Ranger - News To Shock

[old] onethirtyfive · Post by **[old] onethirtyfive** » December 22nd, 2005, 8:24 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 23 2005, 12:28 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>For the next week or so, I'll be doing double sessions, the first one in the morning at 1:36 @ 28-30 spm and 12.5-13 SPI, ......<br />ranger<br /><br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Thanks for the detailed response its great So how long will your intervals / duration be at 1:36. I assume you are not talking about just doing fartlek sessions with an overall average of 2:00 <br /><br />cheers<br />

[old] onethirtyfive · Post by **[old] onethirtyfive** » December 22nd, 2005, 8:26 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 23 2005, 12:35 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(onethirtyfive @ Dec 22 2005, 03:33 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Hi Ranger,<br /><br />couple of days to Christmas. Are you now a lightweight as you predicted you would be?<br /><br /> <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I haven't been weighing myself yet, but my weight is _very_ good. I ground off any excess on the stepper over the last couple of weeks. I don't have access to a stepper now (the university has shut down its services) but I will resume my stepping after the New Year to finish the job, if need be. The quantity of work I can do on the stepper (without damage) allows me to adjust my weight at will, once I am in the general vicinity of 165 lbs. I step for 2000-2500 calories a session. That's half a pound of fat. If I step every day, I can lose 3-4 pounds a week, if I just eat normally. <br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Great news, so there will be no trouble with making weight by Jan 21st

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 22nd, 2005, 8:28 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 22 2005, 03:35 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I haven't been weighing myself yet, but my weight is _very_ good. [right] </td></tr></table><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(onethirtyfive @ Dec 22 2005, 04:26 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Great news, so there will be no trouble with making weight by Jan 21st [right] </td></tr></table><br />As long as they aren't using a scale.

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » December 22nd, 2005, 11:24 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 22 2005, 09:37 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><b>Again, my situation at the moment is not a normal one</b>. I have fully developed power, aerobic capacity, anaerobic capacity, endurance, leverage, strength, quickness etc., and I am trying to slip a new technical foundation under this superstructure. <b>This is a trick!</b><br /><br />A good parallel, I suppose, would be a world record holding high jumper who tried switch from doing a western roll to doing the Fosbury (sp?) flop. The jumping ability is there, but the task of getting over the bar changes <b>pretty radically.</b><br /><b><br />I am just trying to be patient as I make this switch.</b><br /><br />ranger<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />There is always a 'qualifier' with you isnt there Ranger, there is always something that is not quite right, is more difficult than what anyone else has to do or face .... "my times are amazing_my potential beyond the norms_I am a novice and a freak_I may just break the Hw record as well_watch this space" ... then there is a but, but, but. Always a way out if you dont quite live up to expectation or front.<br /><br />Its pretty sad really, so much potential coupled with so much doubt .... never really willing to commit to anything and take the consequences.<br /><br />Look at your attitude to Graeme Watt taking your record, "yes he did beat me but I would just like to remind everyone 20 or so times that he was younger than me yadayadayada, I am still the fastest for my age" ... it is sad.<br /><br />I guess even tho he beat me twice last year (2004) it doesnt really count as I was a novice and Hwt and younger .... so I was at a huge disadvantage. We cant really be measured till we are the exact same age and weight and experience - what a load of crap. He beat me because he was faster, fitter, and stronger, I have no excuses but I do have a choice. I can leave it that way or get bigger, fitter, and stronger and kick his arse with luck next time we meet_or_not <br /><br />George

[old] george nz · Post by **[old] george nz** » December 22nd, 2005, 11:25 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 23 2005, 01:28 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 22 2005, 03:35 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I haven't been weighing myself yet, but my weight is _very_ good. [right] </td></tr></table><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(onethirtyfive @ Dec 22 2005, 04:26 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Great news, so there will be no trouble with making weight by Jan 21st [right] </td></tr></table><br />As long as they aren't using a scale. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />that measures continuously

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 23rd, 2005, 3:52 am

<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'>Great news, so there will be no trouble with making weight by Jan 21st </td></tr></table><br /><br />Agreed. I don't think there will be any problem. I have never failed a weigh-in. I am now very experienced at making weight. I have it down to a system. I now just do the same thing each time. The routine works.<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 23rd, 2005, 3:54 am

<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'>We cant really be measured till we are the exact same age and weight and experience </td></tr></table><br /><br />True. I am glad we agree. <br /><br />Then again, if I row 6:24 (or under) over the next year or so, this, even though indeed true, won't matter either, I guess.<br /><br /> <br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 23rd, 2005, 3:58 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(onethirtyfive @ Dec 22 2005, 07:24 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 23 2005, 12:28 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>For the next week or so, I'll be doing double sessions, the first one in the morning at 1:36 @ 28-30 spm and 12.5-13 SPI, ......<br />ranger<br /><br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Thanks for the detailed response its great So how long will your intervals / duration be at 1:36. I assume you are not talking about just doing fartlek sessions with an overall average of 2:00 <br /><br />cheers <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />500s, 1:36-1:38 @ 28-30 spm, 500m paddle inbetween, building to as many as 40, if I can, as I do these sessions from day to day. <br /><br />These aren't quality 500s. This is not an anaerobic workout. This is just an exercise in habituation to race pace. "Striding," as Lydiard might term it.<br /><br />ranger<br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 23rd, 2005, 5:43 am

Again,<br /><br />my situation is not a normal one<br /><br />pretty radically<br /><br />WR 2K pace (for WIRC 2006) is coming at 25 spm<br /><br />UT1?<br /><br /> <br /><br />spooky<br /><br />ranger<br /><br />P.S. At 122 df., I am just rowing right along at 1:50 @ 18 spm, no problem.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » December 23rd, 2005, 12:42 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 23 2005, 01:43 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>WR 2K pace (for WIRC 2006) is coming at 25 spm[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Perhaps Rich knows he can smash the record at 38 spm.<br /><br />So it provides no challenge to him.<br /><br />The challenge for him is to break the record at a ridiculously low rating.<br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 24th, 2005, 8:19 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 23 2005, 11:42 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 23 2005, 01:43 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>WR 2K pace (for WIRC 2006) is coming at 25 spm[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Perhaps Rich knows he can smash the record at 38 spm.<br /><br />So it provides no challenge to him.<br /><br />The challenge for him is to break the record at a ridiculously low rating. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Actually, John, I think you are probably right that the young kids usually have more aerobic power than stroking power, so on the erg, where technique and the mechanics of moving oars and the boat don't matter, they can trade rate for pace (at their given stroking power) and gain more pace (without any loss of effiiciency) than they might if they were in a 1x. <br /><br />As we get older, though, it is clear than our aerobic capacity declines, while (in my case at least) we don't lose much of our stroking power at all. Therefore, it might be argued that it is exactly for older rowers that racing on the erg and racing on the water become virtually the same. While it might indeed benefit an older rower to trade rate for pace while maintaining their stroking power, their limited aerobic power doesn't make this possible. Rather, in trading rate for pace, older rowers have to sacrifice stroking power is equal measure, gaining nothing at all, if not losing some in the process.<br /><br />For me personally, rowing at 10MPS and race pace (for me, 1:40 @ 30 spm, 1:37 @ 31 spm, 1:34 @ 32 spm, etc.), in a nice 2-to-1 ratio with good technique feels divine.<br /><br />I _wish_ I were still 20 years old and therefore could go 38 spm @ 13 SPI, but I just can't, given my age. I have the stroking power but not the aerobic capacity. No one else ever has, either.<br />That's 5:55.5, well under the open lwt WR.<br /><br />Interestingly, the Indianapolis race on Jan. 21st is going to be run with age adjustments. My age adjustment, at 54, is 30.9 seconds. 5:55.5 + 30.9 = 6:26.4<br /><br />ranger <br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 24th, 2005, 8:28 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Dec 23 2005, 11:42 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 23 2005, 01:43 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>WR 2K pace (for WIRC 2006) is coming at 25 spm[right] </td></tr></table><br /><br />Perhaps Rich knows he can smash the record at 38 spm.<br /><br />So it provides no challenge to him.<br /><br />The challenge for him is to break the record at a ridiculously low rating. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />In rowing his 6:25.8, Graham Watt did indeed row at 38 spm but at only 11 SPI and at setting 7 for drag (160-170 df.?). I would guess that Graham is no exception to what I am claiming. By upping the drag, upping the rate, and lowering his stroking power, given his age, Graham probably rows at paces far below his full potential. He sacrifices more stroking power (length, leg speed, leverage, timing, etc.) than he gains back in rate.<br /><br />I think I might eventually row 6:16 for 2K (1:34 @ 32 spm), and at a much considerably more advanced age than Watt's 6:25.8 at 50. Unless he works up more efficiency and stroking power, as I have done, by the time Watt is 55-56, he might well be rowing 6:36-6:40, if the age adjustment tables are right.<br /><br />ranger<br />

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 24th, 2005, 8:34 am

<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'>Graham Watt did indeed row at 38 spm but at only 11 SPI </td></tr></table><br /><br />Sorry. 1:36.5 @ 36 spm is only 10.3 SPI, not 11 SPI.<br /><br />At the same stroking power, 1 spm is worth about 3 seconds in a 2K.<br /><br />At the same rate, 1 SPI is worth about 10 seconds.<br /><br />2.7 SPI (13 SPI - 10.3 SPI) is worth 27 seconds.<br /><br />4 spm (36 spm - 32 spm) is worth 12 seconds.<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 24th, 2005, 9:06 am

<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'>4 spm (36 spm - 32 spm) is worth 12 seconds. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Sorry. This should read _6 spm (38 spm - 32 spm) is worth 18 seconds.<br /><br />Given his age, if Watt continues to row at high drag, trading rate for pace, as the years go by, he will certainly be able to maintain the 38 spm, but to do so, his stroking power will steadily decline. 38 spm at 10 SPI is 6:29.2, about what he rowed at WIRC last year. 38 spm @ 9.7 SPI is 6:33.2. 38 spm @ 9.5 SPI is 6:36, 38 spm @ 9.2 SPI is 6:40.<br /><br />If he continues to use this technical strategy, Watt's arc of development will closely resemble people like Rod Freed and Dennis Hastings, who row at high rates but with poor stroking power (and poor technique?). <br /><br />Freed also rows at high drag (setting 7). I don't know what drag Dennis rows at.<br /><br />ranger

[old] NavigationHazard · Post by **[old] NavigationHazard** » December 24th, 2005, 11:20 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 24 2005, 07:19 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />As we get older, though, it is clear than our aerobic capacity declines, while (in my case at least) we don't lose much of our stroking power at all. Therefore, it might be argued that it is exactly for older rowers that racing on the erg and racing on the water become virtually the same. While it might indeed benefit an older rower to trade rate for pace while maintaining their stroking power, their limited aerobic power doesn't make this possible. Rather, in trading rate for pace, older rowers have to sacrifice stroking power is equal measure, gaining nothing at all, if not losing some in the process.<br /><br />For me personally, rowing at 10MPS and race pace (for me, 1:40 @ 30 spm, 1:37 @ 31 spm, 1:34 @ 32 spm, etc.), in a nice 2-to-1 ratio with good technique feels divine.<br /><br />I _wish_ I were still 20 years old and therefore could go 38 spm @ 13 SPI, but I just can't, given my age. I have the stroking power but not the aerobic capacity. No one else ever has, either.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Can you supply some references for this?<br /><br />I'm under the strong impression that both strength and aerobic capacity start to decline with the onset of middle age, and that strength tends to decline <i>more</i> rapidly.<br /><br />Such at least is the thrust of about 50 journal articles I found on the web in 5 minutes of checking my recollection of the literature. It seems to me that the general medical consensus is not at all in doubt; the only questions are how much and how fast these secular declines tend to be, and whether anything can be done to counteract them.<br /><br />For a recent overview see Edward H. Nessel, <a href='http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/ ... i_n6210225' target='_blank'><i>The physiology of aging as it relates to sports</i></a>, AMAA Journal* (Summer 2004)<br /><br />* American Medical Athletic Association; peer reviewed publication<br /><br />My impression is that for the general population, it's generally accepted that strength tends to decline about 1.8% per year, other things equal. This apparently is a function both of the loss of fast-twitch muscle fibers (the major factor in a decline in lean muscle mass) and a loss of tensile elasticity in the tendons and ligaments that help connect the muscles to the skeleton. If true, over the course of a middle-aged decade your strength decline will look like this:<br /><br />100.0% at start<br />098.2% after 1 year<br />096.4% after 2 years<br />...<br />091.3% after 5 years<br />...<br />083.4% after 10 years<br /><br />Again, strength training combined with stretching can help slow the rate of decline. It may even reverse it, temporarily, but it can't ward off the effects of aging forever. <br /><br />It's also worth looking at Hagerman's longitudinal study of former Olympic rowers. <br /><br />Here's the abstract of his article:<br /><br />Hagerman, Fredrick C. et al., "A 20-year longitudinal study of Olympic oarsman." <i>Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise</i> 1996; 28:1150-1156. <br /><br />Abstract: <br /><br />Nine 1972 silver-medalist oarsmen were studied before the Olympic Games and 10 and 20 yr later. Peak power, metabolic responses, and heart rate were recorded during rowing ergometry; blood lactate was measured following exercise. The skinfold equation yielded percent body fat. The average change(multiple analysis of variance) among measurements from 1972 to 1992 was 37.5+/- 3% (P < 0.01). <br /><br />Average changes between 1972 and 1982 and between 1982 and 1992 were similar, 17 and 18%, respectively (P < 0.01). The most significant change between 1972 and 1992 was decreased peak blood lactate (106%). <b>Decreases in peak power, VE, and VO2 (ml/kg/min) were all similar, approximately 40%, and were significant. </b> Body fat increased (from 12.3 to 15.6%), and absolute VO2 and relative VO2 (lean body mass) decreased 30% (P < 0.01). Only body weight, heart rate, and O2 pulse showed smaller changes, but these changes were still significant (P < 0.05). <br /><br /><b>Relative peak VO2 decreased from 65.5 to 46.8 ml/kg/min from 1972 to 1992 and at a rate of 10%/decade.</b> <br /><br />The most significant changes between 1972 and 1982 were increases in percent body fat (from 12.3 to 16.3%) and decreases in VO2 values (P < 0.01). There was less change in body fat between 1982 and 1992, but lactate significantly decreased (P < 0.01), as did peak power and absolute and relative VO2 and VE. <br /><br />Although fitness levels in former elite oarsmen decreased each decade, these declines were somewhat arrested by regular aerobic training. Body fat increased and metabolic capacity decreased rapidly during the first decade, whereas anaerobic capacity decreased more significantly in the second decade. <b>Anaerobic capacity diminished at a significantly greater rate than aerobic capacity, probably as a result of the aging process and emphasis on aerobic training in post-competitive years.</b><br /><br />(emphases mine).<br /><br />

Concept2 Forum

Ranger - News To Shock

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions

Competitions