The Ranger Plan/ranger Way

[old] mpukita · Post by **[old] mpukita** » September 29th, 2005, 5:53 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Bayko @ Sep 29 2005, 05:15 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Mark, I had learned long ago that continuous exercise up to 2 hours at a time continued to build the aerobic machine, and that from that point going a bit faster for the two hours was better than going longer at the same pace. I still do that sort of thing myself, but I came across an article here: <a href='http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0129.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0129.htm</a> The gist of it is that the line of diminishing returns may be more like one hour. That is, doing an hour at a faster pace may do as much good as 2 hours done at a slower pace. Of course fast and slow will vary from one person to another, and even the same person whether he is fit or out of shape. There won't be any solid answers about pace that are right for everybody. Rick </td></tr></table> Rick -- Something occured to me as I was reading the article, calculating heart rates, etc. The bottom line is that I may just not be traing hard enough -- fearing workouts at a higher level going anerobic too early (or at all, for that matter) and being unable to finish my anticipated distance. If I look at the article's recommendation of doing an hour at 80% to 85% max HR, that would be -- mid-point -- a 143.5 HR for the workout for me using a max of 220 minus my age. I never get in (or better said, put in) an hour at this rate. It would be more like 131 to 135. So, am I just dogging it, and do I need to crank up the intensity, or am I crazy to think I could do an hour at the 80% to 85% HR number stated in the article? Guess I'll never know until I try, ehh? Shoot, maybe I'm just lazy ... or scared of the pain! Thanks for the help! Regards -- Mark

[old] rspenger · Post by **[old] rspenger** » September 29th, 2005, 10:06 pm

[quote=ranger,Sep 28 2005, 12:36 PM] [quote=PaulS,Sep 28 2005, 08:31 AM](17) Select your parents wisely. The hands just had to become tough. No blisters spring up where there are only calluses! ranger [/quote] Sorry to put a damper on your optimism, but that statement is simply not true. I have had, and have seen others have, blisters develop under calluses and they are the worst kind - very painful. Fortunately I rarely had much blister problem, but I used to resort to trimming down the calluses when they got so thick that there was a concern for blister development under them. This was with the old wooden oars (1940s) with the handles well roughened up so that errant waves were less likely to make you lose your grip. I always admired the guys that came back to the dock with bloody oar handles and felt fortunate that I never had that serious a problem. Some guys used to get their hands taped up at the training room before going down to the boathouse and I heard that a few years later gloves got to be a fad. Personally, I preferred the feel of bare hands directly on the wood and I never did like the feel of the new plastic handles that were in vogue when I got into masters' programs forty years after my college rowing was over. regards, Bob S.

[old] GutBustin' · Post by **[old] GutBustin'** » September 29th, 2005, 10:06 pm

Hi Ranger, curious what your stroke rate would be for a marathon? Also, I believe you've mentioned that you would do a marathon at roughly UT2 - so would you be capable of cranking it up a notch the last little bit? And as a more general question, when, if ever, does a sprint start in a marathon? GB

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » September 29th, 2005, 10:21 pm

<a href='http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0129.htm' target='_blank'>http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0129.htm</a> This article Rick cited is by Owen Anderson. Careful, he's the one that my article says is the enemy. He is all over the place on the web these days. The short workout is in demand, no doubt. I've been a fan of his over the years for what he has done to lay things out and put things to the test, but it is also recognized that the long term studies on a Lydiard approach has never been done. You just see it in the medals, but oddly not in the lab. I would think Lydiard would agree it would be hard to test. It takes years of commitment. It's not the flash in the pan and it not at all about being some small percent faster than a sedentary state. Anyway, I'm not all that impressed with Owen Anderson's crusade to bring back intensity with these 40 minute sessions stressing strength, power, speed, and velocity at V02max, etc. It's not at all that bad per se, but he seems to distance bash and that is not really all that fair. (although admittedly for the runner all those miles are hard on the joints). Intensity has been there all along if people could see that LSD is not so slow. Lydiard used to bristle when people called it LSD. It's distance intensity. It's a lot of quality actually. It is slower, but can bring you to your knees just as well. I was just out running the other day and what was easy for an hour suddenly became a really pleasantly tiring buzz for the next 20 minutes. It was great. I find that in biking too, but it takes about 2 hours before it kicks in. In the third hour its like another world difficult and again pleasant for some reason. Ranger has written a book about this zone if you pasted his posts together. I keep thinking that a regular dose of that stress would be ideal. (and not surprisingly that is what elite cyclists do..hours and hours and hours). Just today I found Anderson appealing to a study that put some persons at 85% V02max for 30 minutes and compared them to other athletes doing an hour at 45%. He thought it was amazing that the 30 minute group did so much better than those doing twice as much and then paraded Intensity. That's crazy. 45% is walking briskly. And 85% is seriously huffing and puffing. It's a bad comparison. Really bad. Lydiard would be more like 70% (if he cared about those measures). I think this was what Lydiard called the Aerobic Threshold, something many scientists scoffed at until you see it today in the splitting of UT1 and UT2.

[old] Alan Maddocks · Post by **[old] Alan Maddocks** » September 30th, 2005, 4:58 am

Jim quoted " but it is also recognized that the long term studies on a Lydiard approach has never been done. You just see it in the medals, but oddly not in the lab." I think I would prefer to see the medals than the "scientific" reasoning. When - but I very much doubt it will ever happen - a world / olympic champion endurance athlete in any sporting discipline starts to say that he was inspired by the works of Owen Anderson I might be more inclined to take notice of his arguments.

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » September 30th, 2005, 8:03 am

I see that Owen Anderson is not universally liked . However, he (in the article), like me(posting here) is only the messenger. The information comes from two studies: 'Effects of Exercise on Mitochondrial Oxygen Uptake and Respiratory Enzyme Activity in Skeletal Muscle,' The Journal of Biological Chemistry, vol. 242(9), pp. 2278-2282, 1967), by exercise physiologist John Holloszy of the Washington University School of Medicine in St. Louis. and 'Influence of Exercise Intensity and Duration on Biochemical Adaptations in Skeletal Muscle,' Journal of Applied Physiology, vol. 53(4), pp. 844-850, 1982), by Gary Dudley and his colleagues at the State University of New York at Syracuse. So, let the confusion grow, if you will. While Jim trashes Owen Anderson, he turns around and in the same post writes "Intensity has been there all along if people could see that LSD is not so slow. Lydiard used to bristle when people called it LSD. It's distance intensity. It's a lot of quality actually. It is slower, but can bring you to your knees just as well." That statement would fit nicely into the second study that Anderson cited. The term "slow," if not quantified in some manner, can leave a lot of people happily putzing along at a low intensity thinking that "hey, this is great!", only to find themselves baffled and unhappy that their race results don't come up to what they expected. Anyway, I thought that the article adressed a question that Mark had asked. If he, or anyone else would rather trust in ambiguous terms just because they are spoken or written by names that are more recognizable, that's OK too. A lot of different things have worked over the years. The mindset of the person employing the training strategy can render any program great or terrible. An example: Jim Ryun broke the world record for the mile several times while being coached by Bob Timmons. Whenever Ryun moved and used a different coach he did poorly. He'd move back to Timmons and get good agian. Must be the coach, right? Well then, why couldn't Bob Timmons ever produce another runner even close to Ryun's caliber? Same coach, same training regimen, no other top runner. It seemed to be the combination of the two that made magic. Some of these things are just plain mysterious. Rick

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » September 30th, 2005, 9:27 am

Rick you make a good point about how sometimes these things may be about getting the combination of athlete and program. There may be some innate personality prerequisites for instance in the Lydiard method. And yes, it is mysterious. That is the conclusion others have made. The individual differences principle is an ugly thorn in the side of any one universal approach. Dave Martin and Peter Coe (Seb Coe's coaches) were asked about a univeral approach once and they said it may be as much who as the what, the how and the when. Peter Coe never made anyone like his son either. I trash Anderson a little, but I admire efforts to establish the physiological links between input and output. Lydiard in comparison looked a bit foolish at times trying to make scientific sense of his methods. I've made the "putz" error you speak of last year on the indoor cycling trainer. I figured 90 minutes would be great but really failed to make it a quality 90 minutes and ended up wasting my time really. Mike C., Ranger and Dwayne who all do the outstanding volumes never say they row easy..ever. Seijokowski who clearly rowed a lot in prepartion for the WR indoor row said his training was "murderous".

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » September 30th, 2005, 9:55 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Alan Maddocks @ Sep 30 2005, 01:58 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Jim quoted " but it is also recognized that the long term studies on a Lydiard approach has never been done. You just see it in the medals, but oddly not in the lab." I think I would prefer to see the medals than the "scientific" reasoning. </td></tr></table> This is a problem, as it may well be the "medalists" are being SELECTED by the traning, rather than being PRODUCED by the training. i.e. Using the same golf ball as Tiger Woods really isn't going to help your handicap, though his coach may be able to. And in any case, it's likely too late for us to start at 2yr's old with a single goal in mind, be on Johnny Carson, etc... Were there any other "super kids" featured on such shows that never arrived at the pinnacle of their sport?

[old] remador · Post by **[old] remador** » September 30th, 2005, 10:39 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>This is a problem, as it may well be the "medalists" are being SELECTED by the traning, rather than being PRODUCED by the training. </td></tr></table> Very good point! AM

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 3rd, 2005, 9:25 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(GutBustin' @ Sep 29 2005, 09:06 PM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Hi Ranger, curious what your stroke rate would be for a marathon? Also, I believe you've mentioned that you would do a marathon at roughly UT2 - so would you be capable of cranking it up a notch the last little bit? And as a more general question, when, if ever, does a sprint start in a marathon? GB </td></tr></table> Hi, GB. Stroke rate now for the marathon? 24 spm @ 1:50, I think. For my last marathon, I cranked it up in the middle and then held on to the end. Don't know how a marathon might go at low drag with the stronger stroke that I use now, though. I used to row _very_ differently. No need for a sprint beginning in a marathon. When I ran marathons, I liked to just warm up gradually over the first HM. Then I would try to work harder in the second harlf of the race. I approached rowing a marathon in the same way. When I raced my last marathon, I rowed 1:55 or so for the first HM. Then I rowed 1:48 for the third 10K! 1:47 was my 10K pb at the time. That wasn't smart, either. Bit too much umph in the middle of the race. So it goes. I got excited a bit too excited about how good I felt at 20K. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 3rd, 2005, 9:34 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>This is a problem, as it may well be the "medalists" are being SELECTED by the traning, rather than being PRODUCED by the training. i.e. Using the same golf ball as Tiger Woods really isn't going to help your handicap </td></tr></table> Cynical stuff, Paul, especially with respect to Lydiard-like training. Of all of the sorts of training, Lydiard-like training, I think, is the least dependent on genetic selection, if that's the kind of selection you are talking about. Yes, building up milage takes time and significant patience--years, not days, weeks, or even months. But life is long and progress can be very steady and enormously satisfying if the training is focussed on this long view, even for those who start very late in life. The testimonials that support this claim are legion. ranger P.S. The Woods analogy here is absurd.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 3rd, 2005, 10:32 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>When it comes to training, I believe that stressing your body all-year round is not good </td></tr></table> Revisit that statement in 25 years. You are 31; I am 54 (55 in January, 2006). Sorry to disagree, but if I didn't keep up both a high volume and a relatively high intensity of physical work as a daily habit and year round, I wouldn't have a hope in heck of maintaining my rowing at the level that I do now. In fact, I wouldn't even consider taking a few days off. I take off a day occasionally, but only if I feel it is absolutely necessary. I am now out in California (San Diego, LA, San Francisco, Napa Valley, etc.) on a business (plus pleasure) trip for 10 days. Just spent three days in San Diego, presenting two papers at a conference, one the keynote. First day, did 1000 sit ups, ran five miles to a 24-hour fitness place, and got in 20K on the erg, then ran five miles back, all before breakfast. Second and third days, did my 1000 sit ups and jumped rope for an hour. Now I am in LA. Did my 1000 sit ups and an hour with the rope this morning. Got in 20K on an erg in the Long Beach boat house at noon. Off to San Francisco tomorrow for five days or so. We will be only a few blocks from Lake Merced, though, and the boathouse there. So finding an erg should be easy. I will also keep up my cross-training. My brother-in-law, whom we will be visiting, is a biker, and we will also be doing some cycling in the Sierras. I do about three hours of exercise every day. It is just a habit. I don't find it hard at all, and it makes me feel great. No need or reason to change. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » October 3rd, 2005, 10:41 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I understand the blisters on the hands. Every rower deals with them and bloody oar handles are not uncommon. It's the bleeding blisters on the feet that I don't understand. While ocassionally some rowers get blisters on their heels or toes, they are hardly ever very severe and I've rarely seen them bleed. What are you doing that is causing the blisters on the feet? </td></tr></table> Gus-- The blisters are on my toes. Probably nothing I'm doing, just knobby toes. I used to break them all the time running around barefoot as a kid. I _loved_ to be barefoot, as much as possible. I even ran cross country barefoot my first year in college. Feels great. Feet were made before shoes. Socks solves this problem, I have discovered. No problem at all with my toes now. No, I haven't had any signficant instruction in my 1x. At the moment, I am not rowing for a club. I am just trying to figure it out for myself. I haven't had any instruction on the erg, either. ranger

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 4th, 2005, 12:21 am

Bob Timmons coached Wichita East high school to numerous state championships in cross country, swimming, and track. He coached Archie San Romani Jr. who ran 4:08.9 and smashed the national interscholastic mile record in 1959, long before Ryun came along. Bob Hanson, multi state champion sprinter, who entered the 440 in the national Golden West meet in 1962 and ran away from the field with a 47.0, the only time he had run that event. Jeff Farrell, class of 1954, a champion swimmer who won 2 gold medals in the 1960 Olympic Games and whose story was chronicled in the book, Six Days to Swim. Richard Quick, who held state records in four events, the national high school record in the 200y freestyle, led Wichita East to a state swimming championship as a sophomore in 1959, and ran the 440y in track, the same year San Romani set the national record in the mile. I would say that Ryun would have not done well at all without Timmons and, being the head case that he was, would have been uncoachable by anyone else. Even now, 40 years later, the runners in Kansas don't run as fast as those coached by Bob Timmons, who was one of the most outstanding coaches in the history of high school athletics.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » October 4th, 2005, 12:34 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'>QUOTE(Jim Barry @ Sep 30 2005, 06:27 AM)</div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Mike C., Ranger and Dwayne who all do the outstanding volumes never say they row easy..ever. [right] </td></tr></table> Hmmm that's not what I've been told, and it's certainly not true for all of them. Regarding Ryun, I know personally that he and his teammates would often run --very-- slowly. You could even walk as fast as their team was "running" at times. However, they said (from Timmons) it was important to keep "running" and not walk. Actually Ryun ran more slowly and did it more often than the rest of them. Noredine Morceli, the #1 ranked 1500/miler, Olympic and world champion as well as world record holder in both events was well known to often run at 10 minute mile pace on his easy days. This for a runner who blazed a 3:44 mile at full speed.

Concept2 Forum

The Ranger Plan/ranger Way

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training