- This topic has 2 voices and 2 replies.
-
Posts
-
Kiefer,I was hoping to get a bit of input on this scenario. In the 1960's or so the Eastern Bloc rowing programs started to see a surge in success compared to the Western countries (in particular over the US and UK). From 1920-1956 the US won every heavyweight 8+ medal with 1960 being the first loss. Some have suggested that this was a time period where the Eastern Bloc began anabolic usage in some of their olympic program and this is why they had success over us (may be true but I'm considering that just an excuse at this point) where others pointed to a change in training. It was said that the Russians used to row out past the point and not return for around 2 hours, no one knew what they did. Later on it was found they were doing high volumes of utilization work CAT IV and V mainly or (UT2/1 depending on the system of rating exertion). I know in recent times studies have espoused that VO2 max is the largest indicator for rowers performance and that large amounts of CAT IV/V work are one of the best ways to perform that, yet I cannot help but think about the specificity of it and in turn question that model of training for rowers. Since the competition distance is 2,000 meters - is it arguable that high levels (15-20k rows) is simply overkill or not having high correlation to the actual competitive distance? Would higher AT levels versus VO2 Max yield better results in upper tier collegiate/elite level rowers?Again any thoughts and input would be greatly appreciated.LM
To increase the chance of getting an answer to this I would shorten your question a bit and post it on the next biojacked thread. Kiefer rarely comments here on the forum. :/
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.