Ut2!!

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 28th, 2004, 4:45 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I for one can appreciate the work that goes into a meal at, say, the Savoy Grill. But I don't want to spend anyhere near that time in my own *** DELETE - SPAM ***. Not least of my reasons is that I don't have years to practice dicing carrots and onions before moving on to sauce-making on a nightly-demand basis.  </td></tr></table> Nice analogy! _Exactly_ appropriate. Being on vacation and with company coming tonight (and my wife at work), I have spent all morning baking apple crisp and making eggplant parmigiana. Yep, it takes time to peel and dice the apples, to melt the butter, mix the flour and brown sugar. Yep, it takes time to saute the mushrooms, to simmer the fresh tomatoes--the fresh garlic, the fresh green peppers, the fresh onions. Yep, it takes time to peel the egglant, to coat it in bread crumbs, dip it in a seasoned eggs sauce, brown it in hot oil. And then the mozarella! The parmigiana! Yummmmmmmm. Delivering a rowing stroke with full fitness and full technical competence has _exactly_ the same savor! ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 28th, 2004, 4:57 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>In addition, he has writtien that higher intensity work for 32-36 minutes is "significantly more effective" in improving aerobic capacity than longer rows and "more neuromuscularly task specific."  </td></tr></table> Tom-- Yes, it is possible to take on UT1 rows, as specified by the C2 manual, without doing UT2 rows--if you can hack it. Unfortunately, the UT1 rows are just as demanding. Why? Because the gold standard is written into the program right on up the line. For instance, for people such as Pete, Toddler, and ASH, it demands that they regularly do things like 3 x 5K at 17:15 (1:42.5) and 24 spm. It demands that I do things like 3 x 5K at 17:40 and 24 spm. I think you are right. If you can do this sort of thing in the UT1 band, there is no reason to do the UT2 band. But this is a big "if"! I know that I couldn't do it, but then again, I am not everyone. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 28th, 2004, 5:00 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>I'm willing to wager that Matthew Pinsent did not weigh 100 pounds more than Ranger when he (Pinesent) was racing, </td></tr></table> O.K. So I was exaggerating a little. 70 pounds? 80 pounds? I weighed in at the 2003 CRASH-Bs at 161 lbs. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 28th, 2004, 5:14 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>You are entitled to your inferences, and your opinions about my ability and potential. But with all respect, you can have no idea what my endurance levels, fitness, technical ability or lack thereof, and stroke strength are. </td></tr></table> True. Best of luck with your goals. I am just trying to help. BTW, in many years, in the 50s hwt divison, sub-6:20 would win the CRASH-Bs. That is, if you erg under 6:20 in a year or so, you might well be the best indoor rower your age and weight in the world. You are (respectfully! impressively!) ambitious. ranger

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 28th, 2004, 5:19 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>Fritz Hagerman, the phsyiologist for the US rowing program, also recommends that the bulk of one's work be UT1, not 2. He has written that muscle biopsies show that rowing for 60 minutes or more at low steady state intensity is not more effective than 30 minutes of rowing at the same intensity. In addition, he has writtien that higher intensity work for 32-36 minutes is "significantly more effective" in improving aerobic capacity than longer rows and "more neuromuscularly task specific."  </td></tr></table> Tom-- Did Hagerman do this study on 50 year old rowers (who want to be CRASH-B champions)? Or was the study done primarily on younger rowers? ranger

[old] remador · Post by **[old] remador** » December 28th, 2004, 5:27 pm

Building strength, resistance and aerobic capacity - in other words, getting strong as an ox, an athlete - was always made over the shoulders of the 16-22 spm - giant training. This was the base to build OARSMEN. Recently, there is too much opinion and less toughness (I am just 31 yo). AM

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » December 28th, 2004, 6:15 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Dec 29 2004, 10:14 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>BTW, in many years, in the 50s hwt divison, sub-6:20 would win the CRASH-Bs. That is, if you erg under 6:20 in a year or so, you might well be the best indoor rower your age and weight in the world. </td></tr></table> 3 years 4 months to go - I hope they spell my name right, its a long way to travel from New Zealand - George

[old] Sir Pirate · Post by **[old] Sir Pirate** » December 28th, 2004, 6:23 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Dec 28 2004, 09:00 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> I weighed in at the 2003 CRASH-Bs at 161 lbs. ranger  </td></tr></table> Ranger, am I correct in saying that you train as a Hwt but race as a Lightweight? If this is the case, you will always beat a "true" Lwt. Sir Pirate

[old] ranger · Post by **[old] ranger** » December 28th, 2004, 6:46 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>3 years 4 months to go - I hope they spell my name right, its a long way to travel from New Zealand  </td></tr></table> George-- If you are serious about this, though, I would stop wasting your time with all of those HM UT2 rows. Get moving! Everything you do over 30 minutes long is a waste. Hagerman says so. And you can't argue with science. ranger

[old] Byron Drachman · Post by **[old] Byron Drachman** » December 28th, 2004, 6:46 pm

<table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE </td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>It is probably a much stiffer requirement that you think, too, given that you have never done a 100%, flat out, fall on your face, turn blue 2K, so you don't really know yet what you can row as a 2K pb. If I just stayed comforable on a 2K, I would probably row about 20 seconds slower (1:42 pace rather than 1:37). </td></tr></table> Hi again Ranger, That 2K is still on my logcard, so I checked again. My heart rate was 162, which is RHR+.85*HRR. From what I have gleaned at the UK training guide, I want to be at 95% for most of the effort? No wonder people say it's the hardest event. Since I was a bit of a slacker doing my 2K effort, after looking at that table again I realize that I can easily do 60 minutes at 20-22 spm at the rate specified in that table. Now here is another question for you: Considering where you are, shouldn't you be doing the Wolverine plan? By the way, since we're almost neighbors, if you ever make it to East Lansing and have some spare time, let me invite you to go for a ride on the Irish Mail. Have you ever ridden one? It's a hoot. I have two of them. I'll practice yelling "Hey, wait up!" before we ride them. Link to Irish Mail: <a href='http://www.math.msu.edu/~drachman/cycle/irishmail.html' target='_blank'>http://www.math.msu.edu/~drachman/cycle ... br> The server is down at the moment, but it should work once they fix it. Byron

[old] Steve_R · Post by **[old] Steve_R** » December 28th, 2004, 6:56 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Dec 28 2004, 11:47 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>My claim is that, really, _no one_ in and around the C2 web forums can do the prescribed UT2 training. Why? _Everyone_ is too fixated on racing, even in training. As far as I can tell, _everyone_ neglects fundamentals.  </td></tr></table> Ranger, I am not sure why you continually use "no one" and "everyone" like somehow your gross generalization makes it true. As I said in my earlier post, I used the C2 UK training schedule for my first training guide. I also stopped using it because it forced me to race far too frequently for my taste. I decided to work on technique. Since my first erg session was Sept 4, 2004, I have completed over 500,000m at an average UT2 pace. That includes a HM at a slower pace and some UT1 pace with very little AT, TR or AN. Recently, I repeated my UT2 pace with my new HRM (thanks Santa) and never went over 151. Based on HRR calculations, I should be below 154. I don't have any dreams of being the fastest indoor rower or working out at my house pulling at the chain so fast that I ruin my back with poor technique. I will be going back to the C2 training schedule in the new year but probably not test nearly as frequently as they suggest. Sure, I may not improve my times as fast, but that is not my goal. I agree with the training concepts behind what you are saying, I just wanted to give voice to people here that are not fixated on racing as you have oversimplified with your comments. Steve

[old] TomR/the elder · Post by **[old] TomR/the elder** » December 28th, 2004, 7:46 pm

Ranger-- Are you saying that the C2 training program is too difficult for you? Perhaps a more interesting question is, does it make more sense to substitute UT2 rows for more demanding UT1 rows called for in the program, or would it be preferable to do that day's training at UT1 intensity, but shorten the intervals? If 3x5k is too tough, how abut 2x4k or 3x3k? Would that workout be better than a UT2 session? PaulS has raised questions about the value of long workouts; perhaps this is what he's talking about. Tom

[old] PaulS · Post by **[old] PaulS** » December 28th, 2004, 9:52 pm

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Byron Drachman @ Dec 28 2004, 02:46 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> I'll practice yelling "Hey, wait up!" before we ride them. Byron  </td></tr></table> Based on your previous posting regarding your neighbor, you may be saying this "tongue in cheek", but having seen Rangers original Erging style, I'd recommend taking that practice seriously...

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » December 29th, 2004, 12:02 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (Mel Harbour @ Dec 28 2004, 12:48 PM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'> </div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>CODE </td></tr><tr><td id='CODE'> Band | %HRR | %Gold Speed | -----|-------|-------------| UT2 | 56-63 | 75-78 | UT1 | 63-70 | 78-82 | AT | 70-80 | 82-86 |  </td></tr></table>  </td></tr></table> Worked this out based on what you said Mel, but the prospect was dam scary - it would have me doing UT2 somewhere around the 1:46 (294w) - 1:44 (311w) for a 6:24 2k (396w) - George ps Guess I am not ready for the next Olympics - yet

[old] GeorgeD · Post by **[old] GeorgeD** » December 29th, 2004, 12:07 am

</div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td class='genmed'>QUOTE (ranger @ Dec 29 2004, 11:46 AM)</td></tr><tr><td class='quote'>And you can't argue with science. ranger </td></tr></table> Hey same problem with my wife, so I guess I am to old to learn now not to disagree - George (I just skulk off to the gym.) ps As to getting a move on I figure 3 yrs 4 months gives me plenty of time to build the endurance and 6 - 8 weeks of speed in 2008

Concept2 Forum

Ut2!!

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training

Training