Hi all,
Was wondering what type of distance should one do each week to get ready for Molokai.( OC1 and 6), At the moment I am doing 17km sessions 3 times a week plus sat sun training.
What would you suggest to increase this to, to get ready for a Molokai run?
Regards,
Koka
Submitted by KR68 on Mon, 05/30/2005 - 8:25pm
For distance training, I think you really need to combine interval work with your distance work, especially for a Moloka'i run. You need the distance training in order to condition your body to paddle for 4+ hours, but you need the interval work so you can sprint when necessary to catch bumps.
When doing the "distance" portion of your training, I like to focus more on duration at an appropriate heart rate rather than how far I actually go. I think that is a much better method for your body to adapt and change to distances in excess of 20 miles. For example, if I'm planning a Maui-Moloka'i run, I know the race is going to be a minimum of 3 hours, so I start several months in advance and begin by doing about 2 hours of base work (heart rate at 70% of max; about 120-130 bpm for me). Then, I increase the duration by 15 minutes each week until I hit about 4:15 of non-stop paddling at the desired heart rate. By training my body to be able to go longer than the race, when it's time to go, I can have total confidence that I can push for the entire race. Training with a heart rate monitor is an absolute must with this kind of training to make sure you are in the desired zone.
When you are working the "over distance" portion of your training schedule, since you are working at a lower heart rate, you can really focus on technique and maximizing speed at your given heart rate. You'll find that each week you can go farther with the same heart rate at a given time interval, if you are doing it right. It really gives you a chance to focus on each portion of your stroke (set-up, catch, drive, exit, and recovery).
I usually do my over-distance training on Saturdays, followed by a light recovery workout on Sundays. During the week, I alternate between anaerobic work (85-90% max heart rate), aerobic work (75-85% max heart rate), and recovery (drills and technique work <75% max), allocating one full week to each type of training .
I like a two week taper period before a big race like Maui-Moloka'i where I reduce the quantity of training, but not the intensity. I cut the duration by 20-30% two weeks out, and by about 40%-50% one week out and give myself two days of full rest right before the race.
I think the best thing to do is start with the date of your race, decide what your target time is for that race, then work backwards to determine when you need to start training for that event. This should give you a better idea of exactly how much training you need to do each week in order to be ready to go and make your desired time.
I should add that a solid weight training program in conjunction with your paddling is very important, as is doing some off-canoe conditioning such as running or biking. The additional aerobic work doesn't have to be terribly long... I shoot for 20 minutes of jogging 2-3x week, and 2-3 weight training sessions/week. The weight training I like is high intensity, short duration (about 45 minutes/session; just 12 core strength exercises; one set of each exercise to failure; 8-12 reps per exercise). Finally, don't over-look your diet and hydration. When doing long-distance training, you need to make sure your carbohydrate intake is sufficient to give you energy, but you also need a lot of protein to allow your muscles to grow and adapt. I try to get 40% of my calories from non-processed carbohydrates, 40% protein, and 20% natural fats. I try to drink a gallon of water/day to keep well hydrated, more when training. Rest is critical also, so shoot for a minimum of 8 hours/night.
I have seen some good results with this program and have moved up in the pack in the past year using this system. Obviously, this is a very simplified version of the one-man training program I like, but it gives you a good jumping off point. Your body will be different, so you will need to experiement to determine exactly how to make the most of your potential. Watch for over-training by monitoring your morning resting heart rate, if you see it start to climb, back off the training for a bit until it comes back down.
Alan Carlsson is "The Man" when it comes to designing custom training systems for individuals, as he did for me. I wouldn't make a plug for him, except I found his services to be valuable well beyond the cost. You can find him at http://eascoaching.blogspot.com, if you are seriously interested in a quality program designed specifically for you. There are others out there who do similar types of custom programs, however, Alan is a proven commodity in my mind and I trust him implicitly.
Good luck!
#1 Thu, 06/02/2005 - 3:23pm
Sorry, Alan Carlsson's website is http://www.eascoaching.ca/
Aloha!
#2 Thu, 06/02/2005 - 3:29pm
wow-- thank you for that, thats the most well written and easy to follow training description i have ever seen. What kind of interval workouts do you do for your anaerobic training?
#3 Thu, 06/02/2005 - 10:16pm
Whoa, that was prety detailed dmehling. Way better than the explanations Luke used to give me. Hahaha, just playing Luke.
#4 Thu, 06/02/2005 - 11:01pm
dmehling,
I am curious about how you measured your heartrate zone percentages. It seems your 70% (120-130) is a bit low. How old are you? How did you calculate your percentage? Did you just multiply your maximum heart rate with the desired percentage? Correct me if I am wrong, I have always assumed claculating the [((MRH - RHR) X (desired %)) + RHR = desired bpm for said percentage] produced a more accurate depiction of one's heart rate zones than simply multiplying desired percentage with MHR. Is this accurate? I guess this is a question for all to respond.
#5 Thu, 06/02/2005 - 11:05pm
WHOOOOO,
Great reponse, thanks. I used to train with heart mon, but is there a water proof model out there? this would work well as I have done this type of training before with other sports.
I see as the wave situation in Hawaii is different to Japan the interval sessions make sense. When I was training on the Gold Coast Australia we still do not have the down wind , waves runs you have there.
Its more Paddle, Paddle and paddle. Would I be better having 2 distance runs and 2 interval runs per week? Plus regular training.
Thanks again for your help.
Regards,
Koka
#6 Fri, 06/03/2005 - 1:32am
Mahalo for the feedback.
I calculate my target zones as follows ((Max - Age)- RHR)*zone%)+RHR. I'm 36 years old, for those interested. I get my RHR each day, first thing in the morning, before I even get out of bed. I find I am constantly tweaking my zones as my RHR changes. As I progress through a training cycle, my RHR declines, unless I'm getting over-trained, in which case it starts to rise again. As a result, my target zones change from week to week.
Initially, I thought that keeping my heart rate below 130 for base work sessions was unbelievably low (as in "are you kidding me?" low). However, I wanted to stick to the plan and I found that 4 hours of base work at that heart rate was very tough. In fact, I think it's harder to go slow than it is to run at 150-160 bpm. In the long run, I found my body adapted more quickly by doing my basework in that range rather than a higher range.
By doing low heart rate work followed by high intensity work a couple of days later, I keep "shocking" my body so it doesn't ever get comfortable and stop progressing. It's the same with weight training. If you do the same exercises over and over, your body will adapt and you will plateau. You have to keep your body guessing and stretching it in new directions to prevent a plateau and continue to climb.
During an anaeorbic training week, I like to mix it up. I tend to do two 1.5 hour sessions during the week (usually Tuesday and Thursday). For the first session, I might start with an easy 10 minute warm up, followed by something like 12 x 0:30 from a dead stop with 1:30 recovery, then 4 x 1:20 with 3:00 recovery, followed by 10 minutes of warm down/drills and technique work. The next session in the week, I would do something like 10 minute warm up, 4 x 4:00 on 3:00 recovery, with a 10 minute warm down. Or, [2 x (3 x 10 stroke starts on 1:00 recovery, 3 x 10 stroke starts running with 1:00 recovery, 5:00 easy paddle)], then (8 x 0:30 starts on 3:00 recovery), followed by 10:00 warm down drills/technique work. Saturday I would go long, around 3:00 base work, Sunday 1:20 at a slightly higher rate. Monday, rest. Keep in mind, you have to balance your on-water training with your strength training days, and off water aerobic work.
As for the heart rate monitor I use, it's a Polar S210. That's the only heart rate monitor I found that would let me pre-program my entire interval workout before I left the beach. It only takes a couple of minutes to program and then I can run through my entire workout with only the touch of one button. Polar makes another model that does the same thing and allows you to download your workout from your PC into the watch, and then upload the results for tracking purposes. I didn't feel like I was at the level where I needed that option, so I stuck with the cheaper model. I got mine from www.heartratemonitors.com for US$162.00.
I'm not a great paddler, I'm just an average paddler trying to go faster. I have found this kind of program works for me and I have seen good results, meeting my personal goals. The best advice I can give you is to get with a professional to design a program for your specific paddling goals (i.e. flat water racing versus a Moloka'i run where surfing skills are critical). The conditioning you will need to maximize your potential will be different if the goals are different. Initially, I was responding to a question about training for Moloka'i, which was my target race last season. I wanted to peak for the Maui-Moloka'i, so everything I did last season was designed with that goal in mind. I wanted to break 3:30:00, and I was stoked to finish in 3:18:46, cutting 0:49:33 off my previous best time. Keep in mind we had a great East wind this year, so there was surf the whole way, but I was conditioned to go the distance even if we had a Kona wind (i.e. head wind). Fundamentally, people don't plan to fail, they fail to plan. If you have a good plan and execute it, you're half-way home to a good result. Intensity and desire take care of the rest.
A hui hou!
#7 Fri, 06/03/2005 - 8:33am
Beat thread EVER!
#8 Fri, 06/03/2005 - 12:05pm
dmehlig,
Thanks for your comments. How many hours a week do you log during your base training? What worked for me was increasing 15 minutes of water time every two weeks until I had about 16 hours of water time per week.
Cheers
#9 Fri, 06/03/2005 - 2:05pm
Good question, numerouno. When I hit my maximum, I am training on water about 12 hours, and off water about 5 hours per week. It varies for me a bit by week, depending on whether it's an aerobic week, anerobic week, or recovery week.
#10 Fri, 06/03/2005 - 2:48pm
My friend dmehling told me about this thread and I've finally signed up so I can contribute to this facinating discussion topic.
I'll add a few thoughts to dmehling's comments on target HR zones and training hours. First, and for today [b]HR zones[/b].
There are many theories on how to train for sport, far more than we can ever hope to cover in this forum. However, many of these theories have common elements that indicate universal importance in training. When we look at training zones and how hard we need to work to get fitter, faster or stronger many programs identify the [i][b]anaerobic threshold[/b][/i] (AnT) as a key parameter. I think that it would be a great subject to talk about this a little.
While a few sentences ago I mentionned the concept of [i][b]AnT[/b][/i] was relatively universal in sport training theory, it is never that simple as there are many interpretations of [[i][b]AnT[/b][/i] , how to identify it, what it represents and how to use it in training.
First we should look at what the [i][b]AnT[/b][/i] is intended to represent. When we exercise we require energy, and the human body gets this energy from two main sources; [b]aerobic [/b]and [b]anaerobic [/b]sources. Using real world comparisons,[color=green] aerobic energy is a very eco friendly, renewable energy source[/color]; while [color=red]anaerobic energy is high-octane, heavily polluting limited supply energy source[/color]. At all times you are using both aerobic and anaerobic energy sources in some proportion. At low intensity levels (i.e. reading this post, walking, paddling wiht your Great-Granny, etc.) you will be primarily aerobic, while short duration, high intensity efforts (i.e. pounding out a regatta start, 1/4 mile or linking waves at 20 +Kn, etc.) you will be primarily anaerobic.
At some point intensity-duration combination, you will produce more energy from anaerobic sources than aerobic sources. This is your [i][b]AnT[/b][/i] . Most sport science agrees to this point. How they define and measure this threshold varies greatly and thus how it applies to your training. Anaerobic energy production is estimated using a convenient and relatively easy metaboilic by-product called lactic acid (also called simply lactate). Muscle lactate is mirrored to a certain degree in blood lactate, and this is the basis of many [i][b]AnT[/b][/i] estimation methods. Lactate concentrations in the blood are measured in a chemisty terminology value called the milimole (mM) per liter of blood, and values range from under 1.0 mM (i.e. easy exercise or rest) to over 20 mM (i.e. cross-eyed, tasting blood, ready to puke, forgot your name, want to die quickly). Heart rates and speeds can be assigned to lactate values as a measure of how much muscular work is being done.
This value can be between 70 and 95+% of your peak HR. Some very well trained aerobic athlete will often be able to race for 2+ hours at 95% of their peak HR. However, right next to him (or her) may be another athlete racing at only 80% of his (or her) peak HR.
The most simple forms of [i][b]AnT[/b][/i] use absolute lactate values. For example, there is a method favoured by the ex-eastern block sport scientists that uses a 4.0 mM marker. This is a great normative value when everyone uses the same training program and mass screening is necessary to determine who will fit the training plan. There is no questionning the sucess of many of these programs in swimming, track cycling, cross-country skiing and other sports. In this method a HR and speed at 4.0 mM is identified and used in assigning training effort levels (i.e. 80% 4.0 mM pace, 110% 4.0 mM pace, etc.).
The next form of [i][b]AnT[/b][/i] is the [b][i]individual anaerobic threshold[/i][/b] ([i]i[/i]AnT) which recognizes that each person is unique in their physiology. These estimation methods identify each individual's [i][b]AnT[/b][/i] by looking for the point where lactate value increase rapidly at the onset of significant anaerobic energy production. Each individual would then have a HR and speed associated with this value. As with the absolute [i][b]AnT[/b][/i], training paces are assigned accordingly.
The many methods used to identify [b][i]i[/i]AnT [/b]will each give you a slightly different value, which is important in assigning training zones, etc. Likewise at different time in the training season and in different sports (i.e. OC vs surfski vs swimmiing vs running). The simplest method requires a series of 3-4 minute efforts at set heart rates, followed by a very small finger tip blood sample (all tropical water paddlers shudder at the thought) and quick analysis in a small hand held device (takes about a minute). Average speeds and HR are recorded, along wiht the lactate value. This continues in 10 beat per minute increments until the athlete can't hold the target HR for 3-4 minutes (i.e. 4 min at 100, 4 min at 110, 4 min at 120,... 3-4 min at 180+). Somewhere along there the lactate values will suddenly jump up and rise rapidly 2-3 steps before failure to finish a step.
This [b][i]i[/i]AnT [/b] will indicate a long distance pace you should be able to hold for 1-3 hours depending on your fitness level, training program, hydration level, etc.
Other methods will overestimate this value resulting in an [b][i]i[/i]AnT [/b] you can't hold very long (10-15 minutes), while others will underestimate it and give you a value you can hold all day.
Luckily for those who live in areas where certain fish love the scent of blood, [b][i]i[/i]AnT [/b] can be roughly estimated using non-invasive methods. Your average HR from a long race will suffice, as will using your breathing rate. When your breathing rate increase rapidly, you've probably passed you [b]AnT [/b]. A more complicated method involves 2-4 tiem trials ranging from 1-10 minutes in length and doing some funky math on the results. This is called a critical speed test.
Later on I'll talk about the aerobic threshold and other training topics we dredge up here.
Cheers, Alan
#11 Tue, 06/14/2005 - 9:23am
Here are sample lactate curves from a runner taken at two different times. One uses HR the other speed.
See if you can identify the anaerobic threshold in the pre training (March) and post training (June) testing, and offer up some thoughts on what has happened.
Alan
#12 Tue, 06/14/2005 - 9:56am
I'm a little confused looking at these graphs. Why are the lactate levels increasing between the two testing periods.
Looking at the HR, in March(@ 160), the lactate level around 3.75mM. And in June(@160), the lactate level is around 5mM. Shouldn't it decrease over time if the person is training consistently?
#13 Tue, 06/14/2005 - 1:11pm
Ondakanu is very perceptive that the lactate levels rose at a given HR which is a potential warning flag. With aerobic adaptation we should see a decrease in [La-] at given HR assuming the speed is constant. However, we are learning to be detectives here, I'll direct your attention to the speeds the athlete is holding at the 160 HR (third red point and fifth green point from the left on the top graph) and this will help.
From this we learn that while an increase in lactate may indicate more muscular work is being done, there can be reasons for this. In this case the reason is that the athlete can now run almost 30 seconds / kilometer faster at a HR of 160 than they could in March. In a 6 mile run this is about 3 minutes faster, although holding this pace for 6 miles may be tricky as her[b] individual anaerobic threshold[/b] is probably about 150. As you can see, there is no clear point where her lactate levels rise fast, although it is obvious it is somewhere between HR 150 and 160. A different individual anaerobic threshold test would help us estimate the [b][i]i[/i]AnT[/b]. My favorite these days is one called the [b][color=red]Maximal Lactate Steady State[/color][/b] (MLSS) test. This test works very nicely with trained athletes, although non-athletes find it mentally challenging to work as hard as is necessary. I'll post and describe a MLSS test later today.
As a coach you need to ask and answer questions about the results you see, no matter what the test being performed. In this case I have an unfair advantage, as I know that the athlete did no intensity work for three months as a means to minimze the risk of stress fractures returning. All their training was at an aerobic threshold pace of 125-145 beats per minute. The training adaptation we are looking at is that all sub-maximal speeds (where maximal is equal to a HR of ~180) are faster than in March.
For the next month we are focusing on easier "race pace" intensity intervals to prepare them for a race at the end of June. Not an ideal situation as far as training goes, but as a coach I should help my athletes achieve their goals despite the challenges they face. In this case, the challenge was the stress fracture in one foot which required 10 weeks off from running, followed by a walk-run program, then gradual increases in running volume prior to any intensity. There is no doubt this athlete is behind the 8 ball for the June race, which incidentally is an Ironman triathlon. The swim and bike training progressed well through the stress fracture, so all we need now is the run to hold together at a [b]sub-[i]i[/i]AnT[/b] pace which is what most mid-pack Ironman triathletes accomplish. Our goal is to run at a HR of 145.
Alan
#14 Wed, 06/15/2005 - 8:02am
Aloha Alan:
Welcome to the board. Nice to hear from you. I hope I didn't lead anyone too far astray from the program you set up for me. Obviously, I still have a lot to learn, and I knew you could explain the minutia far better than I ever could hope to. I can't wait to learn about the MLSS and how to apply it to my training program.
A hui hou!
#15 Wed, 06/15/2005 - 11:14am
Here you go dmelhing, more masochistic fun for distance and sprint paddlers alike :twisted:
The [b]Maximum Lactate Steady State[/b] (MLSS) test is based on the assumption that at the [b]individual Anaerobic Threshold[/b] (iAnT) lactate production becomes greater than lactate removal.
This test requires the athlete to first raise their blood lactate levels as high as possible through completing two x 2:00 minutes all out wiht 10:00 minutes of recovery (easy exercise) between the two efforts. After the last 2:00 effort we assume blood lactate levels are high.
From there we begin exercising at low HR values for 3-4 minutes at each step of the test. I would select a value close to the [b]Aerobic Threshold[/b] (AeT) to begin as this ensures minimal lactate production. From there we can do 3-4 minutes of exercise at this HR (take a lactate sample), then 3-4 minutes increasing the HR by 10, and repeat until failure to complete 3-4 minutes.
What we will see, if everything worked out well, is the lactate value dropping while the HR/effort is below the [b]MLSS[/b] value. As we approach [b]MLSS[/b], the rate of change in lactate will slow to nothing, then begin increasing again. The resulting curve is U-shaped wiht the [b]MLSS[/b] value at the bottom of the U. See the next graph for an illustration of this (FYI same Ironman triathlete as the run [b]iAnT[/b] curves were generated for- no injuries training going well samples taken in June 2005. I felt the bike fitness would estimate the [b]MLSS[/b] value accurately given the intensity training that we had accomplished in the past few months)
You can eyeball the bottom of the U curve or be a geek and have your graphing software do a polynomial regression on the curve and then figure out inflexion point using calculus. And who said we'd never use calculus outside of high school?
The geeky method suggested a [b]MLSS[/b] HR of 163. Now this value is definitely not your very long duration race pace. [b]MLSS[/b] is often a very hard distance race pace, that can last from 15 to 60+ minutes depending on the athlete. Motivation, fatigue, hydration, glycogen levels, etc. all play critical roles in competing at [b]MLSS[/b]. For longer events [b]MLSS[/b]-2 or 3 beats/minute may be prescribed as a target HR. For shorter events, [b]MLSS[/b] +2 or 3 beats may be prescribed.
An distance athlete dedicated to racing at thier optimal performacen level would learn thier [b]MLSS[/b], then train to race at that value using shorter efforts at that intensity.
i.e. week 1 4 x 4:00 min @ [b]MLSS[/b] on 4:00 min easy
week 2 4 x 4:00 min @ [b]MLSS[/b] on 3:00 min easy
week 3 4 x 4:00 min @ [b]MLSS[/b] on 2:00 min easy
week 4 4 x 4:00 min @ [b]MLSS[/b] on 1:00 min easy
week 5 3 x 6:00 min @ [b]MLSS[/b] on 2:00 min easy or 2 x 8:00 @ MLSS or 16:00 min @ [b]MLSS[/b]
week 6 you get the idea but gradually increasing the duration or shortening the recovery. If you manage 16:00 @ [b]MLSS[/b], you could even begin over at week 1 doing 5-7 x 4:00 min @ [b]MLSS[/b] on 4:00 min and work at that. The possibilities are endless.
This sort of workout is HARD though and doing it more than 1-2 x week will leave you exhausted and can place your paddling performance at risk. However, applied at the right time and correctly administered you will eventually get faster at longer distances.
Alan
#16 Wed, 06/15/2005 - 1:13pm
Alan, for this athlete, were you doing actual blood tests to measure Lactate levels? If so, can you run me through the lactic acid measurement process (i.e. where does a guy like me obtain the tools/equipment to properly do Lactate testing?).
I know that in the past, we have used heart rate as a proxy for how fast lactic acid builds up, but I would like to have the capacity to "take it to the next level." Especially with one-man season less than 6 months away.
Aloha!
#17 Thu, 06/16/2005 - 7:58am
Aloha dmelhing,
In this [b]MLSS[/b] test I was testign blood lactate at each step. HR can be equated to various lactate levels, but when lacate levels are rising rapidly (i.e. over your [b][i]i[/i]AnT[/b]) the relationship is dicey at best. When you go to peak effort levels, you are best learning about a seriously math intensive relationship between blood lactate, muscle lactate, exercising muscle, non-exercising muscle and lactate release/removal rates. Serious, serious geekology that needs biostatistical software/knowledge to figure out what's going on. Pretty cool though...
The basic lactate testing process is very simple, but requires a little practice before you can shed the nickname "[b]butcher[/b]" and become a "[b]vampire[/b]". I've probably taken a few thousand samples over the last 10 years, and I still have the odd bad day. Especially with prima dona athletes :D
I use the [b]Accusport[/b] / Accutrend analyzer ([url]http://lactate.com[/url]) which is very reliable and accurate. While relatively cheap at $230 it is as good as the more expensive (and smaller and faster) [i]Lactate Scout[/i] (also at ([url]http://lactate.com[/url]) at $400.
The steps for taking a sample are as follows;
1. I set up a test table/area where I arrange my supplies on a clean, dry surface. If it is windy, set up a wind shield. I place a test strip, cotton gauze pad, alcohol swab and autolancet tip together for each planned sample and move reserve material out of the way, but acessible. You will also need a waste bag and a "sharp's" container. No one likes bloody medical supplied lying on a beach or park, so pack up all your waste properly. The sharp's container is for used autolancet tips and can be a proper biomedical one or another unbreakable, sealable container (i.e. small plastic pop bottle wiht screw cap). For a quick guide to managing biomedical hazards see [url]http://www.yale.edu/oehs/bbpstuff/medwaste.htm[/url]
When you are very good at this you can do steps 3-10 in less than 30 seconds. Newbie may take 2-3 minutes or longer, bruise the finger :?, make horror movie type mess :twisted: and loose friends :cry:
I would recommend that [La-] be used in testing, while you use the equivalent HR for training. This is a tired and true methods to improve training quality while minimizing the risks of overtraining.
#18 Thu, 06/16/2005 - 9:52am
Shoots, the process hasn't improved at all in the last 15+ years! It's basically the same process we used when I swam in University all those years ago.
Mahalo, Alan, as always, I appreciate the information and the easy manner in which you present it. Quite the learning process.
A hui hou!
#19 Thu, 06/16/2005 - 1:53pm
Koka originally asked how much distance work should be done for Moloka'i. The OC6 and OC1 events are completley different from a fitness perspective. Unless you do the OC6 iron, in which case the gap narrows.
In the OC6 change event the ability to repeatedly paddle hard then recovery quickly is paramount for good crossing. Depending on the frequency and duration of your water change chart, the training is adapted to fit.
In an OC6 iron, the ability to paddle non-stop for 6+ hours is more important. In the solo event, the same applies but for a different duration, which for all intents and purposes is pretty negligible at these durations.
When you plan your program you need to think how far am I planning to race (i.e. how long will it take assuming a range of conditions). Always think of training in terms of duration rather than distance. As we all know, 10 miles into a 20 kn wind is different than 10 miles with a 20 kn wind...
When you have a duration range of race durations in mind (say 4-5 hours), you need to plan your season backwards from the target race date, keeping in mind your body will need to adapt to training in a systematic and progressive manner.
Many exercise physiologists recommend slowly increasing your weekly training volume (5-10% per week) so as to minimize the risk of overtraining and overuse injuries. Your longest single session paddle can safely increase by the same. Some programs may increase by a set 15:00 min per week, which although is greater than 15% at first, it becomes less difficult later on and workout pretty much the same as a 10% average increase over 18-20 weeks. I've calculated some long paddle options using the 5%, 10% and 15:00 min approaches below
Some sports science sources say 1 long easy effort per week, others once every 10-14 days. Between your long easy efforts you plan all your short-medium efforts (no longer than 75% of the longest; no shorter than 20-30 minutes) adn intensity training.
To further complicate things you also need to factor in recovery weeks every 3-6 weeks where you significantly reduce your volume to allow your body time to adapt, get stronger, faster, fitter, do the laundry, feed the dog, etc.
If you allow youself only 4 months to prepare you will be forced to accelerate your plan. A consequence of that is you'll get exhausted and need a lengthy time off to recover. A well designed training program should be able to see you almost fully recovered in 2-3 weeks of easy exercise or time off. The biggest difference between a short crash-training program and a very long term program is that the longer year round programs are usually part of your lifestyle, and you see much bigger long term (year to year) improvements as you spend less time de-training then re-training every season.
Have fun, Alan
#20 Fri, 06/17/2005 - 6:25am
Aloha Alan:
You didn't mention at what intensity level this type of base work should be performed. Previously, I indicated that I did my base work keeping my average HR below 130bpm. I'm not sure what the pysiological process is that makes my body adapt faster at that HR than at higher levels, but I remember when I started your program I thought the base work was at too low a level. You told me to stick with it and the gains would be there (which they were), but perhaps you can briefly summarize why you feel base work should be done at that level, or if I totally screwed up your formula. IOW, what is the connection between iAnt and low level base work?
#21 Fri, 06/17/2005 - 1:10pm
Good point. You'll hear all sorts of training theories and each may be as good as the next. Whichever one you choose to follow, make sure it agrees with the rest of your training program (i.e. intensity, race pace work, etc.).
My training philosophy is to keep all long, easy distance workouts focused on the [b]easy[/b] part. My academic experience and applied experience with athletes who work too hard on the easy distance workouts get fatigued earlier and the quality of their intensity workouts and racing is sub-standard.
I follow a system I learned about from a Norwegian cross-country ski coach I worked for a few years ago. For those of you unfamiliar wiht Norway's National Sport of cross-country skiing, the demands on athletes are remarkably similar to open ocean paddling. You need a huge aerobic base to learn the basic motor skills and ability to adapt to the terrain, all embedded in the basic need to cover the race duration (10 minutes through 3+ hours). At the same time you need a big anaerobic capacity to handle the variable load and constant accelerations needed to maintain speed over small obstacles. For the record, xc skiers are often cited as being the most aerobically fit athletes anywhere with peak VO2 values for men in the high 80's, with a few genetic freaks in the high 90's.
All of the Norwegian coaching resources emphasize that aerobic fitness adaptation need to take place in an aerobic environment at speeds/effort levels that encourage aerobic adaptations in the muscles. Physiologically, if the muscles work a little too hard (not necessarily at or close to anaerobic threshold) they become a little more acidic. A little more acidity in a muscle compromises the efficiency of the aerobic mechanisms. This reduces the effectiveness of the training focus.
At first training speed are very, very slow in order to ensure the exercise in aerobic. However, with a couple of months you will be getting faster at your aerobic training speed. If you diligently keep it up long enough you will eventually approach your old race pace, and you will feel little effort in doing so. The training benefits to your technique in being able to train at near distance race pace with little fatigue are immeasurable.
I remember talking to one of our biathletes (ski - shoot) who commented on how fast some of the top Germans (i.e. Wold's best biathletes) did their easy training, and his temptation was to train at similar speeds. However, the athletes in question had been under a systematic aerobic training program since age 12 or younger and had built up over 20 years of solid aerobic base as described above. For them it was easy training, for our guys it was close to race pace and a slippery slope to overtraining.
In some cases [i][b]easy[/b] [/i]may start with a HR of 110-120 and 4 mph, then adapt to 110-130 within a few months and 4 to 4.5 mph. [i]Within a few years it may be easy training at a HR of 110-165 and 6 to 7.5 mph.[/i]
Unfortunately, many athletes today want a quick fix to distance racing (or sprint racing) and there is no quick fix. It takes work, lots of work over a long period of time. This may be one reason why top paddlers are not always the fit younger ones, and the older guys can hold their own.
Alan
[size=9]
[i]Cliff Claven voice, "It's a little known fact Narmy :oops: that international calibre xc skiers on top National Teams are not expected to do well in World Cup / Championships races until they are in their mid to late 30's. And some stay at the top for 10 years or more."[/i][/size]
#22 Fri, 06/17/2005 - 2:37pm
hey guys, great thread.... i for one am soaking it up, so get as geeky as you like, and we can digest it and ask for clarification as it comes up...
#23 Sat, 06/18/2005 - 9:59am
[quote="AlanC"]Aloha dmelhing,
I use the [b]Accusport[/b] / Accutrend analyzer ([url]http://lactate.com[/url]) which is very reliable and accurate. While relatively cheap at $230 it is as good as the more expensive (and smaller and faster) [i]Lactate Scout[/i] (also at ([url]http://lactate.com[/url]) at $400.
The [b]Lactate Pro[/b] is the most widely used portable lactate analyzer in the world and has the studies to back up it's accuracy. It is even approved fro medical use in the USA after a year long clinical trial at the Harvard Children's hospital in Boston. ($320)
[url]http://www.lactate-pro.com/LactatePro/lactate-pro-portable-analyzer.html[/url]
#24 Mon, 06/20/2005 - 3:06am
According to a comparison study by the Rowing Canada Sport Medicine and Science Committee the Accusport is inaccurate and inconsistent whereas the Lactate Pro is as good as the $5000 YSI 1500.
[url]http://www.lactate-pro.com/LactatePro/LactateProStudy.html[/url]
#25 Mon, 06/20/2005 - 3:25am
Herb is correct in pointing out that there are more accurate lactate analyzers on the market now.
Luckily for me and my older gear, many reaserchers in peer reviewed journals argue that the Accusport, while less accurate, is consistently less accurate with readings being lower than other lab standards as long as the sampling protocol remains the same. It is even possible to correct for the error if you generate a correction formula against a lab test.
The accuracy issues with the Accusport originate from errors in the lack of standardization in the size of the blood sample used. Having one person taking all samples mimizes this variability as long as they follow the same procedure sample to sample.
With all field equipment (i.e. non-laboratory) we are sacrificing accuracy for portability, price, ease of use, etc. While the Accusport is not perfect, it is a cheap alternative.
The Lactate-pro model has been creditied with high accurancy (+/- 3%) re the accepted big lab standard the YSI 1500. The price difference is significant (100%), but accuracy is worth something when we are winning and losing events by 0.5%!
Maybe it's time to invest in a new analyzer :?:
Thanks for the updated info Herb.
Alan
#26 Mon, 06/20/2005 - 9:53am
Your other option to standardize measurements with the Accusport is to draw the blood into 25microliter capillary tubes and apply to the strip from the tube. This will give you the needed consistency and correct volume size for the Accusport but it adds an extra step in the measurement procedure.
#27 Mon, 06/20/2005 - 10:19am
Aloha Alan and Herb:
What is the interval between lactate testings that you suggest to maximize performance? Do you test every two weeks, once a month, or what? Do you do the same performance test for each testing session? In other words, if you are doing 8 x 4:00 with a test after each 4:00 segment, how often should one do the full 8 tests?
The next question would be how do you tune your training using the results from the different tests. If I find my lactate builds up faster two months down the road, does that mean I'm over training? If so, how should I tweak my program (volume versus intensity)?
I have so much to learn...
#28 Tue, 06/21/2005 - 11:17am
Aloha Don,
What you are asking about is a big and often confusing area in sport. You've correctly pointed out in your query that performance is a central issue. As such, the question is, how often do you evaluate (in this case blood lactate) to ensure you are on track for peak performance?
In sport science there is a saying that you should never test for the sake of testing. You must test for the sake of improving your performance criteria. All too often coaches end up testing for the sake of testing and never using the test data to improve performance.
As for what tests you choose, these need to reflect directly on the parameters you are training in order to achieve a peak performance (race);
[list]Crew boats will differ from solo boats,
Sprint will differ from distance,
V1 will differ from OC1,
Turn regatta races will differ from non-turn regattas,
Rough water will differ from flatwater,
and the list goes on...[/list:u]
There is no magic time interval for evaluating a training program. It depends on a number of factors such as;
[list]How dedicated the training is (2 x week or 10x week),
What the goal of the training is (aerobic, anaerobic, skills, etc.),
What resources are needed for evaluation (facilities, equipment, etc.),
When those resources are available,
And most importantly, how long you are willing to gamble that your program is working without feedback.
[/list:u]
I prefer anywhere from 2-6 weeks, depending on what I am using in my evaluation protocols. Sometimes evaluation will be simply a time trial that reflects race duration (i.e. 500 m sprint or 5-10 km distance) scheduled after the athlete's / crew's recovery period. Technique evaluations can occur at any time, you can back that up with video analysis or a "report card" if you want.
As for using the same evaluation tools, I would say you are safer doing that rather than trying out different tools. One criteria that is important in athlete evaluation is that the testing methods and conditions are reproducible.
In an ideal world. In real life, we can settle for recording sufficient information to interpret the data.
[list]i.e. first 5 km time trial in OC1; 30:00 minutes, no wind, slack tide, overcast. Second 5 km time trial a month later in OC1; 29:55 minutes, 10 kn headwinds, peak tidal flow rate, sunny[/list:u]
In this case, if we look at the time alone there is negligible improvement. However, when we take the wind into account and current we are looking at a different result. Unfortunately we can't measure the effects of those conditions on the performance.
This opens up a whole new aspect of evaluation; fitness testing vs performance. Fitness testing uses non-sport specific tools (i.e. chin ups, swimming and running) to estimate your ability to do the sport in question. Performance testing uses the sport in question in its natural environment.
Paddle ergometers are an excellent example of a fitness tool that is almost a performance tool. Big thing missing in many paddle ergs is the interaction between paddler, hull, paddle and water. As such, this is a fitness evaluation tool. A very specific fitness evaluation tool for certain, but it will rarely illustrate finer aspects of performance.
How you end up fine tuning your training is a very indepth area, and very specific to the evaluation you did. Was it technique? Was it aerobic? Was it anaerobic? Was it nutrition? Was it tactical?...
And many of these answers are trade secrets. Once you've been told we'd have to kill you. :twisted:
Alan
#29 Wed, 06/22/2005 - 5:14am
Hmmmm, not sure about that response. I don't see how lactate testing is going to tell me anything about my technique or tactical capabilities, or my nutrition program. My understanding of lactate testing is determining the rapidity of latic acid buildup and/or absorption in/by my muscles. Therefore, all it can really tell me is when I reach the lactic threshold (i.e. at what point does lactic acid really start building up or, if post race testing, how fast it is cleared from my system). This should tell me where my iAnT is, right? The farther down the curve in terms of duration at a given speed/HR, the better my body is adapting to the training. The shorter the duration at a given speed/HR, the worse my body is adapting. Obviously, in open ocean paddling, we're never going to get the exact same conditions from one test to another, but I have a location where I can test that is close enough for my purposes.
So, assuming I'm testing once a month, if I start to see my lactate curve moving in on the duration scale (i.e. I'm building up acid levels faster), then my trianing program is either to intense or has too much in terms of duration, causing me to become over trained, correct? My gut reaction would be to cut the duration, but keep the intensity the same (sort of like a mini-taper) to allow my body to fully recover. Then test again. However, since I'm not educated in these things, I could be totally wrong. There has to be a book out there someplace that I can find this information.
Suggestions anybody? Anybody?
#30 Wed, 06/22/2005 - 8:44am
Ah Grasshopper you have much to learn :wink:
Careful interpretation of specifically chosen lactate tests can tell you more than just your anaerobic threshold. Improper nutrition will affect the curve, increased / decreased technical efficiency will affect the curve, etc.
However, the relationship between acidity levels in the muscle (as estimated though blood lactate) and performance is what we end up looking at. To get faster there are two main parameters associated with iAnT;
[list]The percentage of peak HR you can hold at iAnT, and
The associated percentage of peak speed[/list:u]
In your lactate profile there are some expected changes with training;
[list]When you do good quality [b]easy distance training[/b], the lactate levels at low intensity will drop as will the lactate levels at high intensities. Your low intensity speeds (up to and possibly slightly beyond iAnT) will increase, but your supra-maximal speeds will probably decrease.
When you do high intensity training (above iAnT) you will expect your high intensity lactate values to increase along with your high intensity speeds. These may positively affect your iAnT if you have also been working your low intensity easy distance training. This step is necessary for long term increases in your speed at iAnT, and is often neglected by non-elite athletes.[/list:u]
It is easy to get caught thinking low lactate is better than high lactate. We are conditionned to fear "high lactate values" as we often associate buring muscles with lactate. Ironically, it is not lactate that causes the burn, but more probably the acidity levels (this revelation is often too much for many non-physiologists as it requires too much reprogramming of how we interpret training/racing discomfort and pain).
At low speeds you will alsways have lower lactate. However, to push yourself and race to your potential you do not do compete at your iAnT but ever so slightly above iAnT. How much above iAnT depends on the length of the race, how hard you've trained, and how hard you are able to push yourself.
If you've worked on pushing your peak HR up near your physiological / genetic maximum, you will produce higher lactate. If you have never worked in that range, you won't produce as much lactate, nor will you have as much speed reserve. This is one reason I hope never to be in a sprint finish with a sprint trained athlete. if they kept up through the long portion of the race and it all comes down to the final few meters they may well have a bigger speed reserve than I do.
[list]i.e. in our local fun races on Tuesday nights some flatwater sprinters come out. One of them is on the Canadian junior national team. We race side by side for 4.9 of the 5 km (the bit at just over iAnT - so mostly aerobic fitness) then we start winding it up for the finish. At this time, my peak speed was ~13.5 km/hr and his is ~15 km/hr (the anaerobic or high lactate producing portion).[/list:u]
Back to test interpretation, if your lactate values at a given HR are increasing and the associated speed does not change (or gets slower), you may have a problem. Poor nutrition resulting in muscle glycogen depletion could be the cause, or a loss of aerobic fitness. However, if you've been working the high intensity end of your training this is a normal result. If after an easy distance phase the associated speeds don't increase you can assume a problem exists.
Fatigue or overtraining would probably result in a decrease in speed and lactate at a given HR. If it is overtraining (chronic fatigue), you can expect to take months to recover, while short term fatigue will clear up with a few days of recovery. Using indices of overtraining/fatigue monitoring tools will gove you more insight into this.
[i][list]Incidentally, a well designed training program should be designed around recovery as opposed to work. This will minimize the risk of overtraining.[/list:u][/i]
There are a number of books to help you learn about lactate curves (hopefully option 1 won't give your nightmares :) )
[list][b]Swimming Fastest[/b]: Ernerst Maglischo
[b]The Science of Winning[/b]: Jan Olbrecht (coach of IM Hawaii record holder Luc VanLierde and advisor to top cyclist Jan Ullrich)
[b]Lactate Threshold Training[/b]: Peter Janssen- lots of sample data from top athletes and long term follow up data showing training induced changes.
Check out [url]http://lactate.com/Sources.htm#Maglischobook[/url] for these and more books[/list:u]
Alan
#31 Thu, 06/23/2005 - 11:21am
Shoots! Just when I thought I knew what I was doing; another wrench in the system. So, basically, what you are saying is that I know enough to be dangerous, but not enough to actually use this stuff productively. Okay, I give. I'm going to buy the books and read. Then, I'll be back with more questions.
Anybody else struggling with this as much as me? Or, am I the only one behind the proverbial lactate curve?
As an aside, Alan, I truly appreciate the feedback and informed responses to my myriad questions. I think I'm getting there, but at a frustratingly slow pace. Patience was never my strong point to begin with, and I want to go faster NOW!!!
#32 Thu, 06/23/2005 - 12:20pm
No worries dmelhing, it took me an undergrad and a masters to get the basics, and even then they don't teach you much beyond the basics in university.
I had to read the same books as you, lots of original research articles and then sit and let it all percolate through my coaching experience.
Another excellent resource book is the Blackwell Scientific IOC series and the Endurance in Sport book in particular or the Power in Sport book.
Check out [url]http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/SeriesBySeries.asp?series=ESM&SearchOrd=Rank&type=series&show=Sseries&subj=XW&site=21[/url]
Alan
#33 Thu, 06/23/2005 - 2:20pm