Two World Rowing presentations, NZ and CAN

[limegreenspeed]

One is a profile of Noel Donaldson's new position. The things I found particularly interesting were the remarks made about Hamish Bond's Vo2max, where Noel says he's not a freak, and some of the training stuff they do.

Here it is - http://www.worldrowing.com/mm//Document ... eutral.pdf

The most interesting thing related to training was an athlete profile and the training guidelines given from a lactate step test. I realize the step test isn't trusted around these parts because of information MChase has gathered, but still, it's worth noting what they advise given the testing.

Page 65 specifically - the athlete registers low lactates, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7, where 1.7 is at 320 watts and 164 hr. Then zones are determined, but it's not clear how, he's given lactate thresholds 1 and 2, one is 263 watts and 2 is 330. It's not clear to me how these are determined and they seem 'low'. I thought the write up on his physiological profile was interesting, noting that he was more anaerobically predisposed and the type of training that would benefit this profile, specifically HIT to stimulate/enhance his anaerobic abilities.

The Canadian one was interesting, the page I found fascinating described the two most common physiological profiles - the 'aerobic diesel' and the 'glycolytic whippet'. Basically the distinction was between a very aerobic athlete with lots of slow twitch and someone who's more of a sprinter, I'm thinking here that someone like Conlin is a good example of the diesel while someone like Rob Gibson is more like a strong sprinter (he's very explosive). Describes both types as needing the aerobic training but the whippet needs more anaerobic training, I can only guess at the rationale but maybe it's because when anaerobic training isn't provided to someone more anaerobic they lose or can lose lots of this capacity, which is the capacity that allows them perform at a higher level.

http://www.worldrowing.com/mm//Document ... eutral.pdf

Page 74.

Thoughts on these ideas?

[EveRower]

Page 65 - Looks like LT1 is where lactate rises above baseline so from 1.2 to 1.3mmol. LT2 is 2.2mmol so 1.0mmol above baseline.
The stroke rates these are done at are very high for steady state (well what until the last few weeks I have considered SS ratings, starting to revise my thoughts). LT2 seems to be up near 27-30SPM, LT1 22-25SPM.

Page 59 - Then gives % of time spent in each level, almost all is therefore below LT2 so below 2.2mmol (Example 1 96%, Example 2 99.8%, Example 3 93%).

I am reading that correctly am I not?

[Eightplusandunder]

I am beginning to suspect that some of my views on lactate are more muddled than I previously thought.

Many people at a higher level will espouse that more time at a lactate of (theoretically) 1.7 mmol/l will lead to increased wattage in combination with increased HR. In addition to this statement, it is also accepted that 1.7 mmol/l is much tougher when fitter because of the increased wattage/HR required. I suppose my confusion around lactate centers around what makes a reasonable steady state intensity. We have stories of Xeno feeling torched if he did 2 mmol/l in season floating around, preferring 1.3. We have stories from Seiler about testing our USNT heavies doing Teti-state at Chula Vista and only producing 1.1/1.3 mmol (whether that's adaptation or personal adjustment, I can't say).

Speaking from a personal viewpoint, I recently acquired a lactate tester and have been seeing some absolutely ridiculous progress on SS only. I used to have one about two years ago at 16, and did some testing a la MChase. If my training logs on google drive are to be trusted, I was hitting around 179 watts for the first piece of 3*20/60 at a lactate of 1.8 mmol in a SS only month after a disappointing year with your typical scholastic high-intensity program. It was so, so easy. On RPE, 9 out of 20. Now, I am in a very similar position, but things have changed. Dramatically. I am hitting 190 watts for the same procedure at 1.4 mmol, which isn't terrible, but god dammit it freaking kills. I'd give finishing 3*20/60 a conservative 13/20 on RPE at 1.4 versus the previous 1.8 mmol/l. I eat well, recover better, do a fair bit more mileage, but the first workout after a rest day is consistently much harder than I ever remembered.

From what I've seen, most people would advise sticking with a certain mmol/l in training if we could exactly hit that 100% accuracy every time intuitively. Could it instead be that mmol/l needs to be dropped at a certain point with consistent SS-heavy training? Is this athlete independent, as in if Athlete A can max at 11.1 mmol/l and Athlete B can hit 16 mmol/l, do they get the same intensity/benefit set from 1.7 mmol/l? When I heard about the guys at VTC banging up the 2mmol/l universally, I wasn't that confused, but now I sure am.

As a second sidenote, I got the same gist that Eve did about rates. It doesn't seem to be a rate 18 thing - Is this Armstrong approach to SS becoming a hot topic? I remember seeing some of Conlin's SS work being fairly high rate on his insta (22ish if I remember correctly?) - Was there anything relevant in the Canadian presentation?

GAV

[EveRower]

Was there anything relevant in the Canadian presentation?

The Canadian presentation has even less specifics for zones. On PAGE 24 there is a bit about SS rate showing "Maximal Cardiovascular Aerobic Development <1.5mmol to 2.0mmol moderate to low HR's, higher stoke rates lower powers over hours = 22 SPM", then separately "Muscular Endurance low stroke rates full power 16 SPM".

Is this Armstrong approach to SS becoming a hot topic? I remember seeing some of Conlin's SS work being fairly high rate on his insta (22ish if I remember correctly?)

Armstrong approach, can you post a link to this not heard of it/him? I know the Pete Plan has always said to rate higher on the SS workouts 22 - 24. I guess as long as you control the pressure higher rate would get more work done whilst maybe still being able to control lactate.

[Long'n Strong]

I suspect he's referring to a former American cyclist called Lance Armstrong who had some success by, among other things, pedaling at high cadence.

[Eightplusandunder]

I suspect he's referring to a former American cyclist called Lance Armstrong who had some success by, among other things, pedaling at high cadence.

Among other things

[petermech]

I suspect he's referring to a former American cyclist called Lance Armstrong who had some success by, among other things, pedaling at high cadence.

Among other things

When looking studies that used professional cyclist you have to wonder if the data is any good for an honest athlete

[Eightplusandunder]

I suspect he's referring to a former American cyclist called Lance Armstrong who had some success by, among other things, pedaling at high cadence.

Among other things

When looking studies that used professional cyclist you have to wonder if the data is any good for an honest athlete

I was specifically referring to his gearing strategies to race.

Well, the metal gear side of things at least.

[EveRower]

I suspect he's referring to a former American cyclist called Lance Armstrong who had some success by, among other things, pedaling at high cadence.

Among other things

When looking studies that used professional cyclist you have to wonder if the data is any good for an honest athlete

I was specifically referring to his gearing strategies to race.

Well, the metal gear side of things at least.

Ha ha I was thinking of rowing so couldn't link the Armstrong name to it. I understand now.

I would say it's difficult to rate high with low power when normalized to rowing at a pace determined in part to rate like most OTW rowers do. On the static I seem to be doing a lot of work to come up the slide when at low power but then my SS has always been around rate 18. I will try it in a row every now and again though to see if it gets any easier.

[DudleyP]

Looking at Donaldsons presentation I'm more impressed with the overall set up and strategy than the technical content. NZ are a real world force now and have been kicking Aussie butts for some time, something the Aussies are not happy with. As a response the Aussies have a plan to put sculling boats and coaches into every middle school that has water access in the country within the next 5 years. OK they will be rec boats but what a tremendous push to get young people interested in the sport. More interest, more participation and a larger pool of athletes to chose from when it comes to elite rowing.

What is US Rowing doing with sculling at basic club and school level?

[Remomex]

What is US Rowing doing with sculling at basic club and school level?

Charging them administrative fees, apparently!

[bendtheoar]

What is US Rowing doing with sculling at basic club and school level?

Charging them administrative fees, apparently!

Nominated for post of the month........

[Eightplusandunder]

What is US Rowing doing with sculling at basic club and school level?

Charging them administrative fees, apparently!

Nominated for post of the month........

If my vote counts for anything, tag me on