Too fast too soon?

[webberg]

For a number of reasons, my standard workout session for the last few weeks has been to do an hour and then a warm down.

A few weeks back, the pace over an hour was 2:22/23 per 500. The best has been 2.18 and change. the worst 2:24.

I always try to negative split and for me that's in 5 minute segments (which is what the monitor defaults to). So the first 5 minutes I try to hold say 2:22. The next between 2:21 and 2:22. The differences can be small and as a "back up" I measure how the average metres per 5 minute segment are going.

For example, 2:22 is about 1,050m in 5 minutes. If therefore I hit 2100m in 10 mins, then I've done the same average pace for the two 5 min segments. If I'm at 2120m, then the second 5 min sector is slightly quicker.

My base is always 1,050m per 5 min sector. If I do 13k in an hour that's 400m over the benchmark and all is well with the world.

I'm struggling now with a fear over how to go a little quicker. My very best lifetime over an hour is around 14.5k set close on 20 years ago. That requires a first 5 minute sector benchmark of circa 2:10 and an improvement in each of the next 11 sectors.

My fear is doing say one, two perhaps five or six at this pace and then folding - handle down. is that failure? is that success for having tried? (is that an analogy for life?).

How would you go about this?

[Iain]

I try and estimate what I am capable of from other hard sessions. An hour hard is a tough session so I usually do 5kr4' [loss of symmetry, but extra doesn't help]; 4kr4'; 3kr3'; 2kr2'; 1k. I aim to accelerate on each one as they get shorter. I would start at 2:18 for the 5k and see if you can manage a 1S/500m gain each time. I usually find 3k is tough, but accelerate more for the last 2. Overall >1hr for both of us, but it allows me to refocus an interval at a time. Last time I managed to match the 5-1k for an hour, although generally I would suggest starting a bit slower than that, for that started at 1S/500m slower for the first 30 min, but depends how much you speed up, if you go much faster on 2k & 1k you know that you could have gone a bit quicker. As for pacing the hour, I find that this is above threshold at half distance when run at constant pace, so while I will push last 10 min and might accelerate earlier if feeling good, I often find pace dips a bit in 4th 10' so I don't plan to gain much time in the second half. Very different to UT1 rows below your capacity.

On your general question, any session that is faster than recently is a success in my book even if shorter than hoped. These show what I can do so next time I know I can match that and so need waste less mental energy with doubts before then. Pete said that if you don't doubt that you can finish at the current pace on a TT by 40% of the way through you could have gone faster! I would add that I rarely slow or stop early if I can get to half way without any serious doubts, so anything to give me confidence in that first half is good preparation. The reality is that stopping, slowing or cutting the intended distance in the first half is down to a lack of confidence in my ability (assuming that I am feeling Ok that I usually know in the warm up and the pace is even vaguely achievable - known from other recent rows). SO go for it!

Best of luck

Iain

[Mike Channin]

Quick answer.
If you're doing an hour at 2:18.x now, trying to do one at 2:10 ish is likely to result in not completing, unless you're rowing with a lot in reserve. (A quick look at the HR graph will be able to show this).
A quick application of Paul's Law says you'll manage 18-20 mins at 2:10. Whether this is a 'failure' or not is down to what you're trying to achieve.
If you want to row for an hour each session, you can still row out the rest of the hour after the point of failure, just at slower pace. You'll probably do less distance overall than a more steady state session, but then you've pushed harder. Another thing I often do on a 'failed' attempt is to row out continuously but doing intervals at the target pace, to continue adapting to pace (especially valuable when you're already tired).

Finally, the most 'efficient' way to row any piece is with a flat split at Target all the way across, so practice rowing at a target pace and holding on to that pace. Starting slower and negative splitting puts a lot of pressure on the end when you're already tired, but if that pace plan works for you, go for it.

There's a whole load of strategies that you can use to build conditioning and fitness for a specific target piece. It all depends on how far away you are at the start, and where the greatest weakness is that is preventing you from going faster.

There's no real harm in going for a big improvement, as long as you are not going to be disheartened if it ends in early failure (and you can always convert to a back-up plan, as mentioned above). That said, it is 'all about the pacing' and the rowing machine is pretty cruel on exposing our weakness if we pace even a bit too fast, so expect a lot too fast to hurt, although this will probably generate bigger improvements for next time..

[Iain]

I broadly agree with Mike. Further observations are:

1) I took the post to mean that your 2:18 pace is a quicker SS and so you do have quite a bit in hand. But I agree that a nearly 20% increase in power is a huge stretch and if nothing else will feel so much harder that it would be a mental challenge even if you were fit enough.

2) the extra energy required for modest pace increases has a surprisingly low impact on the average power required. The big advantage of starting slower is that it builds confidence. There is a critical difference of going over threshold (and he pace at which this is reached will decrease as you tire and dehydrate). Above 10k you have a bit of room before hitting this. Ultimately it is about your frame of mind. I have never contemplated using Mike C's (the other one of WP fame) pacing for a 2k as it requires a step up in pace at 800m when i am usually feeling close to collapse. That said, if you are feeling good for that time it is a great weapon against H/D daemons and can support a pace increase and some of my best rows have done this. It also helps if you are unsure of the pace you are capable of as you can always maintain pace for a slower than ultimate target row when starting too quickly may have lead to a collapse in pace or H/D.

3) Re Paul's Law, for the fit older rower i find that doubling distance adds more like 4S for most to 10k and above this much less (say 2.5S/doubling), so even if 2:18 is your limit for an hour at present, I would say that this equates to 3k @2:10!

[Mike Channin]

I also realised while rowing today that your 14500 requires a 2:04.1 Average Pace, and not 2:10.
Personally, I find Paul's Law is pretty accurate for me, although I have a dip in the middle, and it needs extra adjustment in the short sprints.
It would be interesting to find out how well the 'standard' Paul's Law factor of 5.0 works for people. - Looks like another thread to come!
(I've found that strength based rowers with some endurance fit 5.0, lighter high-endurance types (Cyclists and runners) often are more like 4.0, and power-based weight lifter types can have 6.0 or more; Iain's 2.5 is quite a big deviation and I'd be interested to understand that more, and what background might lead to that).

[Iain]

Sorry for not being clearer. I am closer to 4S as you might expect from a weak lightweight who does quite a few metres and no weights. But I find this breaks down outside 1k to 10k. Between 10k and HM I find it is about 2.5S, but breaks again sometime short of an FM which is 5-6S slower than HM for me, while 100k slows even more.

Sprint demons are closer to 7S I found for the limited number who have done competitive 5k+.

I think Graham was tal;king about starting at 2:10 then getting faster throughout, although to hit 2:04 would require getting a lot faster!

[webberg]

Thanks all, valuable advice.

I started today with a "plan" to bring the hour long average pace down, closer to (and perhaps below) 2:15/500.

Short warm up and then a 10k aiming at 2:18 or better (best so far this season on that distance is north of 2:20).

Negative splits (just can't help myself) and finished with 2:15.5 which is comfortably the best in a number of years.

I've revised the goal for 10k and now will be looking to do 2:12 before moving back "up" to an hour.

[Iain]

...then a 10k aiming at 2:18 or better (best so far this season on that distance is north of 2:20).

Negative splits (just can't help myself) and finished with 2:15.5 which is comfortably the best in a number of years.

I've revised the goal for 10k and now will be looking to do 2:12 before moving back "up" to an hour.

Well done Graham on on multi-season best

Mid-term plan looks good, but not how you intend to achieve it. How would you rate the RPE of the latter stages of the 10k and how fast were they? Personally I limit the number of all out efforts. Either they "fail" and decrease motivation, or they become hard increase the stress in the build up to them and so decrease enjoyment. There are 3 options I can think of or some combination:

1) Do sub-maximal efforts slowly increasing performance (maybe weekly?) not significantly quicker than the increased work increases fitness.
2) Do occasional "trials" possibly punctuated with sessions that indicate performance gains available to the targeted distance together with a training program geared towards your target distance.
3) Unconnected training to build endurance and then an all out effort when you feel the target is in sight.

Whichever you choose, in the last 2 months I suspect you have been rowing too much to do mainly "hard" sessions so you need to incorporate lighter sessions between.