Ergo Urban Myths

[[old] Carl Henrik]

<!--QuoteBegin-Matt Newman+Jul 15 2005, 07:36 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Matt Newman @ Jul 15 2005, 07:36 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Jul 15 2005, 07:15 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jul 15 2005, 07:15 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus for every lightweight who rows a time of 6:40, there should be at least 10 to 20 heavyweights in the range of 6:11.8 to 6:20. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Hmmm - lets test that theory - sounds way out to me.<br />...<br /><br />Thought it sounded strange - maybe I've miss understood JR's point.... <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />It is way out However, JR made the factor 10-20 based on that the interval for HWTs were almost 10 times larger than for LWT. I think he meant just 6:40-6:40.9 for LWTs. <br /><br />Another note, it is likely that the LWT record is a tougher target to reach for a person at 75 kg than the HWT score is for someone at 104kg like Siejkowski. This is because there are so many more people that have a proper build for LWT WR attempts than for HWTs so it should have been pushed further in terms of "aerobic quality per mass". If this is really the case, however, is impossible to know without making half arbitrary assumptions for comparison. Because of a higher number of suitably built lwts for good lwt performance there should also be more lwts at any given than "aerobic quality" level than HWTs, at least at the upper end of the weight scale. On the other hand, rowing attracts large people, and they might be likely to rank more because of faster results irrespective of weight class. <br /><br />It is not a bad idea, stil, I think to base performance on WRs, but it should be based on wattage, like Jamesg wrote.

[[old] Carl Henrik]

Yet another note....Like I said sub 7 I think would get you called bloody fit amongts normal people, if they ever gave it a try. If you go 6:30 or faster, however, not only normal people will call you bloody fit. You could walk into a national cross country skiing or cycling camp and proclaim this performance and they would be likely to say "You're bloody fit, too bad you can't ski". I would expect the <u>very</u> top of world class endurance athletes of the same weight in other events to perform 6:2x with just a few days preparation.

[[old] ancho]

I agree with Carl (and others):<br />Sub 7 is what most of us "bloody fit normal mortals" are (or were) struggling with.<br />Once you have reached this, you may get your times down progressively.<br />I consider 6:45 "damned bloody fit" for a normal mortal, 6:30 is not a normal mortal any more... <br /><br />Be consistent and have fun!

[[old] RacerX]

<!--QuoteBegin-ancho+Jul 15 2005, 03:58 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ancho @ Jul 15 2005, 03:58 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I agree with Carl (and others):<br />Sub 7 is what most of us "bloody fit normal mortals" are (or were) struggling with.<br />Once you have reached this, you may get your times down progressively.<br />I consider 6:45 "damned bloody fit" for a normal mortal, 6:30 is not a normal mortal any more... <br /><br />Be consistent and have fun! <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />I think there is a line between "bloody" fit and "sport=specific competitive". On the erg I think 7' is about right. In running a 10K it falls somewhere around 36 to 38 minutes. I can pretty esily get to a 36 - 37 minute 10k. But to get near my PR of 32:38 I would need to train very hard and very specifically. <br /><br />The point is, I think that there is a performance level where a high general fitness can carry you with a modest amount of sport specific traning. And then to get to the next level (getting the last 10-20% of performance) is where the really hard work lies.<br /><br />I remember back in about 1985 or 86, when I was racing triathlons with the Nike team, this 16 year old kid shows up in San Diego. He was an all-american swimmer and decided to race trithlons. He was pretty arrogant about his ability to perform at an elite level in the other sports. We all, in our mid-20's maturity, thought he was pretty funny. He is out there today somewhere in the French countryside, making them suffer in the mountains.....<br /><br />Aaron<br />

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-RacerX+Jul 15 2005, 03:47 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(RacerX @ Jul 15 2005, 03:47 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think there is a line between "bloody" fit and "sport=specific competitive".  On the erg I think 7' is about right.  In running a 10K it falls somewhere around 36 to 38 minutes.  I can pretty esily get to a 36 - 37 minute 10k.  But to get near my PR of 32:38 I would need to train very hard and very specifically.  <br /><br />Aaron <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You held a 1:37.9 for 10K! Holy Smokes! What was your 2k PB?

[[old] RacerX]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Jul 15 2005, 11:30 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Jul 15 2005, 11:30 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-RacerX+Jul 15 2005, 03:47 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(RacerX @ Jul 15 2005, 03:47 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I think there is a line between "bloody" fit and "sport=specific competitive".  On the erg I think 7' is about right.  In running a 10K it falls somewhere around 36 to 38 minutes.  I can pretty esily get to a 36 - 37 minute 10k.  But to get near my PR of 32:38 I would need to train very hard and very specifically.  <br /><br />Aaron <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You held a 1:37.9 for 10K! Holy Smokes! What was your 2k PB? <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Paul,<br /><br />I wish! Those time were related to running not erging....ie running a 10k in 32:38. That was around 5:15 to 5:20 per mile though...<br /><br />Aaron

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-RacerX+Jul 15 2005, 08:36 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(RacerX @ Jul 15 2005, 08:36 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Paul,<br /><br />I wish!  Those time were related to running not erging....ie running a 10k in 32:38.  That was around 5:15 to 5:20 per mile though...<br /><br />Aaron <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />That's what I get for not reading carefully enough. Still, I'm pretty sure I couldn't run a single mile in 5:20, much less 6 of them. Heck, we're big enough to not have to run, don'tcha think?

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Jul 15 2005, 12:15 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jul 15 2005, 12:15 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus for every lightweight who rows a time of 6:40, there should be at least 10 to 20 heavyweights in the range of 6:11.8 to 6:20. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Matt Newman,<br /><br />My message reads "for every lightweight who rows a time of 6:40", not "all" lightweights "under" 6:40.<br /><br />The # of hwts under 6:11.8 should be similar to the # of lwt's under 6:40, with two exceptions.<br /><br />1- There are many more hwt rowers then lwt rowers, probably 6 to 8 times as many. Thus there should be 6 to 8 times as many hwt's under 6:11.8 as lwt's under 6:40, even though these are equivalent performances.<br /><br />2- Overall, lwt's are more consistent and fit than are hwt's, thus even if there were 8 times as many hwt's, there would likely not be 8 times as many hwt's under 6:11.8 as there are lwt's under 6:40.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Carl Henrik+Jul 15 2005, 01:42 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Carl Henrik @ Jul 15 2005, 01:42 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->JR made the factor 10-20 based on that the interval for HWTs were almost 10 times larger than for LWT. I think he meant just 6:40-6:40.9 for LWTs. </td></tr></table><br />That's close. <br /><br />The interval 6:11.8 to 6:20 for hwts, is far easier the interval 6:36-6:44 for lightweights.<br /><br />However, the point is that 6:40 for lwt's is equivalent to 6:11.8 for a hwt.<br /><br />The score of 6:20 for a hwt is equivalent to only a 6:48.8 for a lightweight.

[[old] John Rupp]

<!--QuoteBegin-Carl Henrik+Jul 15 2005, 01:42 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Carl Henrik @ Jul 15 2005, 01:42 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->It is not a bad idea, stil, I think to base performance on WRs, but it should be based on wattage, like Jamesg wrote. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Yes well all times are converted from watts anyway.<br /><br />Thus all times are based on watts.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Jul 15 2005, 10:06 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jul 15 2005, 10:06 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Jul 15 2005, 12:15 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jul 15 2005, 12:15 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus for every lightweight who rows a time of 6:40, there should be at least 10 to 20 heavyweights in the range of 6:11.8 to 6:20. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Matt Newman,<br /><br />My message reads "for every lightweight who rows a time of 6:40", not "all" lightweights "under" 6:40.<br /><br />The # of hwts under 6:11.8 should be similar to the # of lwt's under 6:40, with two exceptions.<br /><br />1- There are many more hwt rowers then lwt rowers, probably 6 to 8 times as many. Thus there should be 6 to 8 times as many hwt's under 6:11.8 as lwt's under 6:40, even though these are equivalent performances.<br /><br />2- Overall, lwt's are more consistent and fit than are hwt's, thus even if there were 8 times as many hwt's, there would likely not be 8 times as many hwt's under 6:11.8 as there are lwt's under 6:40. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Matt, you should try to get yourself "igged", otherwise you will have to put up with this sort of gibberish for quite some time. There is a seemingly endless supply coming out of Mr. Rupps Garage, CA. It tends to get worse after the middle of the month since the overused meds run out and are replenished until the 1st. <br /><br />Or you could just admit that although "slower", lwts are really "faster", and hwts that are "fast" are "slow". Then there is the whole age/gender thing to deal with, but John has been relatively silent on that lately.

[[old] bmoore]

<!--QuoteBegin-PaulS+Jul 15 2005, 02:24 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(PaulS @ Jul 15 2005, 02:24 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Jul 15 2005, 10:06 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jul 15 2005, 10:06 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-John Rupp+Jul 15 2005, 12:15 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(John Rupp @ Jul 15 2005, 12:15 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Thus for every lightweight who rows a time of 6:40, there should be at least 10 to 20 heavyweights in the range of 6:11.8 to 6:20. <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Matt Newman,<br /><br />My message reads "for every lightweight who rows a time of 6:40", not "all" lightweights "under" 6:40.<br /><br />The # of hwts under 6:11.8 should be similar to the # of lwt's under 6:40, with two exceptions.<br /><br />1- There are many more hwt rowers then lwt rowers, probably 6 to 8 times as many. Thus there should be 6 to 8 times as many hwt's under 6:11.8 as lwt's under 6:40, even though these are equivalent performances.<br /><br />2- Overall, lwt's are more consistent and fit than are hwt's, thus even if there were 8 times as many hwt's, there would likely not be 8 times as many hwt's under 6:11.8 as there are lwt's under 6:40. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Matt, you should try to get yourself "igged", otherwise you will have to put up with this sort of gibberish for quite some time. There is a seemingly endless supply coming out of Mr. Rupps Garage, CA. It tends to get worse after the middle of the month since the overused meds run out and are replenished until the 1st. <br /><br />Or you could just admit that although "slower", lwts are really "faster", and hwts that are "fast" are "slow". Then there is the whole age/gender thing to deal with, but John has been relatively silent on that lately. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Set yourself free, get igged today!<br /><br />

[[old] Matt Newman]

<br /><br />