What Training Have You Done Today???

[old] Rocket Roy · Post by **[old] Rocket Roy** » January 13th, 2005, 2:01 pm

I'm not sure that you can compare 285 watts on the stepper to 285 watts on the erg. It's much easier to hold 285 watts on the stepper for an hour, I can do that easy enough, but on the erg that would be about 16,800 or 1.47 pace and I can't do that just yet. In fact for 30 mins on the erg I can only do 1.48.5, so far.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 13th, 2005, 2:16 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Rocket Roy @ Jan 13 2005, 01:01 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'm not sure that you can compare 285 watts on the stepper to 285 watts on the erg. It's much easier to hold 285 watts on the stepper for an hour, I can do that easy enough, but on the erg that would be about 16,800 or 1.47 pace and I can't do that just yet. In fact for 30 mins on the erg I can only do 1.48.5, so far. </td></tr></table> Yes, the erg is still harder for me, too, given equal wattage. I am not sure that it _should_ be, though. I think the erg is harder for us because our rowing technique and training is still lacking. As an eventual goal, I don't see an hour on the erg at 1:48 and 150 bpm as an impossibility for me at all, especially at a free rate. At 22 spm, this is the UT2 base for a 6:16 2K. I am not sure that I see _that_ as an impossibility, either. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 13th, 2005, 2:26 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It's much easier to hold 285 watts on the stepper for an hour, I can do that easy enough </td></tr></table> Really? I haven't seen you report this. Have you done it? If so, that's very good news, I think, especially if you found it "easy." What did your heart rate do during the session? The hour I did this morning on the stepper at 285 watts left me pretty drenched. When I do two hours at 285-300 watts, as I usually do, I throw off a sweat tsunami. I have to bring along a raft and snorkel to get back safely to the locker room! It's a bit of scene. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 13th, 2005, 2:36 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Jim Barry @ Jan 13 2005, 11:24 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Ranger, it's probably the machine that is so efficient. I've noticed this same thing on a stepper. Seems over a 30' bout, I get like 40 watts for free (about 20%). I think it is because legs are super efficient, especially with some rate behind them. Look at what the road race bikers do. Many can sustain 400 watts for the hour. I think the WR hour (watt wise) is estimated at 460 watts (http://www.pponline.co.uk/encyc/0510.htm). 411 watts for the erg hour is 19,000m, which is way beyond incredible (Dwayne's best ranked time this year is 18,010m or 351 watts). 460watts would be a 19,700m hour on the erg or almost 10 back to back 6:05 2k's. </td></tr></table> Perhaps, but I am not sure that I am convinced. We had this discussion before about the best hour row by a heavyweight. Eskild can do 18K as a lightweight. Do we know the best erg hour by a heavyweight? I bet it is up over 19K. Dwayne is not the proper standard in this case, I think. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 13th, 2005, 2:41 pm

As Eskid demonstrates, an hour can be done at 2K + 9 or "double the d, add 3." That means we could expect about 19.5K from someone, I think. ranger

[old] Bayko · Post by **[old] Bayko** » January 13th, 2005, 2:44 pm

A quick check of the rankings shows that a 17-year-old lightweight from Philadelphia has a 19993m listed for this year. That's just slightly over a 6:00 2km (faster than the WR for all lwts) pace for a full hour. Even adjusted for age that is probably better than what Freed does. Rick

[old] NavigationHazard · Post by **[old] NavigationHazard** » January 13th, 2005, 3:46 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>A quick check of the rankings shows that a 17-year-old lightweight from Philadelphia has a 19993m listed for this year. That's just slightly over a 6:00 2km (faster than the WR for all lwts) pace for a full hour. </td></tr></table> One assumes this was an innocent typo in his entry, given that he finished 11th in the January 2004 Junior US National Team Trials, averaging 7:10 /2k for a 6k piece: January 2004 NTT Results - Junior Men Count First Name Last Name January 04 Results title DOB HT WT Side Affiliation Coach 1 #### ####l 19:54:41 Sr 01-Mar-86 6' 5 190 Sc Roman Catholic/Crescent BC Ross ... 11 #### #### 21:30:00 Soph 12-Dec-87 6'1 170 Sc Catholic Ross Even allowing for improvement and the exuberence of youth, 19993m is clearly fantastic. An interesting question is why the C2 people didn't flag the posting and query the result, as appears to have been the case. I know they've asked for confirmation on the (lamentably rare) occasions I've gotten towards the top of one age-group list or another.

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » January 13th, 2005, 3:47 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Bayko @ Jan 13 2005, 01:44 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>A quick check of the rankings shows that a 17-year-old lightweight from Philadelphia has a 19993m listed for this year. That's just slightly over a 6:00 2km (faster than the WR for all lwts) pace for a full hour. Even adjusted for age that is probably better than what Freed does. Rick </td></tr></table> Nice one, Rick! Impressive. Just think what the bloke will row when he grows up! Then again, he might just learn a little more about numbers and what they mean. Or learn to type! But come on, _no one_ is faster than Freed. ranger

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » January 13th, 2005, 4:36 pm

Ranger, Double the d + 2 for a 5:40 rower is 19,700m. That is a hell of an athlete considering Pinsent appears to be about double the d + 3.5. (5:42 2k and 15:00 5k). 19,700m is 4 back to back 15:12 5k's. So again, it seem very unlikely that anyone will get to 460watts for the hour on an erg. But then again, I can not believe Freed's time, so if whatever he has, or however he prepared, merges with a 25-35 year old 6'10 "endurance" athlete with an iron will, then maybe. Eddy Mercxx, the cyclist who had a hell of an hour ride WR in the 60's said he was "never the same" after his record ride. The erg hour boundary may be untapped. Maybe. At anyrate, good luck with your efficiency hunt. I do mean to be distracting or nay-saying in your efforts here.

[old] Rocket Roy · Post by **[old] Rocket Roy** » January 13th, 2005, 4:56 pm

To be honest Rich, I think it was last week but if I remember correctly my first 20 mins was at 250 watts. On saturday afternoon I can get to the gym so I'll do an hour then at 290 watts and keep an eye on my heart rate and report back. It usually is a waterfall, I wear a long sleeved shirt to help hold the sweat, and my shoes fill up with sweat too. It is like a shower.

[old] Sir Pirate · Post by **[old] Sir Pirate** » January 13th, 2005, 6:29 pm

Todays session was 10K on-line. 1000m slow then 500m fast. (1:51 slow & 1:44 fast bits) felt good today Total 12000m Sir Pirate

[old] Coach Gus · Post by **[old] Coach Gus** » January 13th, 2005, 6:41 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> It has been a while since I have worn a monitor, though...  </td></tr></table> If this is so how do you know what your HR is during the UT2 sessions you say you are doing? </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>...so now my max might be higher. </td></tr></table> Max HR does not increase as you age. It decreases. You can slow down the loss by exercise, but you cannot increase your max. If it's been a while since you last tested in some way for max HR, it is likely less and maybe much less than the 200 you think it is. </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I was doing 1:50 (at 23 spm) flat at 162 bpm this morning. Nice!  </td></tr></table> This is meaningless unless you let us know how long. </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> I think I can do a marathon at 162 bpm... </td></tr></table> This is just a matter of training. You have to train your body to be able to endure this HR for the time duration of your marathon. Getting up to that HR is not the problem. Holding it for the length of time of a FM is.

[old] Xavier · Post by **[old] Xavier** » January 13th, 2005, 6:44 pm

AM: 60min 15370m / 1:57.1 / 20spm / avHR152 PM: 10k 39:36.0 / 1:58.8 / 20spm / avHR143 Xav

[old] John Rupp · Post by **[old] John Rupp** » January 13th, 2005, 8:17 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Jan 13 2005, 07:02 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> I still seem to be a little more efficient on the stepper than on the erg. Can't yet do 1:47 pace (285 watts) for an hour at 148 bpm on the erg, at least not with a good strong stroke (e.g., 22-24 spm).  </td></tr></table> Are you stepping at 44-48 strides per minute?

[old] Jim Barry · Post by **[old] Jim Barry** » January 13th, 2005, 10:52 pm

Ok, back to the thread title here: 4k @ 236 watts. I was hoping to do the 5k planned and bust 19:00min, but it just was not my day. HR was racing to 186 (max 193). Seems the Thursday work always starts off rough, but then I'm warmed for Sat and Sun. 10 pullups yesterday. It was not a great day. I began my commute with a powerslide into a snowbank (no damage). My AWD Subaru is pretty good in the snow, but not that good. (note to self: No more fantasy rally driving)