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-->You are now making rowing at high DF a virtue, while in fact it was imposed on you by your exclusive focus on rowing at low spm and high spi.<br /><br />hjs is right. Most people would develop in training abilities that would be useful in racing. At least that is the scientific approach, but a poet may think differently! </td></tr></table><br /><br />No one is making me race at high drag! I am not putting up the drag because I _can't_ row at low drag. I am putting up the drag because I am even faster yet at high drag. I can race at low drag if I want. I now row just fine at low drag. I don't understand your point. Are you saying it would be smarter to race at low drag even if I am slower than if I rowed at high drag? <br /><br />I have not just been training. I have been learning to row. Big difference. As PaulS recommends, when learning to row, it is better to row (strapless) at low drag. It teaches your levers to be fast and precise and your stroke to be long. This learning process at low drag doesn't dictate how you might want to race once you have learned to row, though. For the purposes of racing, you need to experiment with drag to see what is best for you.<br /><br />Sure, most of the time, training can lead seamlessly into racing. But not necessarily when you have just been learning to row. My stroke is entirely different now. I will now need to learn how to race with it. I am sure that there will be some futzing around until I settle on the best way to do this.<br /><br />Indeed! I would love to have learned to row when I was 14 years old. Then these things wouldn't be an issue. As it turns out, though, I really just learned to row with full success this past year, when I was 54. Before that, by and large, I was just yanking the chain, or if not, trying to do a proper stroke with only limited success in one or another way: power, timing, sequencing, relaxation, rhythmicity, action at the footplate, use of the slide, etc. <br /><br />ranger

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Jan 11 2006, 08:14 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jan 11 2006, 08:14 AM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->188 df. is indeed pretty heavy with a big stroke and perhaps too heavy. We'll see. I certainly get more pace with it. 155 df. might still be best. As I remember, in 2003, I rowed at about 175 df., setting 7 on my C. Setting 7 is now 155 df. ! My C is pretty worn out! <br /><br />I'll keep experimenting with these things.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />You are in control of the "heaviness" by simply the force you apply to the handle. The concern with upping the DF so drastically is that you are increasing the time of the drive by roughtly 5% for every +20DF. Perhaps this is the proverbial "giving 120%", but is it possible in the real world, much less practical, or can we all merely give 100%?

[[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 are in control of the "heaviness" by simply the force you apply to the handle. The concern with upping the DF so drastically is that you are increasing the time of the drive by roughtly 5% for every +20DF. Perhaps this is the proverbial "giving 120%", but is it possible in the real world, much less practical, or can we all merely give 100%? </td></tr></table><br /><br />There are quite a few ways to modulate effort when rowing: cutting the slide, changing heel-toe action at the footplace, leaning at the finish, easing up on one or another of the levers and accentuating the use of compementary levers, raising or lowering the rate. Changing the drag can be accompanied by any of a number off these.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Jan 11 2006, 08:35 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jan 11 2006, 08:35 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-->You are in control of the "heaviness" by simply the force you apply to the handle. The concern with upping the DF so drastically is that you are increasing the time of the drive by roughtly 5% for every +20DF. Perhaps this is the proverbial "giving 120%", but is it possible in the real world, much less practical, or can we all merely give 100%? </td></tr></table><br /><br />There are quite a few ways to modulate effort when rowing: cutting the slide, changing heel-toe action at the footplace, leaning at the finish, easing up on one or another of the levers and accentuating the use of compementary levers, raising or lowering the rate. Changing the drag can be accompanied by any of a number off these.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br /><br />Of course, but have you been training these so specifically that they will work under a maximal effort?<br /><br />Another thing that happens with the high DF is that the range of instantaneous watts changes quite a bit.<br /><br />For example:<br />Pace 1:27 R33<br />DF 104: 375-700watts<br />DF 147: 325-775watts<br /><br />A tighter range here is similar to even pacing, more efficient.

[[old] ranger]

BTW, given the enormous increase in stroking power that you can get by just learning to row with correct timing, sequencing, leverage, rhythmicity, etc. (2-4 SPI?) vs. not, I really wonder whether very many ergers really row well, given how many struggle with stroking power, even though they appear to be _very_ strong and appear to be going through the motions correctly, at least to casual observation. <br /><br />Do many ergers really learn to develop fast enough legs and good enough leverage to get any suspension on the handle at all, much less suspension on the handle from the lift with the back earlly on in the stroke right on through the middle of the stroke to the finish? Do many ergers really sequence and time the various gestures in the drive correctly and precisely enough so that the accumulating force of the sequential application of the levers is additive rather than just simultaneous? And so forth.<br /><br />Just a thought.<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-->Of course, but have you been training these so specifically that they will work under a maximal effort? </td></tr></table><br /><br />As I have mentioned, I don't think I am going to reach my full potential with this new stroke this year! I think my full potential is 6:16. Hey, I am just trying to get back into rowing faster and racing after slugging it out at low rates and high stroking power for two years working on technique. <br /><br />We'll see how it goes, but I think I will be entirely able to pull off some good rows this year. If it doesn't happen, then, it doesn't happen. But really, rowing well has its advantages, I think, whatever you have trained yourself to do. And hard work usually has its rewards, whatever the work might have been. I haven't worked at all at racing for two years. Of course I will be rusty! The question is, though, have I increased my potential to the point where even this rusty use of my new stroke is as good or better than what I could do with my old stroke, or if not this, good enough to do well anyway. <br /><br />Over the past two years, I have chosen the path of trying to increase my potential rather than focus on racing, which usually just develops and keeps active some store of potential that you have developed in the past. Now I need to learn to use this new potential. Sure, it might take a while to do this. But who cares? I reckon I have about 30 years of rowing to go in order to get this done. Eventually, having more potential, I think, _can't_ be worse than having less.<br /><br />ranger

[[old] FrancoisA]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Jan 11 2006, 03:39 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jan 11 2006, 03:39 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->No, if I had spent two days a week or so doing L1 and L2 workouts (and then recovering from them) I wouldn't have made a fraction of the progress I have made on technique, stroking power, endurance with power, foundational fitness, and so forth, that I have.  <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Recovering form L1 or L2 workouts are <b>not</b> a waste of time! It allows your body to make adaptations. One can still work on technique and power during L1 and L2. Those workouts are demanding and promote efficiency at race pace; BTW, I would rather do 4 hours of training at a comfortable 140-160 HR.<br /><br />There is a tradeoff between volume and intensity. A 2k erg race being a relatively short event, there is little need for a "mountain" of endurance at the level of an ironman.<br /><br />In the end, it is a question of training philosophies. Ranger views training as the building of a pyramid: first build a wide aerobic base. Mike Caviston sees it like the growing of a child, where the various "systems" relevant to performance are regularly stressed so as to grow more or less proportionally.<br /><br />Well, the last time I look in the mirror, I had more in common with a child than a pyramid! <br />But we are all diferent! <br /><br />Francois

[[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-->Another thing that happens with the high DF is that the range of instantaneous watts changes quite a bit.<br /><br />For example:<br />Pace 1:27 R33<br />DF 104: 375-700watts<br />DF 147: 325-775watts<br /><br />A tighter range here is similar to even pacing, more efficient. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Have you told Ripley and Watt what a mistake they made when they rowed 6:07 and 6:25 as 50-year-olds?<br /><br /> <br /><br />Uneven pacing in the drive! Horrible mistake!<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-->There is a tradeoff between volume and intensity. A 2k erg race being a relatively short event, there is little need for a "mountain" of endurance at the level of an ironman. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Who is to say? <br /><br /> <br /><br />The proof is in the pudding. Whatever works. <br /><br />ranger

[[old] mpukita]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Jan 11 2006, 12:47 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jan 11 2006, 12:47 PM)</b></div></td></tr><tr><td class='quote'><!--QuoteEBegin-->BTW, given the enormous increase in stroking power that you can get by just learning to row with correct timing, sequencing, leverage, rhythmicity, etc. (2-4 SPI?) vs. not, I really wonder whether very many ergers really row well, given how many struggle with stroking power, even though they appear to be _very_ strong and appear to be going through the motions correctly, at least to casual observation.  <br /><br />Do many ergers really learn to develop fast enough legs and good enough leverage to get any suspension on the handle at all, much less suspension on the handle from the lift with the back earlly on in the stroke right on through the middle of the stroke to the finish? Do many ergers really sequence and time the various gestures in the drive correctly and precisely enough so that the accumulating force of the sequential application of the levers is additive rather than just simultaneous? And so forth.<br /><br />Just a thought.<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br />Rich:<br /><br />Would you please be kind enough to explain "suspension on the handle"? I believe I understand the other aspects of what you've described or listed, but cannot get my mind around what you mean by this.<br /><br />Thanks!<br /><br />-- Mark

[[old] NavigationHazard]

In a race to make the 1000th post in this thread.....

[[old] NavigationHazard]

Curses, foiled again.....

[[old] PaulS]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Jan 11 2006, 09:05 AM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jan 11 2006, 09:05 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-->Another thing that happens with the high DF is that the range of instantaneous watts changes quite a bit.<br /><br />For example:<br />Pace 1:27 R33<br />DF 104: 375-700watts<br />DF 147: 325-775watts<br /><br />A tighter range here is similar to even pacing, more efficient. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Have you told Ripley and Watt what a mistake they made when they rowed 6:07 and 6:25 as 50-year-olds?<br /><br /> <br /><br />Uneven pacing in the drive! Horrible mistake!<br /><br />ranger <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />No, but my facts regarding both of those guys seem to be a bit better than yours, even though I've only met Graham once and never met Ripley at all.<br /><br />I would have my doubts about them making a drastic change in DF just prior to a race, even weeks before. Do you have any idea of how they trained?<br /><br />You are applying too much emotion to the simple data that I presented.<br /><br />Just the facts man, just the facts.

[[old] FrancoisA]

<!--QuoteBegin-ranger+Jan 11 2006, 05:09 PM--><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><div class='genmed'><b>QUOTE(ranger @ Jan 11 2006, 05:09 PM)</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-->There is a tradeoff between volume and intensity. A 2k erg race being a relatively short event, there is little need for a "mountain" of endurance at the level of an ironman. </td></tr></table><br /><br />Who is to say? <br /><br /> <br /><br />The proof is in the pudding. Whatever works. <br /> </td></tr></table><br /><br />It has been my experience, shared by many other athletes, that training has to be specific to the sport <b>and</b> event duration to yield the best results.<br /><br />For instance, when I trained specifically for the half-ironman, my sprint triathlons have suffered. Conversely, when the focus was on the short triathlons, the longer ones were slower. And this is in spite of the fact that I was training only 2 hours a day for sprint triathlons and four hours a day for the longer ones. Of course, those two hours were more intense. <br />The same thing happened in swimming. Last Summer, I focused on open water swimming (3K to 5K) and my 100m free got slower. Now that the focus is on the shorter distances, it is the longer ones that are slower.<br /><br />So yes, IMO there is a tradeoff between volume and intensity.<br /><br />The same can be said about cross-training. I have been erging (5 hours a week of WP) and swimming (12 hours a week) since September. At the end of November, I started to reduce the intensity and volume of my swimming and my erging has benefited. Unfortunately, three weeks ago, I injured my back and stopped erging. This reduction in volume has allowed me to put more intensity in swimming, and I am already seeing some nice improvements.<br /><br />After all, there is only a finite amount of energy one can put in training.<br /><br />Training has to be specific to the sport and duration of the event. It is probably a physiological consequence.<br /><br />Francois<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-->In the end, it is a question of training philosophies. Ranger views training as the building of a pyramid: first build a wide aerobic base. Mike Caviston sees it like the growing of a child, where the various "systems" relevant to performance are regularly stressed so as to grow more or less proportionally.<br /><br />Well, the last time I look in the mirror, I had more in common with a child than a pyramid!  </td></tr></table><br /><br />Mike's "systems" are not growing anywhere. He is just getting older and slowing down. Why? In terms of your metaphor, he is a child when each fall rolls around, but one with less potential. <br /><br />Why? Those who set world records are usually near the limits of their potential. At this point, their times plateau and they are no longer a child with potential to develop. They have already developed it. <br /><br />Since he set the 40s lwt WR five years ago, Mike has slowed down about 8 seconds, give or take. Dennis Hastings has slowed down about the same over that time. Andy Ripley has slowed down about 17 seconds or so over the last eight years. Paul Hendershott slowed down 15 seconds or so over the last decade. Tore Foss has slowed down about 20 seconds. And so on and so forth. Such as the blows of Father Time to those who have already fully developed the potential that they have.<br /><br />For good or bad, my training has been an attempt to overcome this kind of decline, even though I was also a world record holder and therefore near the limits of my potential. For the first year, I had great success. After a year of foundational training working on my weakness and basic fitness, I lowered my world record by a second each on two successive rows. Of course, the more you succeed in this game of trying to augment your potential the harder it gets. That is why I have taken to even more extreme strategies and arcs of time to try to succeed again.<br /><br />I don't think that it is legitimate to parallel the two modes of training, Mike's and mine. I have been doing pretty extreme, exclusive training concentrated on my rowing weaknesses and my overall fitness, some of the sources of my basic potential. I have been trying to augment my potential rather than realize the potential that I have, as Mike seems to be doing from year to year. These two goals differ quite a bit and lead to very different training strategies. <br /><br />Or so it seems to me. <br /><br />Sure, I am caught in various dilemmas at this point, when I turn from training and try to race; but this does not mean that there is some better alternative. As far as I can tell, the effects of the other alternatives for training are clear. For those in and around my age, once you get to world record level, following these other training plans, no matter how good their might be for realizing potential, just lead to a steady decline, not to a further augmentation of potential. <br /><br />If you still have a lot of potential to develop, then Mike's WP, I think, is fine. But if and when you have developed that potential and, like me, are interested in augmenting it to some new level, you might need other (more extreme and problematic) strategies.<br /><br />ranger