Ranger - News To Shock

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->sorry its not up to your standards </td></tr></table><br /><br />The standards being referred to are not mine. They are impersonal. They are set by the sport.<br /><br />It looks as though Graham Watt is setting the absolute standards in and around our age group at the moment, especially if he is still getting better; and I am sure that there will soon be many others who will be rowing in the middle 6:20s in the 50s lwts, either coming up in age from the 40s lwts, coming down in weight from the 40s and 50s hwts, or coming from other sports but new to rowing.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin-george nz+Dec 8 2005, 06:38 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(george nz @ Dec 8 2005, 06:38 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 9 2005, 08:30 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 9 2005, 08:30 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I've been thinking...I wonder whether 4-5 hours a day of training is really enough to yield _maximal_ benefits for rowing. 6-8 hours a day might be better! If I retired, I could test whether this "hunch" is true.<br />ranger<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />For any people new to training or exercise who are looking to learn there is absolutely no basis to recommend this sort of training and it would generally be regarded as 'dum'. While Ranger has had some success with his training over 2 years ago there is no current evidence to show that his current training will have achieved improvement - time will tell.<br /><br />Of course if the improvement does come that is great but it there is a large body of evidence from 'qualified' sources that indicate it could have been achieved in a quarter of the time.... in fact improvment in may well have come sooner and to a greater level.<br /><br />Quantity does not replace quality - and while quantity is important in the 'base' phase of a buildup it is still important to do it in an ordered manner as part of a longer programme .... in Rangers case over the past 2 years none of this has been evident.<br /><br />regds George <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />The discussion here is about those who are interested in pushing the envelope of achievement in the sport, not those who are just exercising, at whatever level, not to mention, a beginning level.<br /><br />Yes, the "tests" have arrived. Action will now take over from talk.<br /><br />If the achievement turns out to be significant, there will be no evidence whatsoever that, for me, this improvement (or greater improvement) could have been achieved by other means, much less, more quickly by other means.<br /><br />In rowing, the most important prerequisite is great endurance with a strong, technically efficient stroke. Without that prerequisite, possible levels of achievement are crucially limited; they have an artificial ceiling. I prefer not to have that artificial ceiling, so my decision has been to satisfy this prerequisite before proceeding on.<br /><br />Yes, if someone who doesn't want to have this artificial ceiling _already_ has great endurance with a strong, technically efficient stroke (e.g., if they are a 55-59s lwt and can already row a marathon at 1:52 @ 18 spm), they do not need to do the training that I have been doing for the past two years before proceeding on.<br /><br />ranger<br /><br />P.S. George, I agree. In your case, I would be _very_ careful about working hard and getting in shape. You might hurt yourself!<br /><br />

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your 1:52 Marathon would point to a 1:32 2k (Paul's Law), but only a 1:40 2k ("double the D add 3") and you are predicting a 1:36 2k for yourself, which by my standard would be disturbingly slow based on the numbers. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Which 55-year-old lwts are these numbers based on?<br /><br />My reasoning is this. For me at least, the 1:52 @ 18 spm for the marathon is about the same effort as 30'r20 @ 1:48, the same stroking power (14 SPI). 30'r20 is usually 70% of 2K watts. <br />6:24 is 395 watts. 70% of 395 watts is 276.5 watts, just about 1:48 pace.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

The 1:52 @ 18 spm marathon is not a race. It is like a UT2 row, a row with a controlled stroke rate, stroking power, and heart rate. <br /><br />The controlled heart rate is enforced by the distance (i.e., pain!). <br /><br /> <br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

If I row a marathon at 1:52 @ 18 spm, I am not sure what I might row for a marathon at an unrestricted rate (e.g., 24 spm, or whatever). It would be the time of this marathon at an unrestricted rate that would be used in the "double the d, add 3" formula, not the marathon at 18 spm.<br /><br />I think I might have to row a marathon at 1:47 to reach my full potential in the 2K. By "double the d, add 3," a marathon is 2K + 13 or so. My full potential in the 2K, I think, is 6:16/1:34.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] R S T]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 9 2005, 03:48 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 9 2005, 03:48 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->If I row a marathon at 1:52 @ 18 spm, I am not sure what I might row for a marathon at an unrestricted rate (e.g., 24 spm, or whatever). It would be the time of this marathon at an unrestricted rate that would be used in the "double the d, add 3" formula, not the marathon at 18 spm.<br /><br />I think I might have to row a marathon at 1:47 to reach my full potential in the 2K. By "double the d, add 3," a marathon is 2K + 13 or so. <b>My full potential in the 2K, I think, is 6:16/1:34.</b><br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Ranger - presumably these 'full potential' estimates assume you as a light heavyweight?<br /><br />Cheers<br />Richard

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 9 2005, 07:37 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 9 2005, 07:37 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Your 1:52 Marathon would point to a 1:32 2k (Paul's Law), but only a 1:40 2k ("double the D add 3") and you are predicting a 1:36 2k for yourself, which by my standard would be disturbingly slow based on the numbers. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Which 55-year-old lwts are these numbers based on?<br /><br />My reasoning is this. For me at least, the 1:52 @ 18 spm for the marathon is about the same effort as 30'r20 @ 1:48, the same stroking power (14 SPI). 30'r20 is usually 70% of 2K watts. <br />6:24 is 395 watts. 70% of 395 watts is 276.5 watts, just about 1:48 pace.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />What I say does not depend on any age/weight classification, if a lwt 12year old girl produced the performances you say you are doing the prediction would be equally valid, given balanced fitness levels. The nice thing about the Erg is that the numbers are the numbers there is no ajdustment for age, weight, gender, etc... If you do a 1:52 @ SR=18 DF=105 that is a very concrete requirement and anyone who can sustain it for equal time would be considered "equal" in performance. IOW - "A pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of gold."<br /><br />This is where you are mis-using SPI, as I have said before, it is contextual and subject to "gaming" (which you have done). So beware your non-attention to what I have said.<br /><br />What is going to happen is that since you have magnified the ratio of your stroke, when it collapses you will not have the recovery technique ingrained (the reason for S10PS) and the contrast is going to be quite a shock to your system. Perhaps you will be able to hold up afterall and the above will be wrong, but we'll see, won't we?

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Ranger - presumably these 'full potential' estimates assume you as a light heavyweight? </td></tr></table><br /><br />No, not at all. I don't think the weight business matters for my 2K performances, except for comfort the couple of days in and around a race, including race day. I am just as fast rowing lightweight as I was as a heavyweight.<br /><br />For me, at least, performance is determined by training, not eating.<br /><br />165 lbs. is just a nice lean weight for me. This is just about what I used to run my best marathons at when I was in my late 20s, 30s, and early 40s. <br /><br />I was about 155 lbs. in college (and earlier, in high school, etc.)<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />What I say does not depend on any age/weight classification, if a lwt 12year old girl produced the performances you say you are doing the prediction would be equally valid, given balanced fitness levels.  The nice thing about the Erg is that the numbers are the numbers there is no ajdustment for age, weight, gender, etc...  If you do a 1:52 @ SR=18 DF=105  that is a very concrete requirement and anyone who can sustain it for equal time would be considered "equal" in performance. IOW - "A pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of gold." </td></tr></table><br /><br />Sounds like b.s. to me.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is where you are mis-using SPI, as I have said before, it is contextual and subject to "gaming" (which you have done).  So beware your non-attention to what I have said.<br />What is going to happen is that since you have magnified the ratio of your stroke, when it collapses you will not have the recovery technique ingrained (the reason for S10PS) and the contrast is going to be quite a shock to your system. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Sure, I have lots to do in order to work with my new stroke at other rates. No big deal. This will be exciting. At least I will have a stroke to work with!<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps you will be able to hold up afterall and the above will be wrong, but we'll see, won't we?<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, we will. But what will it matter, really? If it takes time to learn to use the stroke at other rates, I'll just take time to do that. I am in no hurry.<br /><br />If what you say about predictions are valid, then I have _loads_ of space to work with in learning to use my new stroke at other rates and distances. <br /><br />No need to row 6:08 just now. <br /><br />That can come later.<br /><br /> <br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->As I have said before, SPI is contextual and subject to "gaming" (which you have done). </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, sports are fun games. <br /><br />The "gaming" is what makes them exciting.<br /><br />Good stuff.<br /><br />What I have done with my stroke doesn't have a whole lot to do with manipulating SPI. It just has to do with rowing at low drag and developing a technically good stroke--i.e., getting proper leverage, quickness, timing, sequencing, body positioning, etc., each time I go to pull the chain.<br /><br />The SPI turned out as it turned out. I haven't molded the stroke to get the SPI. Given the stroke, the SPI resulted. <br /><br />When I get a good strong stroke, it comes out as 14 SPI. <br /><br />This gives me quite a bit of leeway for lightening up, if need be, at higher rates. I am happy with this.<br /><br />ranger<br /><br />

[[old] ranger]

I don't know about you, but I haven't heard that tests such as 30'r20 are just "gaming" with SPI. They seem to be pretty accurate predictors.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 9 2005, 08:33 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 9 2005, 08:33 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin--><!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin--><br />What I say does not depend on any age/weight classification, if a lwt 12year old girl produced the performances you say you are doing the prediction would be equally valid, given balanced fitness levels.  The nice thing about the Erg is that the numbers are the numbers there is no ajdustment for age, weight, gender, etc...  If you do a 1:52 @ SR=18 DF=105  that is a very concrete requirement and anyone who can sustain it for equal time would be considered "equal" in performance. IOW - "A pound of feathers weighs the same as a pound of gold." </td></tr></table><br /><br />Sounds like b.s. to me.<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->This is where you are mis-using SPI, as I have said before, it is contextual and subject to "gaming" (which you have done).  So beware your non-attention to what I have said.<br />What is going to happen is that since you have magnified the ratio of your stroke, when it collapses you will not have the recovery technique ingrained (the reason for S10PS) and the contrast is going to be quite a shock to your system. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Sure, I have lots to do in order to work with my new stroke at other rates. No big deal. This will be exciting. At least I will have a stroke to work with!<br /><br /><!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Perhaps you will be able to hold up afterall and the above will be wrong, but we'll see, won't we?<br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, we will. But what will it matter, really? If it takes time to learn to use the stroke at other rates, I'll just take time to do that. I am in no hurry.<br /><br />If what you say about predictions are valid, then I have _loads_ of space to work with in learning to use my new stroke at other rates and distances. <br /><br />No need to row 6:08 just now. <br /><br />That can come later.<br /><br /> <br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You seem to be an expert on "b.s.", but why the personal attack? And in fact, what exactly about "equal" performances sounds like "b.s."? Or is it that you just don't like the fact that things can be stated specifically and accurately instead of being nebulous?<br /><br />Exactly! What will it really matter? I'm totally with you on that point. The last time trials I did "for max potential" were about two years ago now, and I vowed at the time to never do that again. (I even put it on video to remind myself not to.) The results surely only matter to me. You, on the other hand, seem to love to do a large amount of self-promotion based on your performances, which frankly is very silly looking to me. I'm happy to let the satisfaction of results for those that choose to work with me stand on their own. My philosophy goes something like this: It's not what I can do for me that is going to matter, it's what I can do for others. Simple.

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Dec 9 2005, 08:47 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Dec 9 2005, 08:47 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->I don't know about you, but I haven't heard that tests such as 30'r20 are just "gaming" with SPI. They seem to be pretty accurate predictors.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />Now come on, you just called my specification of Pace, Time, Rate, "b.s."; and now you are using it as evidence that it is not "b.s."?<br /><br />30' SR=20 for maximum distance is a fine "controlled" test. I've never said or even implied otherwise. You really do need to keep up on your facts when trying to score a point. (or go into politics where lying continuously is apparently an acceptable way to challenge credibility).<br /><br />"Gaming" SPI is commonly done by lowering the SR to inflate the SPI.<br /><br />SR PACE SPI<br />10 2:00 20.255<br />20 2:00 10.127<br />30 2:00 6.752<br /><br />24 1:30 20.005<br />47 1:30 10.215<br />72 1:30 6.668<br /><br />So you want to say that 2:00 @ SR=10 is in any way similar to a 1:30 @ 24?<br />They are nearly the same SPI, but I have a feeling that one could be sustained for quite a bit longer than the other.<br /><br />You make a mistake in trying to nail down a single point of data, there is a lot of interaction that must be accounted for. i.e. You could just as easily say I'm going to row nothing but a 1:50 pace and vary the rate to determine the training effect of the workout (Hmmm, not such a bad idea frankly), but that would not serve to train the complete stroke.<br /><br />Now do something like S10PS for all training pieces, systematically advancing the target paces for any given distance and now you would be on a better track. Or follow something like the WP where Pace/SR's are specified. Both of these things are merely simple answers to a very complex problem. What you do is the opposite, extremely complex solutions to what you percieve to be a simple problem. I'd suggest going with the ones that have experience and maximizing your efficiency, but that's just me, and I'm lazy after all. <br /><br />

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Secondly, when you first broke the 50-59lwt WR, you considered that a "envelope pushing" performance, or at least you certainly talked about it as if it were. What did I tell you at the time? (hint: "it will be broken again soon") Apparently I was right. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Yes, my 50-54 WR _was_ broken. Repeatedly. By me! And yes, then what I was able to do was bested by Graham, although just as he turned 50, while I was almost 54.<br /><br />My 6:28 at just a tad under 53 years old is still pretty good. Perhaps Graham will be able to do better two years from now. We'll see.<br /><br />I never had a clean shot at the lwt 50-54 WR. I didn't start rowing until I was 50, and even then, I was carrying 30 pounds of extra fat and rowing as a heavyweight. I didn't learn how to prepare well to row as a lightweight until I was 52 and didn't row on the water until then, either. And I really haven't developed proper technique until just now, as I am turning 55, and even so I am still working on this.<br /><br />It takes five years or so to learn the fundamentals of a sport. I think I am just approaching that now. <br /><br />The 55-59 lwt WR will be the first WR that I have had a clear shot at at the proper age, as Graham had a clear shot at my 50-54 lwt WR when he had just turned 50. Then that standard will give Graham something to shoot at that is somewhat more legitimate, when he turns 55.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] ranger]

<!--QuoteBegin--><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'><!--QuoteEBegin-->You make a mistake in trying to nail down a single point of data </td></tr></table><br /><br />IMHO, having a rowing stroke rather than a clean and jerk on the chain that has no resemblance to rowing is not to have one "data point" in my training. IMHO, having a stroke of some sort is just a fundamental thing that must be done first before you can do much of anything else.<br /><br />Then, sure, once I have this stroke, I can do all sorts of things, just as I used to. I can rotate workouts as in the WP, row at 10MPS as you suggest, follow the C2 interactive plan, do Zatopeks, race middle distances, row marathons, row ultramarathons, row all day--whatever.<br /><br />But if I am interested in pushing the envelope, I don't think I can do much at all without having a decent stroke.<br /><br />So that is what I have done first.<br /><br />As I have been the first to admit, I have not really been training, in the normal sense of the word. I have been doing "remedial" rowing. I have been learning to row!<br /><br />ranger