any consensus at all, besides:
'sit down and row, preferably longer than 30 minutes..?'

Welcome Jerome,

Brilliant post.

You missed out: "everything works; some things work better than others; nothing works for ever", but apart from that, I think you've got everything covered.

I'd reiterate Stu's point. If it's not fun, you won't do it. An ordinary plan you adhere to is far, far better than one designed by the best coach in the world that you don't adhere to.