Increase pace or reduce rest?

[iain]

There is a trade off between rest duration and pace. The leading paper (based on running or cycling, but cannot see reason why it should not generally apply to rowing) found that increasing rest to 2 min from 1 min had a small impact, but longer rests did not, but interestingly longer rest did give a lower reported RPE! Personally I am faster after a longer rest, but have not noticed an impact of >4 min rest unless I am "sprinting" at the end of intervals. There is also a trade off between active rest and passive rest as even at a very easy pace HR drops much slower during active rest. I take 1 min passive rest at the end. You do recover quicker when fitter, but at least personally I push harder (in RPE terms) when fitter and this offsets after the first couple of months after restarting rowing.

Many things determine the duration of rests. As Sakly pointed out, you need to accumulate time at or above target, so need long enough rests to achieve this. To this I would add that short intervals (<750 or so) are very different as they can be done at higher ratings and substantially anaerobically and so while they have a place in getting used to higher ratings, they are less good at preparing you mentally (and potentially physically) for the demands of an 80%+ aerobic 2k. You can reduce this for shorter intervals by only partially recovering and thereby leaving some "metres in your muscles" at the start, so when time constrained I sometimes do 500 r1', as using long rests does extend the length of a session. I would say that even 30" rests change the dynamics of the row, so cutting rests to simulate continuous rows doesn't really work.

Whatever you decide, I wish you luck.

[Dangerscouse]

I would say that even 30" rests change the dynamics of the row, so cutting rests to simulate continuous rows doesn't really work.

That's interesting. In what way do you think it changes the dynamics? If you're pushing at least relatively hard, 30 seconds disappears very quickly, and I'd personally rather just keep going and ride the momentum.

[gvcormac]

The idea is to maximize specific adaptation while minimizing fatigue. Stephen Seiler is the pioneer in this area who coined the term "polarized training." You can find his books and videos and interviews on the interwebs.

With intervals you want to push the pace. Decreasing rest time increases fatigue and contributes little to pushing the pace, if you can hit the desired pace at all.

That said, you need to be warmed up, and if you rest too long you'll be insufficiently warmed up at the start of each interval. Also, more than several minutes rest is boring and time consuming. I find that, by the time by HR gets down to 100, I'm champing at the bit to go again.

Longer, easier, sessions increase your general aerobic capacity, providing the base for your longer effort. Seiler suggests that at least 80% of your sessions should be easier. That is, the entire session should be easy; intervals should be on separate days. There is some debate about what "easier" means. Most popular formulae are, I think, slower than necessary. Seiler suggests 80% of max power, but that's with highly trained athletes. But even if you back off to 70% power (approx. 70% heart rate reserve) that's way harder than the 60% or 70% of max HR that is often suggested.

[Dangerscouse]

I'm champing at the bit to go again.

My inner pedant likes this, as far too many people always say 'chomp'.

[iain]

I would say that even 30" rests change the dynamics of the row, so cutting rests to simulate continuous rows doesn't really work.

That's interesting. In what way do you think it changes the dynamics? If you're pushing at least relatively hard, 30 seconds disappears very quickly, and I'd personally rather just keep going and ride the momentum.

Absolutely agree with you, I was trying to say that cutting the rests is not an effective way to improve your chances in a longer TT as say 4 x 500 r30" would be significantly easier than a 2k. Even in 30" HR drops significantly and it takes a little while to go back close to the level before the halt if resuming at the same pace (assuming that HR had stopped rising rapidly before the rest). Psychologically, while I have never done longer than 90" intervals with less than 50" rest - so glad to be corrected by any that have relevant experience, I suspect that it would be much easier as there would be a definitive "end" to aim for at each rest based on longer breaks. Yes we all break TTs into sections, but there is a substantial difference of seeing the interval remaining reduce to zero on the PM to a rest rather than knowing that all that will change is that there will be less to complete when the "target" is an interim point in a TT.

That said, I agree that short rests have their own issues and I agree with you that I prefer a continuous piece to intervals with very short rests. I detested the 30" r30" I did with one coach as the recovery was insufficient to have the alactic energy to get back to pace, but this is difficult to evaluate as without the breaks the pace could not have been maintained for long, so the comparison is to a slower workout.

[Dangerscouse]

Absolutely agree with you, I was trying to say that cutting the rests is not an effective way to improve your chances in a longer TT as say 4 x 500 r30" would be significantly easier than a 2k. Even in 30" HR drops significantly and it takes a little while to go back close to the level before the halt if resuming at the same pace (assuming that HR had stopped rising rapidly before the rest). Psychologically, while I have never done longer than 90" intervals with less than 50" rest - so glad to be corrected by any that have relevant experience, I suspect that it would be much easier as there would be a definitive "end" to aim for at each rest based on longer breaks. Yes we all break TTs into sections, but there is a substantial difference of seeing the interval remaining reduce to zero on the PM to a rest rather than knowing that all that will change is that there will be less to complete when the "target" is an interim point in a TT.

That said, I agree that short rests have their own issues and I agree with you that I prefer a continuous piece to intervals with very short rests. I detested the 30" r30" I did with one coach as the recovery was insufficient to have the alactic energy to get back to pace, but this is difficult to evaluate as without the breaks the pace could not have been maintained for long, so the comparison is to a slower workout.

I really like these type of discussions as it teases out the different types of thoughts for the same issue. It's vital that there's a holistic view on everything just so people can make informed decisions rather than rattling themselves to destruction as 'it's what the pros do'!!

We generally need to adopt a pick and mix style of thought just so it's not too rigid and unsuited to anyone's specific needs, be they like / dislike or physical.

I know I'm talking about elite athletes, but it never fails to amaze me how Tour de France riders ride roughshod over the rule book (pun intended). I'm sure their training leading up to it is very structured, but to see someone like Mark Cavendish, struggle so badly on the first stage and then to win a stage with a superhuman sprint only four days later, whilst also competing hard in the other three days is baffling to me. It does make me wonder if perceived limits are exactly that: perceived.

Just a thought, and their powers of recovery are second to none, but there must be some transfer of logic, even if only limited? Are we subconsciously stopping ourselves from going faster / harder as the inevitable resistance you feel is far more pliable than we expect, and pushing on might be the better option, albeit with two or three days of heightened difficulty?

I doubt I'll know now, as I'm slightly too old and my recovery is notably worse in the past two years, but it's an interesting hypothesis that I wish I'd tested 20-25 years ago.

[hikeplusrow]

Thing is, work periods with a short recovery most closely replicate the event itself, short of regularly doing the full race distance as fast as possible, and trying to improve each time. Might I draw everyone's attention to the approach of a certain Mr Obree - former world hour record in cycling. You may recall that he eschewed interval training on the basis that a time trial effort is completed as a single piece - not as a series of intervals (ie the latter doesn't in actuality replicate the event). A key element of his training, therefore, was to periodically complete a flat out 10 - 20 time trial on an indoor trainer with the aim of trying to improve his performance each time.

[hikeplusrow]

Thing is, work periods with a short recovery most closely replicate the event itself, short of regularly doing the full race distance as fast as possible, and trying to improve each time. Might I draw everyone's attention to the approach of a certain Mr Obree - former world hour record in cycling. You may recall that he eschewed interval training on the basis that a time trial effort is completed as a single piece - not as a series of intervals (ie the latter doesn't in actuality replicate the event). A key element of his training, therefore, was to periodically complete a flat out 10 - 20 time trial on an indoor trainer with the aim of trying to improve his performance each time.

That should read 20 - 30 minute time trial.

[iain]

Each to his own. Graham Obree had a very individual approach to most things, but you can't dispute his successes even if some credit him more as a bike innovator! Personally I find 4 x 1k is a good preparation as it tests each of the difficulties of a 2k and done all out I find it as challenging. I have always taken it on trust that doing twice the distance at the same pace has a bigger training effect, but would be interested in any research on this. I know some people have approached 2ks by either building TT distance at the hope for pace until it hits 2k or doing 2k at increasing ratings until you hit race rating. I think many of us have been guilty of too regular attempts at the same TT. I at least find this counterproductive. An all out TT takes a lot out and is dependent on just pushing to what we are prepared to suffer that is not appropriate for regular attempts. I would go as far as to say that dropping the cruising speed of a 2k by 1S/500m makes a big difference and doesn't ensure that the actual attempt will be successful. Yes you can do without a "sprint" finish, but if you get that far at target, why hold back?

As for the mental side, I am sure that most of us have never pushed to our maximum. Indeed many physiologists believe that the Central Limiter would never allow it (I won't go into whether there is a "Hard Limit" from Central limiter). I was involved in a Park Run when someone was credited with a time that was significantly better than their PB. After castigating the organisers as they believed they could never PB again, 2 week's later they broke the "false" PB. Personally I had a disappointing 5k race when my pace dropped to 7S below target at the beginning of the last 1k (and 5S slower than the average for the race) with some strokes 2S slower than that. I was convinced that I couldn't continue faster, but in the last 500 I finished at a pace 3S faster than target without taking rating to unsustainable levels, so clearly could have maintained a better pace earlier. It is this requirement to breach mental barriers that attract me to the PP competitive training approach. Physiologically I am sure that a considered plan slowly increasing paces would give a better training effect (assuming we could predict the "right" pace to train at), it might also help build belief in the achievability of the race plan that might be the best approach for some. But personally fighting against the almost equal opposition of me in the recent past is a great motivatorto push on and not get hung up on perceived limits.