Lactate based training

[dr3do]

Greg, don't want to sound like a "smart aleck"…

Since UT2 is a HR band definition, and HR tends to rise throughout a session, it is hard to stay that low.

In a heart rate based training, yes. The athlete than usually tries to compensate it, by reducing pace. And becomes slower and slower. But… heart rate shift happens only to a certain degree. The first hour(s) the heart rate shifts more, but after this it shifts significantly less and remains more or less constant.

In a lactate based training the heart rate shift is not relevant. Pure UT2 is defined by the highest possible power where lactate does rise up significantly over "base lactate level" (which is usually about 0.8-1.6mmol, depending on your physique/nutrition/lifestyle). Properly determined lactate level remains constant even after hours.

For rowing the "general recommendation" is about 1.5mmol for UT2 (e.g. for running about 1.3mmol and for biking 1.1-1.3mmol.)

With 2mmol you already left 100% fat energy supply and I suspect you already use significant (50-60%) amounts of additional "carb energy supply". That limits the session duration and the benefit of UT2 training. UT2 with 100% fat gives a very low pace and can be quite boring slow. Pacing up to 80% fat (and 20% carbs) is a good compromise. Some athletes even tend to speed to 60/40 – in my opinion this is already UT1 (a slow one).

I personally try to pace at up to 80/20 (once a while on bad days I go up to 60/40). For me this is fast enough not to be boring and I can do long sessions – at the end I'm still of power to able to do an interval like 3x5min.

Sometimes it's good to do at the beginning of UT2 session a 5min intervall to loose some energy and to to fight during the hole session.

For me it was hard, after years of using the heart rate monitoring/zones as reference, to switch to a strict lactate based training. The first few weeks I felt very naked and "shaky", was so much of doubt. But I made progress which I haven't made before.

To measure exactly the energy supply level a mobile spiroergometry (it's incredible expensive and for private use not affordable ) is the only way. Lactate is not precise enough and too sluggish. But by extensive sessions/testing (like described), stowing the personal ego away it's possible to nail it.

[gregsmith01748]

In the interest of science and in an effort to keep myself entertained, I've decided to do the world's most boring step test.

I am interested in understanding the transient characteristics of lactate metabolism during endurance exercise. So, the test that I ran consisted of 7 "steps", each rowed at 190W, with a lactate test performed at the end of each 10 minute interval during a 1 minute rest.

I intend to repeat the test at a couple of different power levels to see the impact of exercise intensity on the lactate transient.

Test Conditions:
- On slides
- Rate: 22 to 24 spm
- test power 190W
- room temp (~20C), with air flow
- prior day: 1 erg session in the morning (sprints: 4K work, 11K of other meters), weight session in the evening

I have just started doing steady state sessions on slides and I have noticed that my HR is significantly higher and I fatigue faster, I was wondering if my lactates were correspondingly higher as well. I picked 190W as it is about 5W lower than my 2.0mmol/l power on a static erg. I thought it would give me a reasonable first indication.

It turned out that 5W is not nearly enough of a drop in power. My lactates and HR were still significantly higher than desired. But I still got some interesting data out of it.



I had one lactate reading that did not work at 30 minutes. It came up with an "Err-4" on the readout. But the trend was interesting to see. My lactate level climbed to 3.5mmol/l by 10 minutes and then dropped down to 2.5 by 20 minutes and stayed below 3.0 to 40 minutes. Then it rose to a final level of 3.5 to 3.8 for the next 3 readings.

I'm going to repeat this at 185W to see how it differs.

To the point of the original question. Again there is greater upward drift in HR than the change in lactate level. Since this was significantly above the desired <2.0mmol/l, I'm not sure how helpful the results are, but I thought I would share them.

[stelph]

Hi Greg

Extensive informations you posted, I liked it very much.

If you are interested (please really feel free to be or not), I'd like to give some feedback about that what I know. I tried to write as good as I can and had to use many times the dictionary. So I hope I found good words – if not… please feel free to suggest me better words/sentences.

Today I did a long and easy step test to try to figure out the right intensity for my steady state training using a modified lactate step test.

I guess you mean "UT2" (pure aerobic energy supply; "no carbs"; long distance), right?
I guess you haven't been searching for "steady state" or MLSS (maximum lactate stady state), right?

I've read that it takes around 10 minutes for your blood lactate level to stabilize.

According to informations I have from performance diagnostics/labs, it even takes 12min to get good/real data. Step tests usually available on the market are all too short (3min, 4min, some do 6min or 8min).

[/url]

For highly trained athletes it's normal that the lactate level ramps up and then drops with some "level of work". According to this graphic – still suspecting you search for UT2 – I would say that your UT2 level is where lactate dropped again, but before it ramped up (for rowing tendentially around 1.5mmol). Long story, short: 195W

I would double check it by a second session, starting right away with 195W… After 80-90min you shouldn't run into the wall of low energy, be still full of power and be able to speed up significantly (like 1x1.5k or 1x2k). If this is not the case… 195W is too high (for pure UT2), so you have used to much (additional) "carbs" and the tanks have been emptied too much.

My experience is… it's rowing on a very small edge. Mentally it can be veeery hard not to speed up (body suffers during "slow fat energy delivery" and cries for speeding to deliver additional fast carb energy supply). 5W can make a huge difference, you will see it in one of the follwing graphics.

The problem with lactate: A former Swiss Triathlete did some "field tests during his active time" and shared a lot informations with the community/internet. He did a lot of performance lab and corresponding field test, lactate based, but also spiro ergometry based. He discovered that lactate based measuring can be quite sluggish (yes, it's faster then heart rate and way more predictable, but in certain cases it's not fine enough), as you can see in the following graphic.



As you can clearly see, the heart rate is not useful at all. Lactate stays down relatively constant, but Spiro shows up huge difference in energy supply.

If you wanna search for "steady state" (as know as marathon tempo; carbs are the main energy supply), I would rather search for MLSS. For that I would do a modified test, which takes 30min per level. According to this graphic



you start with your predicted "MLSS-speed" (would say your FM time). After 12min you take 1st measurement, then stay at this speed for 30min. Now take 2nd measurement. If lactate hasn't raised about ≤1mmol, ramp up your speed by 5-10 Watt. Do it again for 30min. Check again. The "break even point" is where lactate raises by more then 1mmol during this 30min. Depending on your startpoint and fitness it maybe makes sense to do this test within several steps/sessions; it's (well) possible to combine it with training sessions. This way you will find the level where lactate stays on a constant level without peaking up. The lactate level can be nearly anywhere in the range of of 3-6mmol – it only depends on your physique, uniqueness and training level.

Sidenotes

• The 2mmol/4mmol are just "notional numbers" (taken from statistical observations) like the hart rate tables with zones in a gym – you can can be in this range, but you have not. Wouldn't care about these two numbers, they won't help you.
• Once you have done both tests, you don't need to do them again, at least not with this amount of levels/training time. It will be enough to check every some weeks (2-3). If you train good/right you'll make some sort of progression. It's easy to embedd the level checks into regualr training session – that saves also some of the non-cheap lactate sticks.

Cheers,

Just set up an account here to add to this discussion, I think you add some excellent points dr3do but I think your comments on MLSS and what Greg is trying to do is at cross purposes somewhat as finding and training to MLSS is based more in the "threshold" type of training plan than the "polarised" one that Greg is following and that MChase is advocating, this post gives a good overview of the two different types of training and also, interestingly, quotes two coaches who give very different opinions on which is better

http://runblackdog.wordpress.com/2013/0 ... n-twitter/

Another post by Joe Friel interestingly shows the POL group doing "Polarised" training and the THR group were doing the "threshold" training, this study shows the polarised training plan just edging the threshold group with regards to improvement BUT I think its interesting to read how the HVT group gets on as they show no real improvement to the training plan but the type of training they do isn't really massively different to the Polarised group (lots of zone 1 training and one session of an hour interval at AnT a week as opposed to lots of zone 1 training and two sessions of above AnT a week), this might suggest one danger of the Polarised plan isn't just making the light sessions light enough, but also making the hard ones hard enough! And also making sure you dont have any significant interruptions to your training

http://www.joefrielsblog.com/2014/10/po ... pdate.html

So it seems both threshold and polarised training plans can get good development so its probably more down to choice and preference and seeing which works for you than saying one is better than the other, and Joe Friel actually suggests that sticking it one continously is also proabably not an ideal plan as you may find you stagnate, so perhaps its a good idea to switch from the polarised plan to a threshold one as you approach your targeted event? Anyway. the main message seems to be that its important to know what plan you are following and commit to it, to plan sessions accordingly, know your lactate zones and train correctly within them.

One point on lactate that I think is interesting that most other sports (and seemingly international rowing teams) still follow the step test for measuring lactate rather than the 20min testing that Greg is doing, I wonder why that is?

[dr3do]

In the interest of science and in an effort to keep myself entertained, I've decided to do the world's most boring step test.

Great stuff! =D>

Just set up an account here to add to this discussion,

Wow!!

I have to take some time to read (and to do some translation into my language) your linked articles.

[stelph]

One point on lactate that I think is interesting that most other sports (and seemingly international rowing teams) still follow the step test for measuring lactate rather than the 20min testing that Greg is doing, I wonder why that is?

Ah to answer my own question I think the lactate site has a pretty good discussion on this on their post on "advanced concepts"

http://www.lactate.com/pitesadv.html

The discussion on how coaches are starting to lean towards spot tests and then the findings on the length of steps in graduated steps basically slots inline with MChase and Gregs findings in that the "standard" step tests don't give you an accurate lactate zone and that a longer step would give more accurate results. Interesting

[stelph]

In the interest of science and in an effort to keep myself entertained, I've decided to do the world's most boring step test.

I am interested in understanding the transient characteristics of lactate metabolism during endurance exercise. So, the test that I ran consisted of 7 "steps", each rowed at 190W, with a lactate test performed at the end of each 10 minute interval during a 1 minute rest.

I intend to repeat the test at a couple of different power levels to see the impact of exercise intensity on the lactate transient.

Test Conditions:
- On slides
- Rate: 22 to 24 spm
- test power 190W
- room temp (~20C), with air flow
- prior day: 1 erg session in the morning (sprints: 4K work, 11K of other meters), weight session in the evening

I have just started doing steady state sessions on slides and I have noticed that my HR is significantly higher and I fatigue faster, I was wondering if my lactates were correspondingly higher as well. I picked 190W as it is about 5W lower than my 2.0mmol/l power on a static erg. I thought it would give me a reasonable first indication.

It turned out that 5W is not nearly enough of a drop in power. My lactates and HR were still significantly higher than desired. But I still got some interesting data out of it.



I had one lactate reading that did not work at 30 minutes. It came up with an "Err-4" on the readout. But the trend was interesting to see. My lactate level climbed to 3.5mmol/l by 10 minutes and then dropped down to 2.5 by 20 minutes and stayed below 3.0 to 40 minutes. Then it rose to a final level of 3.5 to 3.8 for the next 3 readings.

I'm going to repeat this at 185W to see how it differs.

I think this makes sense, I read about this study below

http://www.jssm.org/vol10/n2/4/v10n2-4text.php

KEY POINTS
When rowing at a constant power output, all rowers used higher stroke rates and lower stroke forces on the Concept 2 Dynamic ergometer as compared to the Concept 2 Stationary ergometer.
When rowing at a constant power output, cardiopulmonary demand was higher for all rowers, as measured by heart rate, on the Concept 2 Dynamic ergometer as compared to the Concept 2 Stationary ergometer.
When rowing at a constant power output, efficiency was lower for male rowers on the Concept 2 Dynamic ergometer as compared to the Concept 2 Stationary ergometer.

So according to this study the dynamic ergs have a much higher cardiovascular impact that the static ergo (which also makes sense as to why workouts in the single as the hardest of them all IMO!). The higher cardiovascular impact would mean your lactate profile would be different on the dynamic which seems to be what you are seeing, you might need to find a new lower power output for the dynamic/slider setup

[dr3do]

Hey stelph

Thanks jumping into this thread your links are very interesting. =D>
I've read several times the articles, but I assume don't understand everything – my english skills are for that sort of text just not good enough.

Even in my own language (german) there are several (marketing) myth on lactate and several different opinions on lactate based training. It can be very much of "quibbling" and "misinterpretation" of "definitions" to walk trough. I tried hard to do this. All reference article I have stored in my personal wiki are in german language - can't even put a reference on it. "Google Translate" is quite worthless with this sort of text.

As I'm not a "studied doctor", my language skills are too limited for this sort of "technical/medical speech" and I even don't know if my knowledge is good enough, I think I can't take part (in a productive/helpful way) on this discussion. But I would love to follow as a silent reader and try to understand as good as I can.

Cheers!


Edit: My training is according to the linked articles sort of polarized (80-90% "low"; 10-20% "high")

[stelph]

Hey stelph

Thanks jumping into this thread your links are very interesting. =D>
I've read several times the articles, but I assume don't understand everything – my english skills are for that sort of text just not good enough.

Even in my own language (german) there are several (marketing) myth on lactate and several different opinions on lactate based training. It can be very much of "quibbling" and "misinterpretation" of "definitions" to walk trough. I tried hard to do this. All reference article I have stored in my personal wiki are in german language - can't even put a reference on it. "Google Translate" is quite worthless with this sort of text.

As I'm not a "studied doctor", my language skills are too limited for this sort of "technical/medical speech" and I even don't know if my knowledge is good enough, I think I can't take part (in a productive/helpful way) on this discussion. But I would love to follow as a silent reader and try to understand as good as I can.

Cheers!


Edit: My training is according to the linked articles sort of polarized (80-90% "low"; 10-20% "high")

Yes I think it’s clear there isn’t a definite answer and, to be honest, I think that makes sense since we are not exact copies of each other so what works for one person may not work to the same extent for another.

From reading around the subject I interpret the data available as the following:

1. Several studies looking at sports like cycling have shown that Polarised training gets on average better results than Threshold training
2. Looking at rowing, most of the international teams appear to have adopted the Polarised training plan (even more polarised than cycling with 90/10 split in the winter), the fact that all seem to be doing this polarised plan does make it slightly difficult to see how the Threshold model works in rowing in comparison although some training plans that are out there (Rojabo for example) look more along the lines of a Threshold training plan
3. Some people have reported good improvements in performance under this plan compared to Polarised plans, however these are much fewer and far between

Basically it seems to suggest that doing a Polarised plan is the more beneficial, but perhaps if you find yourself plateauing on a polarised plan (and you are doing it correctly with 80-90% under 2mm and 20-10% max) then perhaps a switch to threshold training may help re-start your improvement

That’s my current understanding/interpretation anyway and seems to be backed up MChase’s findings

[dr3do]

Thanks for recap/summary, stelph.

Was training long time by HVT and THR (abbreviations from one of your linked articles) – this here (Switzerland/Germany) a very common "gym training setup". Never had good progress with it.

One day (in 2011) I did a step test at a performance lab – the "specialist" could see my "weakness" (based on case history and training amount and sort of training). He then tried to suggest/explain me a different approach – POL training. I then too started to investigate by myself, but it's hard to find the correct (non profit) informations. But I have found the beneficial informations for me.

One question… "age-groupers" means old people like me (I'm 41)? I'm asking because, google translate translates it to "<some sort of> old fish".

[stelph]

One question… "age-groupers" means old people like me (I'm 41)? I'm asking because, google translate translates it to "<some sort of> old fish".

Haha yes I can see why that wouldn't translate (although perhaps old fish is a good translation ), "Age groupers" is a term used by cyclists/runners/triathaletes for people who compete in the age brackets, the so called "Masters" events as they are in rowing (so 30-39 etc), so yes essentially people like you and me (am 32)

Your experience sounds similar to mine, essentially following the usual type of training programmes then for several years hitting a plateau on my 2k for 4-5 years, with the odd year making a little improvement but not being sure why and then not making the same improvement the next year! With a background in science the last couple of years then I tried to understand and apply science a bit better so have been reading and experimenting myself and I am still learning/developing my own understanding of the science behind good training so its great to come across threads like this one where there are like minded people discussing the "whys" behind what they are doing

[dr3do]

Haha yes I can see why that wouldn't translate (although perhaps old fish is a good translation ), "Age groupers" is a term used by cyclists/runners/triathaletes for people who compete in the age brackets, the so called "Masters" events as they are in rowing (so 30-39 etc), so yes essentially people like you and me (am 32)

As long as I'm not a stinky fish, I don't care that I'm an "age-grouper" (BTW: very tasty, the grouper).

Your experience sounds similar to mine, essentially following the usual type of training programmes then for several years hitting a plateau on my 2k for 4-5 years, with the odd year making a little improvement but not being sure why and then not making the same improvement the next year! With a background in science the last couple of years then I tried to understand and apply science a bit better so have been reading and experimenting myself and I am still learning/developing my own understanding of the science behind good training so its great to come across threads like this one where there are like minded people discussing the "whys" behind what they are doing

Yes, sounds very similar. Thanks that you joined free spirits and I hope that you participate further and bring some of your knowledge (of course only for those who are interested in).

Even if I'm not "real scientist" (anyway working for 20years as e.g. Sysadmin / IT consultant made quite good in analytic thinking), in my heart I always have been a "free scientist by curiosity"… always trying to understand, to figure out how "it" works or how to do better (or more effective), and so on. I'm always in experienced knowledge of other rowers, as I'm new to rowing.

I did bother me not to understand fully (your linked articles), so read and read and read the articles again and again. I think I got now everything – makes me happy

[dr3do]

Has anyone of you read the book Lactate Threshold Training (rowing specific, seems to have a good reputation, but is from 2001)?

[gregsmith01748]

I have the book. It is not that great. Some useful information, but very little new information.

[dr3do]

Thanks, Greg.

[dr3do]

Yesterday late afternoon, after rowing for 1h@2:07.6 (~168W), I checked my lactate level… and got nearly a shock due to the result of 2.2mmol… Uuhhh… because if this was true, all my long&low session would have been waaay too high. This really bothered/stressed me very much. [-o<

So, today I did a "step test" to become sure. Did eat and act like usual, no "tricks" to enhance the result. Before testing I checked if I have possibly a higher level then usual, but with 1.2mmol everything was fine.

I started with my last "save" number… after 30min@160W (2:09.8) I got 0.7mmol as result (HRTavg was 121, HRTmax was 129 ). Due tue this low level (which is an improvement compared to the last test), I decided to jump by 20W. After 30min@180W (2:04.8) I got 1.1mmol (HRTavg was 135, HRTmax was 143). I then decided to see what 190W will bring… After 30min@190W (2:02.6) I got 1.4mmol (HRTavg was 145, HRTmax was 153).

I think, I will now use 190W for my long&slow distances, as 1.4mmol is clearly low enough for that.


Typo: 2nd 30min HRTavg was not 121, it was 135 - corrected it.

[gregsmith01748]

I think that you have stated the most frustrating thing about lactate based training. There are so many ways to mess up a lactate test, and almost all of them will result in a reading that is too high. I find that I have a false reading rate of between 10% and 20%, which is manageably low, but still causes distraction. With your lactates as low as they were after 90 minutes of exercise and 30 minutes at 190W, I think you are definitely safe at 190W. You probably could even push it up to 195W and be OK.

I went and found my copy of Lactate Based Training. The one I have is by Peter Janssen. The book is OK. It is really equally about HR based training and Lactate based training. It provides some useful information about tests like the Conconi test and other step tests. And the chapters about blood chemistry and cardiac physiology are pretty well done. I had two issues with the book. The first is that it seemed to be much more focused on running and triathlons than on shorter events like rowing. There are extensive case studies in the book, but not many of them were directly applicable to my training goals. The other was a somewhat weird (in my opinion) 8 page digression about EPO. Basically it makes the case that injecting EPO is really no different than training at altitude or sleeping in a hypoxic tent. I found that quite a turn off to the book. Now that I am looking at the book again, I may give it another read and just ignore the EPO chunk.

[dr3do]

Hey Greg,

thanks for reading my post and sharing your estimation.
After doing a full row @190W, I'll recheck my LL (lactate level)… If it will be still ≤1.4mmol, I'll give a try @195W.

About the book… I agree, the EPO part would be weird for me too. It's a pity that the cover picture suggests to be more "rowing specific".

[dr3do]

Did today 90min@190W, but started the first 10min with 160W for warmup (it's cold now in our training room). At the end checked LL and got 1.1mmol as result.

So 195W or even 200W seems to be the next step.

[dr3do]

So 195W or even 200W seems to be the next step.

…Nope. Did some testing and @193W I already get 1.5mmol/l.

For this month I'll do it like this:

• for sessions (long, slow, economization) like ≥120' or for recovery sessions I'll stay @160-165W, which correlates to 07-0.8 mmol/l.
• for sessions (UT2) in the range of 60-90' I'll stay @190W, which correlates to 1.4 mmol/l.
• for sessions (UT1) like 3x20-30' I'l stay @215-220W, which correlates to 3.2 mmol/l.

Did today 90min@190W, but started the first 10min with 160W for warmup (it's cold now in our training room). At the end checked LL and got 1.1mmol as result.

…interesting observation: If I do a warmup (10-20'@160W, 0.7-0.8mmol) the lactate elimination @190W seems to be better (1.1mmol) than if I start right away with @190W (1.4mmol).

[stelph]

So 195W or even 200W seems to be the next step.

…Nope. Did some testing and @193W I already get 1.5mmol/l.

For this month I'll do it like this:

• for sessions (long, slow, economization) like ≥120' or for recovery sessions I'll stay @160-165W, which correlates to 07-0.8 mmol/l.
• for sessions (UT2) in the range of 60-90' I'll stay @190W, which correlates to 1.4 mmol/l.
• for sessions (UT1) like 3x20-30' I'l stay @215-220W, which correlates to 3.2 mmol/l.

Out of curiosity, why do you choose to do a number of very low lactate rows? From my understanding of MChase's findings he not only finds that performance improvements stagnate if you workout too hard (2-4 mmol) but also if you don't work hard enough. He doesnt give any specific numbers but mentions one person who he coached who complained that their training at sub 2mmol was too hard, so he reduced their wattage but found that their "watts at lactate" (watts at sub 2mmol) began worsening, suggesting that there needs to be sufficient intensity in the workouts for improvements to be made. You may find it better (and less boring ) to replace the longer sessions with the "shorter" UT2 ones

[dr3do]

Out of curiosity, why do you choose to do a number of very low lactate rows?

Hey stelph, thanks for asking.

What I have figured out, by doing it by myself, it has reasons like technique work (maintaining proper/good technique over long time, when the posture muscles start to get tired is quite hard), economization (improving strict fat burn power/capacities), recovery & well being. If you like I can translate&create this one an english version of it.

You may find it better (and less boring )

A proper maintained long UT3 row is not that boring… To be honest, I find it quite difficult to be 100% on every stroke.

[stelph]

Out of curiosity, why do you choose to do a number of very low lactate rows?

Hey stelph, thanks for asking.

What I have figured out, by doing it by myself, it has reasons like technique work (maintaining proper/good technique over long time, when the posture muscles start to get tired is quite hard), economization (improving strict fat burn power/capacities), recovery & well being. If you like I can translate&create this one an english version of it.

You may find it better (and less boring )

A proper maintained long UT3 row is not that boring… To be honest, I find it quite difficult to be 100% on every stroke.

Oh don't get me wrong, as part of various training plans Ive tested in the past ive done several 90+ min ergs and I agree that once you have got used to the amount of time they do tend to go "relatively" quickly so you dont get too bored, however as mentioned it was more the intensity that I was curious about as it is lower than I expected, do you do those sessions many times a week?

I was interested to read this white paper by Fritz Hagerman (who famously works closely with the US 8 and Mike Teti) where one point he notes is that

"We have convincing data, including muscle biopsy histochemical and biochemincal indicators, which support that rowing continuously at a low steady state intensity for 60minutes or longer for any calibre of rower, is not more effective in maintaining aerobic capacity than 30 minutes of rowing at the same work intensity."

http://96bda424cfcc34d9dd1a-0a7f10f8751 ... ystems.pdf

That doesnt mean to say I dont personally think the longer sessions arent useful, particularly from a mental point of view (as you say, working on technique etc) but perhaps hour long sessions are sufficient to get the aerobic development necessary and also all the other benefits from a longer erg

Just my own personal thoughts anyway

[dr3do]

Oh don't get me wrong

Not at all! I really like open minded discussions. Whatever input/opinion you have about training… please, say it.

do you do those sessions many times a week?

Depending on my training the day before, my actual recovery state, the day of week (weekend or not), what my GF plans to do, how mentally fit I feel, how sore I am, and so on… maybe about 1-2 times a week. If it's a weekend e.g. I try to combine it with a 1.5-2h power walk (before or after).

http://96bda424cfcc34d9dd1a-0a7f10f8751 ... ystems.pdf

Thanks for the link, will save and read the Pdf.

That doesnt mean to say I dont personally think the longer sessions arent useful, particularly from a mental point of view (as you say, working on technique etc) but perhaps hour long sessions are sufficient to get the aerobic development necessary and also all the other benefits from a longer erg

The only way for a person (who has a good base) is to extend the duration of exercise, due to limitation of intensity. In other words… 1h rowing at 0.7-0.8 mmol/l for me is a recovery session.

What I also experienced is… Since practicing "long&slow" I could track that I recover better after hard/intense trainings and my overall healthiness increased.

Another benefit for me is… as "technical diver" I do long dives with a good amount of decompression time (during this time I'm not allowed under any circumstances to quit the dive, but only to ascend to shallower water within small steps of 3m; every problem has to be solved under water). As my decompression time is often up 120min it's mentally good for me to simulate this situation by practise long rows.

Just my own personal thoughts anyway

Which I appreciate.

[stelph]

do you do those sessions many times a week?

Depending on my training the day before, my actual recovery state, the day of week (weekend or not), what my GF plans to do, how mentally fit I feel, how sore I am, and so on… maybe about 1-2 times a week. If it's a weekend e.g. I try to combine it with a 1.5-2h power walk (before or after).

Interesting, I haven't seen that product before, I am aware of HRV and try to track it myself using an iPhone app called HRV4training. Its a very easy app to use and the Dev seems to have well validated how it records (he compares the data collected with the iPhone camera with a chest belt and finds both to be comparable)

http://www.hrv4training.com/

Everyone is different, so its definalty important for the individual to monitor and assess their own fatigue levels, perhaps I am lucky in that "so far" my results from HRV never tend to dip too much so I dont feel recovery sessions are necessary in my plan

http://96bda424cfcc34d9dd1a-0a7f10f8751 ... ystems.pdf

Thanks for the link, will save and read the Pdf.

[/quote]

It is an interesting read, however I do note that it is interesting that it comes to the conclusion that training 2mmol-4mmol for aerobic development is the most important step which is against what I think has been seen/talked about in this thread (keeping below 2mmol).

My rough theory on this is he has mostly worked with the top end elite athletes (US rowing squad for example) and I assume it’s this pool of athletes that he has reviewed to come to this white paper. To get into the US squad you’ve got to be packing some seriously impressive genes and perhaps one thing that makes these guys so good is that their bodies still respond/improve when training in the 2-4mmol zone, that would certainly make sense for my experiences in rowing squads where we have been following training plans that are more “threshold” based, seeing that everyone is doing the same work and following the same plan, but seeing that some people show improvements in 2k times and others either stagnating or showing worsening in 2k times. As Karl is already working with the US squad they may have already culled the non-improvers (as they havent made the squad) thus moving his conclusions more towards training 2mmol-4mmol.

[dr3do]

Interesting, I haven't seen that product before [...]

They have engineered an portable 500Hz ECG/EKG with a precision difference of 0.01% . That means, the heart rate is measured 500 time per second (=2ms) and every measurement differs only by 0.01%. On wired ECG/EKG 1000Hz (1ms) is more common, but the amount of data which has to be transmitted via Bluetooth becomes too big (at least for the moment, I think).

The more important (but commonly not very well known) thing for measuring HRV is the precision of the measuring device. The HRV monitoring solutions which use "usual and common hardware", have some issues there. They precision difference of 5-300% which wouldn't be acceptable (at least for me) for this kind of solution (measuring the variability in miliseconds).

In other words… If you need to produce ten pieces of "woodwork with 1m length", you need a meter which is precise, but maybe not that accurate. If the meter is precise, all ten pieces will have the same length – and are comparable. If you use an accurate meter, which is not precise, all pieces will have different length – but maybe one will be very exact.