Ranger - News To Shock

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you seem to keep trying to make excuses for less than expected performances </td></tr></table><br /><br /> <br /><br />expected? by whom? on what basis?<br /><br />You're living on Mars.<br /><br />ranger<br /><br />

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you have set 'x' number of WR and your the fastest for your age and weight etc, so that hardly makes you a novice in any way shape or form. </td></tr></table><br /><br />A novice is someone new to a sport. Being a novice has nothing to do with levels of achievement. <br /><br />I have just now learned to row with proper technique. <br /><br />Someone like Mike Caviston has been rowing, both indoor and outdoor, since he was 18, for 27 years. He is a rowing trainer--professionally. Many indoor rowing WR holders are Olympic-level OTW waters, if not gold medal winners.<br /><br />I have never raced on the water. I have never been on a rowing team. I have never had a coach. I took up rowing when I was 50 years old. Before that, I had never even been on a rowing machine, much less in a boat. I didn't get in a boat until I was 53, a couple of years ago.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] Alan Maddocks]

Just a quick correction regarding Lydiard for Mr. 135 ....<br /><br />Lydiard's base training period (usually 12-14 weeks) involved 1 long run of 2 hrs. plus (typically 22 miles over very demanding terrain) and 2-3 runs per week of 1.5 hours (typically 15-16 miles). No run was shorter than 60 minutes. These runs were at a "good" aerobic pace. In addition, his athletes were advised to "jog" for a minimum of 45 minutes each day as a second session to help recovery. Basically 90-100 miles per week excluding the easier daily session. All of this is documented in his books.

[[old] hjs]

<!--QuoteBegin-Alan Maddocks+Dec 21 2005, 11:15 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Alan Maddocks @ Dec 21 2005, 11:15 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Just a quick correction regarding Lydiard for Mr. 135 ....<br /><br />Lydiard's base training period (usually 12-14 weeks) involved 1 long run of 2 hrs. plus (typically 22 miles over very demanding terrain) and 2-3 runs per week of 1.5 hours (typically 15-16 miles). No run was shorter than 60 minutes. These runs were at a "good" aerobic pace. In addition, his athletes were advised to "jog" for a minimum of 45 minutes each day as a second session to help recovery. Basically 90-100 miles per week excluding the easier daily session. All of this is documented in his books. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Alhough 100% true, those methods are not used anymore these days, there are better ways to train we niw know. The times nowedays ran are quit a bit better than during the Lidiard days. So in that way ranger is looking in the wrong direction. <br />

[[old] Alan Maddocks]

hjs,<br /><br />Quite the reverse!!<br /><br />Times of UK & USA distance runners have DECLINED since the 1970's and 1980's as more 'scientific' training programmes have been adopted.<br /><br />The most notable UK / USA exception is Paula Radcliffe who regularly logs 120 to 140 miles per week including long runs of 18-22 miles.<br /><br />The Africans (Ethipiopians & Kenyans) also log considerable mileage, often training, in the case of the Kenyans, three times per day.<br /><br />Please, please do get your facts correct! <br /><br />Alan.

[[old] hjs]

<!--QuoteBegin-Alan Maddocks+Dec 21 2005, 02:00 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Alan Maddocks @ Dec 21 2005, 02:00 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hjs,<br /><br />Quite the reverse!!<br /><br />Times of UK & USA distance runners have DECLINED since the 1970's and 1980's as more 'scientific' training programmes have been adopted.<br /><br />The most notable UK / USA exception is Paula Radcliffe who regularly logs 120 to 140 miles per week including long runs of 18-22 miles.<br /><br />The Africans (Ethipiopians & Kenyans) also log considerable mileage, often training, in the case of the Kenyans, three times per day.<br /><br />Please, please do get your facts correct! <br /><br />Alan. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Hallo alan,<br /><br />Me being an european I am not only looking at us results but at the overal results. I think the us/uk is an other thing/problem. Look around, people over there eat on an average way to much <br /><br />The results overal nowedays are much better than during the 70/80 's.<br /><br />Paula is a great marathonrunner. A very good 10 k runnner. But for the shorter distances her talents and way of training are not worldclass. <br />For the shorter distances are other ways off training nessecary, not just the long slow distancerunning. <br />And yes the afrika's make lots off K but not very slow. <br />

[[old] Alan Maddocks]

hjs,<br /><br />European standards in distance running have also declined.<br /><br />How many European male athletes ran sub 28 minutes last year for 10K? <br />Very few!! Sub 28 was commonplace in the 1970's when athletes trained by running large volumes (& we are not talking about running the miles slowly!). <br /><br />As for Paula Radcliffe, an 8-22 (3K) and 14.31 (5K) ARE World class times.<br /><br />Let's look at Rowing ......<br /><br />Which nation won 4 Gold medals at the 2005 World Cup / Championships?<br />New Zealand (with a population of 4 million!)<br /><br />How do they train?<br />By regularly logging 250,000 metres per week!<br /><br />Maybe, Ranger's not doing enough distance work?!? <br /><br />Positively makes

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Maybe, Ranger's not doing enough distance work?!? </td></tr></table><br /><br />Good point.<br /><br />I am doing a lot of distance work, but to improve my rowing, I admit that I could be doing it more productively on the erg than on the stepper, etc. To this point, I am just using the cross-training as a fitness base until I have enough experience and sport-specific training in rowing to do all of the work on the erg or in my boat. And I think I am approaching that point very quickly, if I am not there already. If I had done all of the work I have been doing on the erg, rather than spreading it around among erging and various modes of cross-training (sit ups, skipping, running, stepping, biking, swimming, etc.), I would have easily been doing 250,000m a week of quality rowing. To this point, I just haven't had the rowing skills and experience I have needed to do this. Now I have.<br /><br />This is not to say that the cross-training is dispensable, etc., for me now, or for anyone else who wants to do their best but doesn't do enormous daily distances of quality rowing on the erg or in a boat. It is just to recognize that there is indeed an advantage to working on sport-specific skills, capacities, etc., whenever possible, as opposed to just some of the time.<br /><br />This is also not to say that the enormous daily distances of rowing that should be done if you want to do your best can be just junk. It can't. In fact, it seems to me that, at all times, the large quantity of rowing that need to be done in order to get the best results has to be metriculously free from junk, if not meticulously directed toward specific improvements and therefore always of superior quality (i.e., the rowing equivalent of something like the stepping for 2 hours at 300 watts that I have been doing in my cross-training). <br /><br />This is the rub, I think. While many rowers can and do log many daily meters, very few, it seems, can do marathon and ultamarathon bouts of _quality- meters per day. For this, you need _both_ a large fitness base, perhaps imported from elsewhere, and long experience with the specific muscular, cardiovascular, technical, and psychological demands of the sport as it is done at the highest level.<br /><br />Or so it seems to me.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 20 2005, 01:07 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 20 2005, 01:07 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It's either continuous or it's not, no qulaifiers required. </td></tr></table><br /><br />If you do 3-4K or 6K or even 2K before taking a 15 second breather, it's a different matter. That's getting pretty continuous. If, when rowing, I am going at 1:52 @ 17 spm but end up averaging 2:00 pace for 15K, I take about 4 minutes rest not 64 minutes! That's a little breather every couple of Ks. The breathers don't have to be structured, though. They can just be taken at will. The rowing is "free". <br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Ah, so now it is becoming clear, you row 15k in 1 hour (2:00 Pace), but do it in varying "intervals", supposedly at a 1:52 pace, and coast for a rest every so often, based on something that you have not eluded to. This sounds a lot like a golfer that ignores his "duffs" while scoring. (Unfortunately the duffs, and even the wiffs count.)<br /><br />Or example, the person that stayed on the 1:52 for the entire hour would finish 1070m ahead of you, not exactly trivial in a sport where 5m is a "clear margin".<br /><br />How about you just do 5 x 3k x 1 min rest at 1:52 R17 to really find out what you are doing, instead of what appears to be naive speculation? Then you can call it what it is, "some intervals", rather than "rowing for an hour at 1:52 R17", which are two entirely different things.

[[old] NavigationHazard]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Dec 20 2005, 11:18 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 20 2005, 11:18 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->At 220 pounds I would likely have the 50+ record for hwt's.<br /><br />But I don't want to get out of shape and weigh that much....<br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />What new casuistry has led you to this remarkable conclusion?<br /><br />You do realize you're claiming that at an out-of-shape 220 lbs at the age of 59, you'd be faster than Andy Ripley was at an in shape 249 lbs at the age of 50?<br /><br />Let's try some allometric scaling to see what you're up against. We'll use the formula: (VO2max in ml)/((mass in kg)^2/3).<br /><br />First let's estimate your VO2max from your 2k time, according to the formula VO2max in ml = 2k average watts * 14.4 + 65. Your 7:24 2k yields a VO2max of 3750.2 ml.<br /><br />Dividing that by your mass in kg^2/3, i.e. 65^2/3, we get a scaled figure of 228.<br /><br />Now the talented Mr. Ripley. His 2k record of 6:07.7 yields an estimated VO2max of 6559.4 ml. Dividing that by his mass in kg^2/3, i.e. 112^2/3, we get a scaled figure of 276.<br /><br />In other words, for your weight you have considerably less oxygen-processing capacity at the age of 59 than Ripley did at his weight at 50. (Parenthetically, the oldest 2k time I can find for you in the rankings is a 7:25.8 at the age of 56. Thus it seems appropriate to use your current PB to make the comparison.)<br /><br />Let me make the implication simple. You're not as fit as Andy Ripley was.<br /><br />Now what I'd like to know is this. Since you'd be starting from a comparatively less efficient base, even if you magically increased your body mass to Riplyesque proportions while somehow maintaining the relative fitness level you have at present, what makes you think you'd be faster than him? <br />

[[old] PaulS]

NH,<br /><br /><span style='color:red'><span style='font-size:14pt;line-height:100%'>No matter how fast John is, no one is faster! </span></span><br />(As long as you yadda yadda, dirka dirka, general gobblygook, ala kahzaam, abra kahdabrah...... Presto! "PATT")<br /><br />See?

[[old] hjs]

<!--QuoteBegin-Alan Maddocks+Dec 21 2005, 02:46 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Alan Maddocks @ Dec 21 2005, 02:46 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->hjs,<br /><br />European standards in distance running have also declined.<br /><br />How many European male athletes ran sub 28 minutes last year for 10K? <br />Very few!! Sub 28 was commonplace in the 1970's when athletes trained by running large volumes (& we are not talking about running the miles slowly!). <br /><br />As for Paula Radcliffe, an 8-22 (3K) and 14.31 (5K) ARE World class times.<br /><br />Let's look at Rowing ......<br /><br />Which nation won 4 Gold medals at the 2005 World Cup / Championships?<br />New Zealand (with a population of 4 million!)<br /><br />How do they train?<br />By regularly logging 250,000 metres per week!<br /><br />Maybe, Ranger's not doing enough distance work?!?  <br /><br />Positively makes <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />You are right about the decline in west europa to. The problem is the same over here as in the us. People eat to much and don't use there body enough in normal life. So the average person is a lot less fit nowedays, this is a great disadvantice I think.<br /><br />about Paula we disagree. She is fantastic but not on the shorter stuff 1500/5 k. That's also very good but not worldclass. She simply not made for that. <br /><br />about rowing.<br /><br />It,s a small sport not many people do it so 4 mil. is enough to find topclass talents. Most talent is not used anyway

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 21 2005, 01:35 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 21 2005, 01:35 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->you have set 'x' number of WR and your the fastest for your age and weight etc, so that hardly makes you a novice in any way shape or form. </td></tr></table><br /><br />A novice is someone new to a sport. Being a novice has nothing to do with levels of achievement. <br /><br />I have just now learned to row with proper technique. <br /><br />Someone like Mike Caviston has been rowing, both indoor and outdoor, since he was 18, for 27 years. He is a rowing trainer--professionally. Many indoor rowing WR holders are Olympic-level OTW waters, if not gold medal winners.<br /><br />I have never raced on the water. I have never been on a rowing team. I have never had a coach. I took up rowing when I was 50 years old. Before that, I had never even been on a rowing machine, much less in a boat. I didn't get in a boat until I was 53, a couple of years ago.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />That's the point, you are not new anymore, anything after the first year is not considered "novice" in Rowing and probably many other sports. That said, most will continue to learn throughout their entire life in rowing, of course you have called your technique "perfect" so even that may be over for you.

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->That's the point, you are not new anymore, anything after the first year is not considered "novice" in Rowing and probably many other sports. That said, most will continue to learn throughout their entire life in rowing, of course you have called your technique "perfect" so even that may be over for you. </td></tr></table><br /><br />My technique is now fine for the erg. My technique in a boat is something else entirely.<br /><br />If we are talking about rowing well beyond (former) WR levels, etc., I am certainly a novice at rowing, in spite of how many years I might have been erging. Using the erg as an exercise machine is not really rowing.<br /><br />I have never raced on the water. I have never even trained to race on the water. I have only rowed on the water two short seasons, and even so, irregularly, with only a mild effort, and with a large mix of erging (and other exercising) in my training instead of an exclusive focus on rowing.<br /><br />I have just mastered standard OTW technique in my rowing for the erg and therefore have just gotten full access to some of the most important modes of sport-specific training (long low spm rowing, etc.).<br /><br />And so forth. <br /><br />I am not talking about lifetime learning here. I am talking about learning the basics. I have just learned the basics.<br /><br />Isn't a rower considered a novice until they have raced one season on the water?<br /><br />If so, I am not anywhere near having lost my novice status.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 21 2005, 01:35 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 21 2005, 01:35 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I have just now learned to row with proper technique.[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />If it works..... Rich will soon be rowing a marathon with this new stroke...... and maybe...... a 6:16 for the 2k..... currently rowing 1:52 pace, with breaks....... stay tuned! ..... this won't take long......... results are coming very shortly! ........ everything is coming into place now......... this will all be happening within the coming weeks...... this is for sure! <br /><br /> <br />