What Training Have You Done Today???

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » March 12th, 2005, 10:59 pm

John, <br /><br />The bike has 3" of trail if you are curious. <br /><br />--Jim<br /><br />

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » March 12th, 2005, 11:46 pm

Jim,<br /><br />Very nice.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » March 13th, 2005, 5:08 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'>Well Ranger lets look at this question you have posed. I started rowing Jan last year and the last competition available to me was in September last year and the next is not till the end of May this year. During that time by my reckoning I have competed in at least 9 races ranging from 500m thru to 2000k - how many have YOU done in that time.<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />George--<br /><br />We are at very different points in our accomplishment and training. When I was at your point, yes, I raced all of the races (repeatedly), ranked all of my scores, and was very concerned about them. I sometimes races more than once on the same day (e.g., I got my 6K pb once on a second try, a couple of hours after a first try). As I remember, in the 2001-2002 season, most of my scores were first or second in my division (50s hwt), or something other sort, even though I was able to switch to a lightweight a couple of months later. That year, I got seventh in the 50s hwt division at the CRASH-Bs.<br /><br />So, given our actions at parallel times, how are we different?<br /><br />I wish you well in your early bouts of racing. I enjoyed rowing enormously when I was at your point in my training, and I hope you enjoy it, too. <br /><br />After that, my goals were unusual and therefore I changed my training. I concentrated on losing weight, learning to race as a lightweight, and was more exclusively concerned with the 2K. As it turned out, my judgment about this was right, too. I still set a pb here and there (e.g., I set my marathon pb in the summer), but I was less concerned with this than with doing good workouts for the 2K. My training turned out to be exactly appropriate and I reached all of my goals that year (2002-2003) as well. In February of 2003, I raced four 2Ks in the span of a month, won all of the races, broke the 50s lwt world record by almost two seconds at the CRASH-Bs, and even got second in the hwt 50s division as a lwt. <br /><br />In 2003-2004, my project was to try to get better yet by improving my technique and learning to row more with my legs. This project also turned out to be successful. In the fall of 2003, I also raced repeatedly, again, four times within the space of a month or so, setting records in the two other major championships in the 50s lwts, too, and breaking the world record two more times. Again, given my position as the 2K world record holder in my division, my focus in 2003-2004 was primarily on the 2K rather than the other races, so I didn't race the other distances very much, but I still got a pb here and there, as they occurred in the natural flow of my workouts (e.g., I lowered my 5K pb by almost 10 seconds just before BIRC). <br /><br />In the 2004-2005 season, my major project was to learn to row on the water and, in the process, teach myself a proper on water stroke. Given that I used to row at very high drag, this has been the most difficult project yet, but I have no doubt that it will also be successful. I just need to be patient with it. I am not yet able to race 2Ks at a high level with this on water technique, but I think this will come pretty soon. Another year outdoors on the water wilil help especially, I think. I have also made great progress in my 1x, I think. My goal for this next year is to try to work up to race pace and distance (1K) in my 1x. I didn't get anywhere near that last year, although I rowed 5-10K on the water almost every day in July and August, after I bought my boat, in addition to doing my regular workouts on the erg. In the future, I hope to row primarily on the water, using the erg as a training tool, as regular on water rowers do.<br /><br />If this is some sort of checkered record of doubtful dedication and accomplishment characterized by dissembling and fear of racing, I am more than a little puzzled. <br /><br />You have a pretty long row to hoe, George. I wish you well. I assume that the challenges you take on will also change over the years and that you will have to adjust your training accordingly, too. When that happens, I will certainly understand. <br /><br />To get better, you have to do what you have to do. So far as good for me. I hope you do as well in making good judgments on these matters.<br /><br />Perhaps we can talk again when you are entering your 5th season of rowing, as I am. By that time, the decisions you have made, the work you have put in, and the results this work has produced will be clear. If you think my training decisions have been poor and the results qualified, then it will be _very_ fun to follow your progress. <br /><br />You will do very well indeed. <br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » March 13th, 2005, 5:32 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Jim Barry @ Mar 12 2005, 07:20 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Ranger, <br /><br />Re: Where the WP says the 4x10 with breaks is for high intensity. Mike says "proportionately greater intensity" but as he lays it out here, this would be the highest intensity and the highest intensities typically have some time in the sequence that are are 24 and 26 spm. 4x10 with 3'20", I can not imagine, is for the bread and butter 18/20/22 work. <br /><br />Here, straight from the plan:<br /><br /><br /><br /><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'>Level 4 workouts range from 40-70’ of continuous effort. Other <b>variations</b> include 2 x 40’ (with 6-7’ recovery between pieces) and 4 x 10’ at a proportionately greater intensity (with recovery intervals of 3’ 20"). </td></tr></table><br /><br />(my bolding) <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Jim--<br /><br />Yes, what you assume is exactly not stated. It is assumed ("I can not imagine...").<br /><br />That's my point (but not yours).<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » March 13th, 2005, 5:42 am

Jim--<br /><br />There is also the problem that many of (what you call) the "bread-and-butter" 20-22 spm sequencess are further up the ladder of difficulty in the WP than the sequences than some of the sequences that involve rowing at 24 spm. I have been doing things comparable to 208s and 212s. 200s and 204s involve rowing at 24 spm.<br /><br />So what's your point? It doesn't seem to be consistent. <br /><br />I assume that Caviston might exactly introduce rests at about 2/3 of the way up the ladder, where the 24 spm rows start to appear. This would be at 200. <br /><br />Yes, rowing continuously for long distances and therefore with a controlled heart rate is much more possible below the 200 sequences. This is comparable to UT2 rowing (e.g., for me, 19 spm at 1:54, my marathon target). 22 spm at 1:52 is my UT2 target. These are off comparable difficulty.<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » March 13th, 2005, 5:45 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'>If you're taking two 10 second rests every kilometer, for example, that means you did 20k at 2:02 pace!<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, that's probably about right. 2:02 pace overall might be good for this sort of rowing, as it is for the Zatopek intervals, when you include the recovery time. In fact, taken to marathon length, this would be an _impressive_ overall time, especially if much of the rowing were done at 22 spm and 13 SPI.<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » March 13th, 2005, 5:51 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'>but I am willing to admit I struggling with motivation. </td></tr></table><br /><br />George--<br /><br />Ambitious goals (and what we end up doing to meet them) are first and foremost matters of motivation. Much of what I am now doing in my training (and that you seem so disapproving of) is exactly to maintain my motivation, given my need to work on technique (rather than race, etc.) in order to reach my goals.<br /><br />This is prettty ironic, given your problems with motivation and our discussion here.<br /><br />ranger

[old] hennmart · Post by **[old] hennmart** » March 13th, 2005, 8:25 am

Today PB on the: <br /><br />1) 2000 m from 7:25.4 down to 7:18.0<br /><br />2) 5000 m from 18:40.3 to 18:19.4<br /><br />A good day!

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » March 13th, 2005, 9:18 am

This morning: an hour of skipping (warm up), 30min @ 20 spm (8002m), 10min rest, 40' WP Level 4 188 192 188 192 10530m (1:54 @ 19 spm ave.) Just to satisfy the peanut gallery, I did some continuous low spm rows this morning. As I suspected, these weren't as hard as what I have been doing with my discontinuous rowing. <br /><br />In my discontinuous r rowing, I have been taking breaks when my heart rate goes over my anaerobic threshold, just to keep comfortable, and to keep going.<br /><br />In the comparable WP row, my heart rate rode just above UT2 levels (154 bpm) at about 158 bpm when I was rowing 18 bpm and 1:56; then it would rise to UT1 levels, the middle and high 160s, when I was rowing 1:52 at 20 spm; then it would slowly fall back below 160 bpm when I returned to rowing 1:56 at 18 spm. This alternation remained pretty much flat over the 10K.<br />This is very comfortable work. It could be extended to marathon length. No need for breaks. In fact, 4 x 40' WP Level 4 rowing in a session, rowing 188s and 192s (and perhaps 196s and 200^s), would be nice marathon training. I'll give this a try over the next few weeks.<br /><br />My training over the last year or so has now prepared me to do this continuous low spm rowing--comfortably and productively, at low drag (114 df.), and with proper on water technique.<br />I couldn't do this rowing comfortably and productively before. I'm happy with this progress.<br /><br />By the way, I was rowing the Level 4 188s and 192s at a 1:36 2K target, 2.2 seconds below my PAT (1:38.2) and below the 50s lwt world record (of 1:36.4).<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » March 13th, 2005, 10:51 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'>Re: Where the WP says the 4x10 with breaks is for high intensity. Mike says "proportionately greater intensity" but as he lays it out here, this would be the highest intensity and the highest intensities typically have some time in the sequence that are are 24 and 26 spm. 4x10 with 3'20", I can not imagine, is for the bread and butter 18/20/22 work. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Jim--<br /><br />A 40' row alternating the 20-22 WP sequences (208s and 212s) rowed continuously at my 1:36 target would a 36:40 10K, the best 10K by a 50s lwt this year, even though it would be done at an average of 21 spm and, in the flow of my training, if I were following the WP, would be done daily, twice daily, or even four times daily, as just "bread-and-butter" background rowing to the really hard stuff that needs to be done to race (i.e., rowing at levels 1, 2, and 3).<br /><br />Hmm.<br /><br />Really?<br /><br />I suppose someone who actually does these things and knows more about them than you or I do will jump in here pretty soon and correct me, if I am wrong in this, but I have my doubts.<br /><br />ranger

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » March 13th, 2005, 12:20 pm

Ranger,<br /><br />I'm sorry I do not have much patience to reconcile your rowing, your points, and what the WP is trying to accomplish with L4. As usual, it seems I get some argument thrown back in my face I was not even arguing against. We are not as far off as our posts may suggest. <br /><br />So, back to the thread. I liked your session today (mmm peanuts). <br /><br />I biked 60' this morning on the trainer. Still dreaming of snowless trails.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » March 13th, 2005, 12:30 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Jim Barry @ Mar 13 2005, 11:20 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Ranger,<br /><br />I'm sorry I do not have much patience to reconcile your rowing, your points, and what the WP is trying to accomplish with L4. As usual, it seems I get some argument thrown back in my face I was not even arguing against. We are not as far off as our posts may suggest. <br /><br />So, back to the thread. I liked your session today (mmm peanuts). <br /><br />I biked 60' this morning on the trainer. Still dreaming of snowless trails. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Jim--<br /><br />Ah. Well.<br /><br />I never thought that there was a problem, either. <br /><br />Guess there isn't.<br /><br />ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » March 13th, 2005, 12:55 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(Coach Gus @ Mar 12 2005, 07:20 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 @ Mar 12 2005, 01:46 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><br />Nothing is being exaggerated. It is clear what I am doing.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Mar 10 2005, 03:44 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>21K 1:52 @ 22 spm<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />As many of us have mentioned before, what you write as your training is not very clear at all. The above exact quote is what you wrote you did for training that session. John reasonably questioned the accuracy of your statement because a 1:52 pace for that training distance is fast even for you. Turns out you are taking an unspecified # of breaks of unspecified duration. Even without leaving out this important information, it would be unclear as to what your pace is. Is it 1:52 with the breaks in the pace calculation? Or, are you ignoring the breaks which is an inaccurate statement of pace to many of us as your true overall pace would then be much slower than 1:52. It would be like saying I did a 2k at 1:30 pace (which pretty much all of us would interpert as a 6:00 2K) without explaining you took a number of breaks of time not counted in the overall time. Doubt you're intentionally trying to mislead us, but it feels like amisrepresentation of what you are actually doing. <br /><br />My comment about one of my particular daily workouts was to try to show you how even someone who takes a 10 hour break and then another 1 hour break over a 21+K could make similar inaccurate claims as to pace. You'd be more accurate if you said you did 21K with some breaks at an overall pace of x:xx with the majority of it at 1:52 or something like that. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Gus--<br /><br />The purpose of the discontinuous low spm rowing that I do is just to do a lot of stroking at a certain power and rate. That's it. Other than that, the intention is to try to keep my heart rate and level of muscular effort _low_, not high, so that the sessions are not too damaging and I can do them every day, as with something like UT2 rowing. Therefore, all of this worry about how fast the overall session is done is exactly counter to the purpose of the session. Does that make sense? <br /><br />The low spm sessions that I do with breaks are like fartleks. But when I do Zatopeks, or whatever, I don't pay any attention to how fast I go on the recovery intervals or how long I spend on the workout as a whole. The point is to do, say, 40 x 500m at 1:40 (with 500m active rest inbetween). And as far as I am concerned, it doesn't much matter what you do for the active rest inbetween: 2:15? 2:30? 2:45? I don't think it matters much so I don't even keep track of it. This is how I approach my discontinuous rowing at low stroke rates. If I rowed, say, a marathon at 22 spm and 1:48 (with breaks), the point would be to row 42K at 22 spm and 1:48--and that's it. The distance, the stroke rate, and the pace when you are stroking is what count for me (in this sort of workout), not the pace achieved overall, including rests. A fartlek is not a race. What you want to do with the rowing overall in a fartlek is just stay comfortable so that you can continue rowing.<br /><br />ranger

[old] gw1 · Post by **[old] gw1** » March 13th, 2005, 2:25 pm

<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'>A fartlek is not a race. What you want to do with the rowing overall in a fartlek is just stay comfortable so that you can continue rowing. </td></tr></table><br /><br />In 27 years of doing Fartleks in the boat and on the erg, i can't remember a single "training" fartlek session that was "comfortable" they were all hard. Our aim with fartlek effort pieces is to get the boat running at full speed, then maintain as good as possible form during the recovery pieces. With every effort piece being followed by the same number of strokes in the recovery phase.<br /><br />GW

[old] neilb · Post by **[old] neilb** » March 13th, 2005, 2:52 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(hennmart @ Mar 13 2005, 07:25 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Today PB on the: <br /><br />1) 2000 m from 7:25.4 down to 7:18.0<br /><br />2) 5000 m from 18:40.3 to 18:19.4<br /><br />A good day! <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Good results and a good effort the other day with the marathon. <br /><br />Neil