Strange Training Results At 100% Hr

[old] monkey · Post by **[old] monkey** » July 23rd, 2004, 7:49 am

Ranger<br>I believe you are confused, you are certainly confusing training with racing, no-one (except possibly Roy, but he's barmy! ) is advocating using an HR monitor whilst racing. Using a monitor whilst training ensures that you stick to the intended session and don't turn it into something else, this training will enable you to produce your best racing performance. This method is scientifically tried and proven, your method of training is going back to how it was done years ago before HR technology and study, I don't think even you could argue with the performance advances made since then.

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » July 23rd, 2004, 12:54 pm

<br> I "feel" like Hell during a 2k. I've found something about me that Hell can feel the same at 2k pace and even a little slower, so for me I need to keep my eye on the monitor. I can not tell when I'm slipping. <br><br> <br><br> <br><br>

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » July 23rd, 2004, 3:17 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> (monkey @ Jul 23 2004, 06:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Ranger<br>I believe you are confused, you are certainly confusing training with racing, no-one (except possibly Roy, but he's barmy! ) is advocating using an HR monitor whilst racing. Using a monitor whilst training ensures that you stick to the intended session and don't turn it into something else, this training will enable you to produce your best racing performance. This method is scientifically tried and proven, your method of training is going back to how it was done years ago before HR technology and study, I don't think even you could argue with the performance advances made since then. </td></tr></table><br>Monkey--<br><br>Yep, I'm more than a bit of a throwback. I think a lot things about athletic training and performance are not at all quantifiable/measurable. To best the/your best at something athletic, you have to have energy, enthusiam, heart, guts, consistency, commitment, talent, intelligence, creativity, common sense, responsiveness, temperance and a host of other things that gadgets can't supply. <br><br>Good luck with the gadgets. <br><br>I think I'll stick with my list of necessities. <br><br>If someone can do better with other methods/values, so be it. <br><br>Bring it on.<br><br>ranger

[old] monkey · Post by **[old] monkey** » July 23rd, 2004, 4:28 pm

Very commendable list Ranger, but I'm sure an intelligent guy like yourself (damn!, thats why I'm so slow!) would recognise that modern training methods could enable all those attributes to be channelled properly to produce better results.<br><br>Yes you have your result to show, and all 50+ lwts (of which I hope to be one soon, just a few more kgs) aspire to your times and success. I believe you could be even better.<br><br>History has illustrated the perils of ignoring progress and new methods, you missed arrogance off your list, that one just might bring on your downfall as it has others.<br><br>Glad you consider me worthy of banter anyway, Will we see you at BIRC this year?

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » July 23rd, 2004, 5:20 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> (monkey @ Jul 23 2004, 03:28 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Very commendable list Ranger, but I'm sure an intelligent guy like yourself (damn!, thats why I'm so slow!) would recognise that modern training methods could enable all those attributes to be channelled properly to produce better results.<br><br>Yes you have your result to show, and all 50+ lwts (of which I hope to be one soon, just a few more kgs) aspire to your times and success. I believe you could be even better.<br><br>History has illustrated the perils of ignoring progress and new methods, you missed arrogance off your list, that one just might bring on your downfall as it has others.<br><br>Glad you consider me worthy of banter anyway, Will we see you at BIRC this year? </td></tr></table><br>Monkey--<br><br>My, my. Subtle argument. Hmm. Well, I_might_ get into heart monitors at some point, but not now, I think. Yesterday, I was pissing a little blood. Good sign, I think. Last time I remember that was when I as racing marathons. No matter. The kidneys survive. I pushed the (60 mile, 3 hour) bike ride a little hard after the hour of erging and hour of skipping. Guess I should have been paying attention to my heart rate monitor, huh? <br><br>Balooey! <br><br>See you at BIRC.<br><br>I think I might be ready to row close to 6:20. I am 53. The former world record for 50s lwts was 6:31.6. <br><br>ranger<br><br>

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » July 23rd, 2004, 5:31 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> (Jim Barry @ Jul 23 2004, 11:54 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I "feel" like Hell during a 2k. I've found something about me that Hell can feel the same at 2k pace and even a little slower, so for me I need to keep my eye on the monitor. I can not tell when I'm slipping. </td></tr></table><br>Jim--<br><br>Much respect for your efforts. I remember your heart rate profile during a 2K, which you posted on the US forum a while back. Ouch. No one can say you aren't working!<br><br>Then again, if you are _really_ ready to row a 2K, I think you shouldn't be suffering at all until about 1200m or so. And even then, you just need to relax to get through the trouble. Then after 1700m or so, it is max out, full out, black out to the end, and this doesn't require anything but guts. <br><br>Nope. No need for the monitor. To do a 2K, all you you need is proper training and then it is just suck it up and go.<br><br>ranger

[old] Coach Gus · Post by **[old] Coach Gus** » July 23rd, 2004, 7:13 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> (ranger @ Jul 22 2004, 11:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> If training is done by looking at a HR monitor and only doing what HR allows. How does this tranfer to racing? When you are racing, do you only do what HR allows?<br><br>  </td></tr></table><br> Yes, when racing, you can only go as fast as your HR will allow you to go. It's impossible to go any faster. If you know you can race at 90% of your max for 2K then you know whether your pace is too fast or too slow if you're above or below that HR. HR based training transfers directly to racing because racing is entirely dependent on HR.

[old] Coach Gus · Post by **[old] Coach Gus** » July 23rd, 2004, 7:17 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> (monkey @ Jul 23 2004, 03:49 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> no-one (except possibly Roy, but he's barmy! ) is advocating using an HR monitor whilst racing.  </td></tr></table><br> Count me as one of the barmy ones!!! I advocate using a HR monitor while racing.

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » July 24th, 2004, 2:21 am

Rich,<br><br>When is the last time you bettered 6:31.6?<br><br>It would be nice to see you better 6:20 as I think you could do it with more progessive training.<br><br>Why not consult with someone who is performing well and knows how to train like Dwayne Adams.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » July 24th, 2004, 3:53 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It would be nice to see you better 6:20 as I think you could do it with more progessive training. </td></tr></table><br><br>John--<br><br>My training has been nicely progressive. At this time last year, I was rowing at 10 SPI. Now I am rowing at 12. Stroking power/technique was just the weakness that I wanted to shore up with my training this spring and summer, and I have succeeded in spades. I can now race at low drag and with the proper application and sequences of levers. As a result, my basic stroke has about 20% more power. <br><br>What everyone "thinks" "could" happen with my times is just speculation.<br><br>ranger<br><br>

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » July 24th, 2004, 4:10 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>History has illustrated the perils of ignoring progress and new methods, you missed arrogance off your list, that one just might bring on your downfall as it has others. </td></tr></table><br><br>Monkey--<br><br>Science has much to recommend it. On the issue of arrogance, though, its track record is quite a bit shakier. <br><br>The physical sciences have had great (and unquestioned) successes. And the biological sciences are (perhaps?) getting there. But in the human "sciences," "success" has been elusive at best. Why? The basic intention of science is prediction, and the basic methods are manipulation and control (of variables, subjects, formalisms, etc.). But in human affairs, the variables are too many and too complex to manipulate and control with full certainty; and the subjects, knowing this, are both smart enough to note the arrogance and worldly enough to not be surprised at all when its attempts at human "engineering" predictably and repeatedly fail. <br><br>ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » July 24th, 2004, 4:12 am

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Count me as one of the barmy ones!!! </td></tr></table><br><br>O.K.! If you say so.<br><br>ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » July 24th, 2004, 4:17 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> (Coach Gus @ Jul 23 2004, 06:13 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> (ranger @ Jul 22 2004, 11:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> If training is done by looking at a HR monitor and only doing what HR allows. How does this tranfer to racing? When you are racing, do you only do what HR allows?<br><br>  </td></tr></table><br>Yes, when racing, you can only go as fast as your HR will allow you to go. It's impossible to go any faster. If you know you can race at 90% of your max for 2K then you know whether your pace is too fast or too slow if you're above or below that HR. HR based training transfers directly to racing because racing is entirely dependent on HR. </td></tr></table><br>Here is science. Note the inflated rhetoric: _only_, _impossible_, _directly_, _entirely_.<br><br>Arrogance.<br><br>ranger

[old] monkey · Post by **[old] monkey** » July 24th, 2004, 9:33 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> (ranger @ Jul 24 2004, 09:10 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> <table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>History has illustrated the perils of ignoring progress and new methods, you missed arrogance off your list, that one just might bring on your downfall as it has others. </td></tr></table><br><br>Monkey--<br><br>Science has much to recommend it. On the issue of arrogance, though, its track record is quite a bit shakier. <br><br>The physical sciences have had great (and unquestioned) successes. And the biological sciences are (perhaps?) getting there. But in the human "sciences," "success" has been elusive at best. Why? The basic intention of science is prediction, and the basic methods are manipulation and control (of variables, subjects, formalisms, etc.). But in human affairs, the variables are too many and too complex to manipulate and control with full certainty; and the subjects, knowing this, are both smart enough to note the arrogance and worldly enough to not be surprised at all when its attempts at human "engineering" predictably and repeatedly fail. <br><br>ranger  </td></tr></table><br> Ranger<br>I fear I have touched a nerve.<br>By arrogant I was simply refering to your seemingly fixed idea that your training methods are so perfect that you are prepared to describe other peoples methods as " Balooey! " etc.<br>As I've already said, I have much respect for your results, you obviously in abundance the attributes required of a great athlete, but while you place yourself in a seige tower beating off new and inovative training methods and belittling them someone just might adopt them and leave you sitting there.

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » July 24th, 2004, 10:46 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'><span class='genmed'><b>QUOTE</b></span> (ranger @ Jul 23 2004, 09:20 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> Yesterday, I was pissing a little blood. Good sign, I think. <br><br>ranger </td></tr></table><br>I've been trying to stay away from controversial topics in order to avoid contributing to any discord on the forum. However, since this comment has been been allowed to pass by uncontested I felt I should offer an opposing view.<br><br>Blood in the Urine is NOT a good thing. It is a warning sign, not a good sign. Most people probably realize this without my mentioning it, but there might be some highly motivated ergers who might otherwise subconciously think that they are not training hard enough if they are not currently pissing blood, if a comment like this passes by unchallenged.<br><br>If any qualified medical people or trained physios disagree with me on this and agree that blood in the urine is a good sign and point to legitimate proof I'll reconsider. <br><br>Rick

Concept2 Forum

Strange Training Results At 100% Hr

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness

Health and Fitness