Pondering the Beginner Pete Plan

[iain]

Sorry for the confusion, I was replying to Joris re the 7:50 just commenting on your reply to him.

Whew! That's a relief! Maybe I misread your post.


Week 23

10k - Despite various niggles, I rowed steadily and equaled my best pace at 10k or above without much trouble at all.

8x500 2r - The last time I did this I averaged 2:07, including a last rep of 2:05. So this time I decided to do the first four at 2:07, try to speed up by 1s on the next three, then speed up again for the last one. Well, impatience got the better of me, and after rowing the first two at 2:07 and feeling only slightly stressed, I did the next 5 at 2:06, then took a bit of a flyer on the last rep, managing 2:03.5, for an average pace of just under 2:06. Overall my heart rate spent about 70% of the time in the AT zone, 30% in TR, with maybe 1% in AN, so I guess I didn't try hard enough, at least on the first two reps. But this HRmax is based on the max I've seen while erging, so it's not terribly scientific.

2x15min 2r - I last did this workout about 1.5 months ago, with intervals just above and below 2:20, the second interval being about 0.5s slower than the first. About 3 weeks ago I did a 30min row at 2:20, and last week I did a 30min row at 2:23, but that was capped at r20. Hmmm... 2:20 sounded pretty reasonable, and that's what I did for the first interval. I rowed the second interval the same, except I sped up in the last three minutes to 2:15-2:17 pace, making the average for the interval 2:19. Heart rate was reasonable, UT1/AT in ergspeak.

Steady state in the polarized model is done below Seiler's Zone 1. He identified it at below ~78-80% HR, ~2 mmol lactate. He explains steady state is done here not just for recovery but to develop mitochondria and other systems. If your HR drifts to AT... it may be worthwhile to slow a little for steady state.

When I last did 8*500 2R at r20, sub 2 pace (https://log.concept2.com/profile/2501432/log/101657648) I didn't reach AN, only TR. For me, heart rate often is too short to come up for these sprints.

Back in December when I could do 2:04 r24 12*500m 1R, 2:20 would send me into AT (when I got a HR monitor) straight away, even if RPE wise it was still tough UT1. 2:35-ish was my true UT2 pace.

Perhaps you lack power? How much do you lift?

Remember that we are all different! Seiler's work was done on elite athletes so may not apply to us mere mortals! There is no known "true" UT2 value as the term is used differently by different people. the AT is characterised by the limit beyond which HR or anaerobic byproducts climb rapidly (ie more than drift). The 2mmol lactate is a useful marker as lactate increases significantly. 1mmol for many can be maintained while 3mmol cannot and the increase for most is rapid so it is within tolerance to use 2mmol. Remember lactate is an excellent fuel and NOT one of the anaerobic byproducts that cause issues, it is just readily measured and is a proxy for the ones that are.

In addition, the recovery required from a session is dependent on duration so there is no one pace appropriate for SS sessions of different durations.

SS training is the bedrock of any endurance program. As well as stimulating mitochodrial reproduction it stimulates capilliary growth and has been linked to increased heart stroke volume. However I am not aware of research showing that these effects are not produced by exercise at higher intensities. Yes training consistently at and above threshold has been shown to be less effective than polarised training, but this may well be due to a lowering of the quality of the higher intensity sessions. For the elite athletes studied by Seiler, they were training multiple times per day and so the impact of increasing the intensity of the slower sessions had a larger impact on the pace that could be maintained on the higher intensity sessions. But how this works for people working out only once daily is a different question.

Reubin did not say how much time was in AT (this might have been predominantly from the increased pace at the end) or indeed how the lower AT bound was determined. Instead he stated that Max HR was not definitive suggesting uncertainty on the inputs to the formula used (which was based on max achieved and so might be an under estimate) so as well as the usual caveats that the formulas are only guides there is additional uncertainty.

Re 500 R20, this is a whole different beast to unrestricted 500 intervals HR wise. Putting maximum work per stroke will significantly increase HR above that from the HR for an optimum efficiency rate for a row at the same pace. But personally I find HR climbs more rapidly when performing at the same RPE unrestricted (and hence greater pace). That said, I agree that I have not achieved maximum HR on a 500. The HR will depend upon how fast the rower recovers in the rest interval. I can get close to HR max on 15 x 500 r1' due to incomplete recovery. But I believe Stu has said he can almost fully recover from similar RPE efforts to me in the 1' rests, so we cannot generalise.

Finally I am confused at your reference to "lacking power". Relative to what? Do you mean strength? As power is a function of pace so you could paraphrase your comment from "are you too slow"! The relevance of strength to Reubin is uncertain as I believed that his objective from doing the BPP was to increase endurance, so strength is irrelevant. Regular rowing will help to maintain / increase strength to some extent. While losing muscle is one of the penalties of getting older (all things being equal), it is up to each of us to prioritise what we work on.

[reuben]

1) I'm a mere mortal, not an elite athlete.

2) Yes, my max HR is based on the highest number I've seen on the PM5, namely 168. So I typically assume a max of 170 just to use round numbers. Given that this is an estimate, all calculations, percentages, and zones, are necessarily suspect. To determine zones as used in the erg world, I use the calculator at Free Spirits Rowing. Honestly, I still tend to think in terms of the Z1-Z4 system from decades ago, which seems to have added a Z5 somewhere along the line. I mention erg zones solely in order to better converse on this forum.
https://www.freespiritsrowing.com/forum ... calculator

3) For the 8x500 session, my HR might have gotten into the AN zone for the last few seconds of the last rep. I row short intervals like this hard, so that's no surprise.

4) For the 2x15min session, my HR was in my estimated AT and TR zones in the last rep for about 10:00 - roughly 7:00 AT and 3:00 TR (the last 3 minutes when I increased the pace by several seconds). Part of this is due to normal heart rate drift, and part of it is the fact that I raised my pace and spm for the last 3:00. I consider sessions like 2x15min to be a sort of middle ground between long SS such as 10k and intervals like the 8x500, and I pace them as such, with my heart rate spending most of the time in UT1, but often going higher if I increase my pace toward the end, which is something Pete often suggests, as he did for this session:

2 x 15min / 2min rest – Do you feel good? If so, row the first 15min slightly slower than your best ever 30min row, then try to beat yourself on the second 15min!

5) I've never heard of Seiler, and that's fine. There are many programs that specify all sorts of HR training zones for many different activities. None of them are dogma, although a few probably think that they are.

6) The BPP is working for me.

[PleaseLockIn]

Whew! That's a relief! Maybe I misread your post.


Week 23

10k - Despite various niggles, I rowed steadily and equaled my best pace at 10k or above without much trouble at all.

8x500 2r - The last time I did this I averaged 2:07, including a last rep of 2:05. So this time I decided to do the first four at 2:07, try to speed up by 1s on the next three, then speed up again for the last one. Well, impatience got the better of me, and after rowing the first two at 2:07 and feeling only slightly stressed, I did the next 5 at 2:06, then took a bit of a flyer on the last rep, managing 2:03.5, for an average pace of just under 2:06. Overall my heart rate spent about 70% of the time in the AT zone, 30% in TR, with maybe 1% in AN, so I guess I didn't try hard enough, at least on the first two reps. But this HRmax is based on the max I've seen while erging, so it's not terribly scientific.

2x15min 2r - I last did this workout about 1.5 months ago, with intervals just above and below 2:20, the second interval being about 0.5s slower than the first. About 3 weeks ago I did a 30min row at 2:20, and last week I did a 30min row at 2:23, but that was capped at r20. Hmmm... 2:20 sounded pretty reasonable, and that's what I did for the first interval. I rowed the second interval the same, except I sped up in the last three minutes to 2:15-2:17 pace, making the average for the interval 2:19. Heart rate was reasonable, UT1/AT in ergspeak.

Steady state in the polarized model is done below Seiler's Zone 1. He identified it at below ~78-80% HR, ~2 mmol lactate. He explains steady state is done here not just for recovery but to develop mitochondria and other systems. If your HR drifts to AT... it may be worthwhile to slow a little for steady state.

When I last did 8*500 2R at r20, sub 2 pace (https://log.concept2.com/profile/2501432/log/101657648) I didn't reach AN, only TR. For me, heart rate often is too short to come up for these sprints.

Back in December when I could do 2:04 r24 12*500m 1R, 2:20 would send me into AT (when I got a HR monitor) straight away, even if RPE wise it was still tough UT1. 2:35-ish was my true UT2 pace.

Perhaps you lack power? How much do you lift?

Remember that we are all different! Seiler's work was done on elite athletes so may not apply to us mere mortals! There is no known "true" UT2 value as the term is used differently by different people. the AT is characterised by the limit beyond which HR or anaerobic byproducts climb rapidly (ie more than drift). The 2mmol lactate is a useful marker as lactate increases significantly. 1mmol for many can be maintained while 3mmol cannot and the increase for most is rapid so it is within tolerance to use 2mmol. Remember lactate is an excellent fuel and NOT one of the anaerobic byproducts that cause issues, it is just readily measured and is a proxy for the ones that are.

In addition, the recovery required from a session is dependent on duration so there is no one pace appropriate for SS sessions of different durations.

SS training is the bedrock of any endurance program. As well as stimulating mitochodrial reproduction it stimulates capilliary growth and has been linked to increased heart stroke volume. However I am not aware of research showing that these effects are not produced by exercise at higher intensities. Yes training consistently at and above threshold has been shown to be less effective than polarised training, but this may well be due to a lowering of the quality of the higher intensity sessions. For the elite athletes studied by Seiler, they were training multiple times per day and so the impact of increasing the intensity of the slower sessions had a larger impact on the pace that could be maintained on the higher intensity sessions. But how this works for people working out only once daily is a different question.

Reubin did not say how much time was in AT (this might have been predominantly from the increased pace at the end) or indeed how the lower AT bound was determined. Instead he stated that Max HR was not definitive suggesting uncertainty on the inputs to the formula used (which was based on max achieved and so might be an under estimate) so as well as the usual caveats that the formulas are only guides there is additional uncertainty.

Re 500 R20, this is a whole different beast to unrestricted 500 intervals HR wise. Putting maximum work per stroke will significantly increase HR above that from the HR for an optimum efficiency rate for a row at the same pace. But personally I find HR climbs more rapidly when performing at the same RPE unrestricted (and hence greater pace). That said, I agree that I have not achieved maximum HR on a 500. The HR will depend upon how fast the rower recovers in the rest interval. I can get close to HR max on 15 x 500 r1' due to incomplete recovery. But I believe Stu has said he can almost fully recover from similar RPE efforts to me in the 1' rests, so we cannot generalise.

Finally I am confused at your reference to "lacking power". Relative to what? Do you mean strength? As power is a function of pace so you could paraphrase your comment from "are you too slow"! The relevance of strength to Reubin is uncertain as I believed that his objective from doing the BPP was to increase endurance, so strength is irrelevant. Regular rowing will help to maintain / increase strength to some extent. While losing muscle is one of the penalties of getting older (all things being equal), it is up to each of us to prioritise what we work on.

Yes, ssiler’s work was originally based on elite athletes. However there are various studies showing polarized training is superior to non polarized for non elite athletes

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4621419/ For a meta review showing polarized training significantly better in well trained (but non elite) athletes.

I meant lacking top speed and strength relative to his aerobic capabilities. Yes, it is for endurance… but also to improve fitness and rowing times. And the increased strength could help in getting that eventual 2k to 2:04 pace or even 1:59 ish later…

While regular rowing will help maintain strength, often it is insufficient for fully maintaining strength. That’s why many coaches recommend to keep strength training off season to maintain strength. Especially if you have a decent foundation - without 2x strength a week I really could not have maintained 100kg PB squat and 100kg PB deadlift - I’d probably have regressed to 85-ish kg. But we’re all different…

[alex9026]

Yes, ssiler’s work was originally based on elite athletes. However there are various studies showing polarized training is superior to non polarized for non elite athletes

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4621419/ For a meta review showing polarized training significantly better in well trained (but non elite) athletes.

I meant lacking top speed and strength relative to his aerobic capabilities. Yes, it is for endurance… but also to improve fitness and rowing times. And the increased strength could help in getting that eventual 2k to 2:04 pace or even 1:59 ish later…

While regular rowing will help maintain strength, often it is insufficient for fully maintaining strength. That’s why many coaches recommend to keep strength training off season to maintain strength. Especially if you have a decent foundation - without 2x strength a week I really could not have maintained 100kg PB squat and 100kg PB deadlift - I’d probably have regressed to 85-ish kg. But we’re all different…

There has to be an element of context to this, though. A polarised approach may be most suitable for an athlete training high volume and is competitive all season round. For an athlete whose sole competition is once a year, other methods have been tried and tested other the years, think a pyramid approach.

If training time is limited, I'm not wasting my time and energy on 80 minutes steady state stressing over what heart rate zone I'm drifting in to. Plenty of fast erg'ers train on low volume and don't overthink the work. Plenty of fast erg'ers don't lift weights. It's rowing, row first. If we want to talk strength work, I'm intrigued as to how your deadlift numbers are identical to your squat, how many reps are we talking here? Can you complete five reps at this weight? 1RM is frankly meaningless unless you're a powerlifter, especially for the squat.