Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Stick to training related posts.

Moderators: Dux, seeahill

User avatar
powerlifter54
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7937
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:46 pm
Location: TX

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by powerlifter54 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 8:39 pm

Blaidd Drwg wrote:
For me and my next cycle, it's going to be all about hitting high percentage lifts in this fashion. Most of my planning for each block is based around consistent benchmarks/metrics like.

Things like raise top belt-less warm squat from 405 to 455.

Then the next block, raise the 8-10 rep maxes (reps work for me, don't judge) and top warm up sets at or near former opener weights. Hitting 585 as top warm up pull etc...

Then the next block, work towards handling 2nd attempt weights to PR weights for doubles and triples. This is all old school stuff but it focuses my attention on measuring towards to goal of handling high percentage lifts in training easily and repeatably.

I think for me, the way to be consistent and focused is to move the chains in these small ways.
When my no/no/no atc raw squat triple went up, so did everything including my DL. When i was in college my top set of 8 standing on a board DLs(very RDC training btw) were my go to and worked until they didn't anymore. In my 40s DL off a board or plate still worked but went to triples. Stole 10% drop set from Pavel PTTP but did it 3x3. Sometimes dropping twice but often just once. Playing with more weight and chains for 2-3 extra sets of 2 on DE squat day helped. Never would push beyond what made the bar speed drop. Knowing what i know now i would only have added chains. Chains are accommodating resistance but do not mess with your recovery near as much as band tension that moves toward circa max levels. I used blues for DE day but Blue/Green++ for CM.

Get the work in and be able to lift pretty big weights with just focus, not psyche. Then meet day is a breeze.
"Start slowly, then ease off". Tortuga Golden Striders Running Club, Pensacola 1984.

"But even snake wrestling beats life in the cube, for me at least. In measured doses."-Lex

User avatar
Bobby
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5549
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 7:41 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by Bobby » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:46 pm

WildGorillaMan wrote:
Bobby wrote:
Holland Oates wrote:
powerlifter54 wrote:. . . And that all happens because you do lots of workmanlike, unpsyched workouts. Paying your dues. Biding your time. . . .
This approach has been the best thing I've gotten out my training the past 5 or 6 years.
But why does it take us so long to understand this?
Good judgement comes from experience. Experience comes from bad judgement.
And isn`t that the truth! Better to do a little everyday and raise your baseline (a bit like the Dunn monster) a bit at a time.
You`ll toughen up.Unless you have a serious medical condition commonly refered to as
"being a pussy".

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6635
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by Sangoma » Thu Nov 10, 2016 7:30 am

Next big question for me is - how to incorporate aerobic conditioning into training. My stationary bike rides definitely affect my flimsy lifting. Maybe I am not doing enough of it, but I am perplexed.
Image

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by dead man walking » Thu Nov 10, 2016 12:54 pm

Sangoma wrote:Next big question for me is - how to incorporate aerobic conditioning into training. My stationary bike rides definitely affect my flimsy lifting. Maybe I am not doing enough of it, but I am perplexed.
how much do you do?
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar
WildGorillaMan
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 9951
Joined: Wed Jan 07, 2009 9:01 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by WildGorillaMan » Thu Nov 10, 2016 2:02 pm

dead man walking wrote:
Sangoma wrote:Next big question for me is - how to incorporate aerobic conditioning into training. My stationary bike rides definitely affect my flimsy lifting. Maybe I am not doing enough of it, but I am perplexed.
how much do you do?
I was just about to ask.

If your cardio leaves you too thrashed to lift, or your lifting leaves you too thrashed for cardio then balance is lacking.

Either that or you seriously need to take your drug regimen to the next level.
Image
You'll Hurt Your Back

basically I'm Raoul Duke trying to fit into a Philip K. Dick movie remake.

User avatar
SubClaw
Top
Posts: 1744
Joined: Sun Dec 25, 2011 5:01 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by SubClaw » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:00 pm

Sangoma wrote:Next big question for me is - how to incorporate aerobic conditioning into training. My stationary bike rides definitely affect my flimsy lifting. Maybe I am not doing enough of it, but I am perplexed.
I know I've already told you this, but... Why don't you give it a try and train like Dunn, Mickey O'Neil or Holland Oates? At least for a while and then decide how your body feels and how much you have improved.

Just saying...

User avatar
powerlifter54
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 7937
Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:46 pm
Location: TX

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by powerlifter54 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 3:11 pm

Don't do any hard cardio the day before or the before you lift. Like anything else you have to build up and adapt.
"Start slowly, then ease off". Tortuga Golden Striders Running Club, Pensacola 1984.

"But even snake wrestling beats life in the cube, for me at least. In measured doses."-Lex

climber511
Gunny
Posts: 961
Joined: Fri Jul 31, 2009 9:59 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by climber511 » Thu Nov 10, 2016 4:18 pm

Is your cardio for general health or competition of some sort? If for health buy a HR Monitor and stay in Zone 1 - which should not exhaust you (or even tire you too much) if done in any kind of moderation. If you're doing it in preparation for something specific things might have to be different but laying a long base period of Zone 1 down is still important.

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19089
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Thu Nov 10, 2016 10:23 pm

climber511 wrote:Is your cardio for general health or competition of some sort? If for health buy a HR Monitor and stay in Zone 1 - which should not exhaust you (or even tire you too much) if done in any kind of moderation. If you're doing it in preparation for something specific things might have to be different but laying a long base period of Zone 1 down is still important.
Er'rybody wanna be IGX until it's tme do boring ass ZONE 1. But zone 1 and 2 are your best friends for health
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

aussie luke
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 12:56 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by aussie luke » Fri Nov 11, 2016 3:27 am

Rowing FT mutherfuckin W

User avatar
Shafpocalypse Now
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21109
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:26 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by Shafpocalypse Now » Fri Nov 11, 2016 3:40 am

One and a half boring ass hours is your buy in here per week. . Starting Pete beginner plan tomorrow so can just follow it.

aussie luke
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 12:56 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by aussie luke » Fri Nov 11, 2016 3:52 am

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:One and a half boring ass hours is your buy in here per week. . Starting Pete beginner plan tomorrow so can just follow it.
for pure cardio gainz IMO you'd be better off just doing 30-60 minute pieces at low rate (18-22), low drag factor and low HR

In fact I found breaking it down into 20 minute chunks better. 2, 3 or 4 x 20 mintues with enough rest between to stand up, drink water, dry off, stretch and get back on for another 20'

put a boring movie on with subtitles, keep your eye on technique, stroke rate and heart rate, and forget about how many metres. Also found using the watts screen instead of pace more useful.

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6635
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by Sangoma » Fri Nov 11, 2016 4:44 am

To be frank, my last post was the result of coming back to biking after a long break, and the way I felt the next day probably wasn't diagnostic of the systematic effect. I am going to build up the cardio to half hour to an hour twice a week. Will give it couple of weeks to see what it does to me.
Image

User avatar
Cayenne
Top
Posts: 1129
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 3:20 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by Cayenne » Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:59 am

aussie luke wrote:
Shafpocalypse Now wrote:One and a half boring ass hours is your buy in here per week. . Starting Pete beginner plan tomorrow so can just follow it.
for pure cardio gainz IMO you'd be better off just doing 30-60 minute pieces at low rate (18-22), low drag factor and low HR

In fact I found breaking it down into 20 minute chunks better. 2, 3 or 4 x 20 mintues with enough rest between to stand up, drink water, dry off, stretch and get back on for another 20'

put a boring movie on with subtitles, keep your eye on technique, stroke rate and heart rate, and forget about how many metres. Also found using the watts screen instead of pace more useful.
Hello Luke - Can you please elaborate on the last sentence of your post that I made bold and underlined? (i.e., why & how of watt preference.) TIA

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by dead man walking » Fri Nov 11, 2016 1:38 pm

Sangoma wrote:To be frank, my last post was the result of coming back to biking after a long break, and the way I felt the next day probably wasn't diagnostic of the systematic effect. I am going to build up the cardio to half hour to an hour twice a week. Will give it couple of weeks to see what it does to me.
is 2 x 1/2 hour enough? or even 2 x1 hour.

twice a week seems shy of what's needed.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

aussie luke
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 12:56 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by aussie luke » Fri Nov 11, 2016 1:39 pm

Cayenne, no problem...

So the C2 measures watts, and then converts the watts using algorithms to show pace as minutes/500m split. It's not a linear thing, so (slightly rounded) 100w = 2:30 pace, 200w = 2:00 pace, 300w = 1:45 pace, 400w = 1:35.

Therefore for one thing, it is much easier to work at percentages of watts than pace. Eg the most basic form of finding a steady state pace to work at is to use 50-60% of your 2k watts. I'll use myself as an example:

Until recently my best 2000m time was 7:10, which is a 1:47.5 split, or 282w

50% of that is 141w, 60% is 169w

So I would do my steady state work at 150w, 19 SPM for 3 x 20 minutes and see how my HR corresponded over a few workouts.

Then I upped it to 155w for a few workouts.

Then 160w for a few sessions.

After a short while it was easy to see how a very small change in watts can drastically change the HR. But you can also easily see from one workout to the next, how HR can vary at the exact same watts, due to other factors such as room temp, air flow, hydration, sleep, time of day etc.

So after a bit of experimentation I decided to ditch the HR monitor and just row at my chosen watts, knowing my HR would be within range, and I hadn't no real desire to pull any harder or go any faster.

If you use the watts display instead of pace you have an accurate number to hit and learning how to hit the same exact watts stroke after stroke is great for technique.

Watching the pace display as most would do just has the horrible effect of making you want to go faster and you really have to fight yourself to stick to the chosen pace. Watts just don't have that same effect as the numbers without the conversion are kind've meaningless.

And more recently after a six eeek cycle on the Pete Plan I got a 6:57 2k, which now gives me a whole new range of watt targets to base my steady work on.

JohnDoe
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 278
Joined: Fri Sep 13, 2013 6:35 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by JohnDoe » Fri Nov 11, 2016 2:16 pm

aussie luke wrote:Cayenne, no problem...

So the C2 measures watts, and then converts the watts using algorithms to show pace as minutes/500m split. It's not a linear thing, so (slightly rounded) 100w = 2:30 pace, 200w = 2:00 pace, 300w = 1:45 pace, 400w = 1:35.

Therefore for one thing, it is much easier to work at percentages of watts than pace. Eg the most basic form of finding a steady state pace to work at is to use 50-60% of your 2k watts. I'll use myself as an example:

Until recently my best 2000m time was 7:10, which is a 1:47.5 split, or 282w

50% of that is 141w, 60% is 169w

So I would do my steady state work at 150w, 19 SPM for 3 x 20 minutes and see how my HR corresponded over a few workouts.

Then I upped it to 155w for a few workouts.

Then 160w for a few sessions.

After a short while it was easy to see how a very small change in watts can drastically change the HR. But you can also easily see from one workout to the next, how HR can vary at the exact same watts, due to other factors such as room temp, air flow, hydration, sleep, time of day etc.

So after a bit of experimentation I decided to ditch the HR monitor and just row at my chosen watts, knowing my HR would be within range, and I hadn't no real desire to pull any harder or go any faster.

If you use the watts display instead of pace you have an accurate number to hit and learning how to hit the same exact watts stroke after stroke is great for technique.

Watching the pace display as most would do just has the horrible effect of making you want to go faster and you really have to fight yourself to stick to the chosen pace. Watts just don't have that same effect as the numbers without the conversion are kind've meaningless.

And more recently after a six eeek cycle on the Pete Plan I got a 6:57 2k, which now gives me a whole new range of watt targets to base my steady work on.
Yup. Watts is just more subtle than the split. Too many rowers train with the split and fall into exactly the same trap Luke describes- odd, since they're just different units of the same thing. Watts also offers good feedback on 'free speed'- by which I mean technical changes that show up in watts more so than the split. Changes in handle height, timing, whatever. Most people just go too hard. Rowing New Zealand (they're good) has this spreadsheet on their website. It's pretty solid for most. Just enter in your 2k and you'll get training bands for everything- not quite taking a lactate test, but pretty good.
Attachments
Split Converter for Erg Training.xls
(39 KiB) Downloaded 211 times

aussie luke
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 12:56 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by aussie luke » Fri Nov 11, 2016 4:01 pm

JohnDoe wrote:
aussie luke wrote:Cayenne, no problem...

So the C2 measures watts, and then converts the watts using algorithms to show pace as minutes/500m split. It's not a linear thing, so (slightly rounded) 100w = 2:30 pace, 200w = 2:00 pace, 300w = 1:45 pace, 400w = 1:35.

Therefore for one thing, it is much easier to work at percentages of watts than pace. Eg the most basic form of finding a steady state pace to work at is to use 50-60% of your 2k watts. I'll use myself as an example:

Until recently my best 2000m time was 7:10, which is a 1:47.5 split, or 282w

50% of that is 141w, 60% is 169w

So I would do my steady state work at 150w, 19 SPM for 3 x 20 minutes and see how my HR corresponded over a few workouts.

Then I upped it to 155w for a few workouts.

Then 160w for a few sessions.

After a short while it was easy to see how a very small change in watts can drastically change the HR. But you can also easily see from one workout to the next, how HR can vary at the exact same watts, due to other factors such as room temp, air flow, hydration, sleep, time of day etc.

So after a bit of experimentation I decided to ditch the HR monitor and just row at my chosen watts, knowing my HR would be within range, and I hadn't no real desire to pull any harder or go any faster.

If you use the watts display instead of pace you have an accurate number to hit and learning how to hit the same exact watts stroke after stroke is great for technique.

Watching the pace display as most would do just has the horrible effect of making you want to go faster and you really have to fight yourself to stick to the chosen pace. Watts just don't have that same effect as the numbers without the conversion are kind've meaningless.

And more recently after a six eeek cycle on the Pete Plan I got a 6:57 2k, which now gives me a whole new range of watt targets to base my steady work on.
Yup. Watts is just more subtle than the split. Too many rowers train with the split and fall into exactly the same trap Luke describes- odd, since they're just different units of the same thing. Watts also offers good feedback on 'free speed'- by which I mean technical changes that show up in watts more so than the split. Changes in handle height, timing, whatever. Most people just go too hard. Rowing New Zealand (they're good) has this spreadsheet on their website. It's pretty solid for most. Just enter in your 2k and you'll get training bands for everything- not quite taking a lactate test, but pretty good.
Shit that's and awesome spreadsheet, thanks!

In all the reading and trawling I've done regarding HR vs watts vs lactate etc I've never found a simple calculator like that.

I'm currently doing a basic no-plan plan of just doing 30 minute pieces as many days a week as I can (while going through some busy stressful life shit), so I've been trying to stay in a UT1 sort of zone instead of UT2, which I assumed was for me around 1:55 on a hard day to 2:04 on an easy day, which according to that sheet is about bang on compared to my 2k

Thanks!

dkay
Sarge
Posts: 188
Joined: Sat Jul 10, 2010 1:44 am

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by dkay » Fri Nov 11, 2016 10:54 pm

Guys, what is the perceived rate of exertion for your LSD when you follow this "really really low (heart rate) and slow"? Realizing that everybody has different levels of fitness, are we talking walking pace, jogging a 40 min 5 k, a 4 hr marathon? I understand the concept of training too much in the middle ground, but I guess I don't understand how "slow" is "slow".

aussie luke
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 12:56 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by aussie luke » Fri Nov 11, 2016 11:15 pm

dkay wrote:Guys, what is the perceived rate of exertion for your LSD when you follow this "really really low (heart rate) and slow"? Realizing that everybody has different levels of fitness, are we talking walking pace, jogging a 40 min 5 k, a 4 hr marathon? I understand the concept of training too much in the middle ground, but I guess I don't understand how "slow" is "slow".
Conversation pace.

If you were running with a friend you could have a conversation in sentences, not single words and grunts

Also for me it is almost instant recover afterwards - get back from a run or off the rower after an hour, have a shower and feel fine. If you feel rough/sick/exhausted for an hour after you probably went above your aerobic level.

Croatoa
Top
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Sep 14, 2008 11:26 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by Croatoa » Sat Nov 12, 2016 1:35 am

dkay wrote:Guys, what is the perceived rate of exertion for your LSD when you follow this "really really low (heart rate) and slow"? Realizing that everybody has different levels of fitness, are we talking walking pace, jogging a 40 min 5 k, a 4 hr marathon? I understand the concept of training too much in the middle ground, but I guess I don't understand how "slow" is "slow".
Yes. Which was low 100's BPM for me. I actually really had to force myself to keep it that low.

These sessions were boring at first but definitely produced that 'runners high' effect enough for me to start actually looking forward to doing it. If you are struggling to recover from this or its affecting your other training then you're most likely going too hard.
Image

Blaidd Drwg
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 19089
Joined: Wed Nov 01, 2006 5:39 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by Blaidd Drwg » Sat Nov 12, 2016 3:06 am

For me zone 2 starts at right around 120BPM. I can talk but I get slightly breathless doing so.
"He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that." JS Mill

aussie luke
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 12:56 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by aussie luke » Sat Nov 12, 2016 5:11 am

Also find nose only breathing works very well for running to keep you within that aerobic zone.

The breathing/talking thing is a bit different for rowing because you're compressing your entire body down at the catch.

User avatar
Shafpocalypse Now
Lifetime IGer
Posts: 21109
Joined: Fri Feb 04, 2005 11:26 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by Shafpocalypse Now » Sat Nov 12, 2016 2:48 pm

That's higher for me...like 140ish or so is where I start to want to mouth breath and get difficulty talking.

aussie luke
Staff Sergeant
Posts: 381
Joined: Fri Dec 27, 2013 12:56 pm

Re: Joel Jamieson article How Conditioning May Save Your Life

Post by aussie luke » Sat Nov 12, 2016 4:25 pm

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:That's higher for me...like 140ish or so is where I start to want to mouth breath and get difficulty talking.
Unless you're like 80 or something then around 140 is probably right where you want to be to be within your aerobic zone.

All the crazy % based heart rate zones, heart rate reserve zones and all the rest generally seem to line up pretty bloody closely to the basic MAF formula: 180 - age. If already fit add 5. If really unfit minus another 5. If recovering from major injury or surgery minus another 5.

I've found nose breathing works well as a guide, but if you do it a lot you can get more efficient at it and eventually probably keep it going into a higher HR zone. But it's good to get a feel for what is an easy pace and what isn't.

Post Reply