Wolverine....or just erg hard....always.

[Marius]

While this topic is still alive, does anyone know where I can find the updated tables? I can only find the old ones (no odd numbered strokes and 6' up to 148). I'm pretty sure I stumbled across a newer version of at least the sequence tables on the uk forums, but forgot to save the link, and since they were posted as a jpeg, a search didn't help so far.
Thx in advance

[nharrigan]

Shot at 2006-12-20

[Marius]

Thx a lot

[ranger]

I think if you look at the training performances of most people who follow training plans with a large proportion of low rate, high power rowing, you will find that their low rate distance performances are much better compared to their free rate distance, or 2000m times, than those following plans advocating slightly higher rates for the majority of the distance rowing. Put another way, for the same training performances, people following the Pete Plan (for example) will generally out perform those following the Wolverine Plan over 2000m

Pete-

There is no evidence for this at all.

30'r20 is an exact predictor--no matter who you are or what you do in your training.

ranger

[ranger]

Are you saying people who follow the pete plan row faster than people who follow the wolverine plan?

No, what I'm saying is that if you're aiming for a fast 2k time from your training, as most of us are, then you want to get the best possible 2k time in comparison to your training paces. Therefore it could be argued that the most successful training plan is the one that produces the fastest 2k time from the training paces of the athlete.

You often see Ranger argue the converse, telling people that from their 2k pace they should be rowing distance pieces, especially at low rates, faster. This is nonsense, it is the people rowing the low rate distance pieces faster that should alter their training to be able to row their 2k faster.

Which would you rather be, someone who can row 35k at 1:48 pace and 2k at 1:35, or someone who can only row 35k at 1:52 pace, but row 2k at 1:33? In terms of overall fitness the former may be more impressive, but in erg racing the later is superior.

Depends on who you are talking about, Pete.

I would be delighted with your first scenario.

I am a 57-year-old lwt.

If I row 42K, 1:48 @ 21 spm, which is what I am training myself to do now, I row the FM faster than any lightweight of any age in the history of the sport.

If I do it at weight, I set the Open lwt FM WR.

That sounds pretty good to me.

Yes, then, if I can do that, I can probably row 2K in 1:35.

That would break the 55s lwt WR by 18 seconds (not to mention break the 55s hwt WR by a whisker, too).

I don't know, but those things sound pretty good, too.

Hard to say how your other case would apply to 55s lwts.

Who are you thinking of?

Graham Watt might come close to rowing 35K @ 1:52.

But I suspect that he can only row 2K now in 1:37.

Happy to see him row 1:33, but I don't really think it is going to happen.

Are you saying that the Pete Plan can train Graham to row 2K in 1:33?

I am sure he would be delighted to hear that.

Why don't you drop him a note?

"Dear Graham,

Merry Christmas!

I have a way to train you to break your own 50s lwt WR by 13 seconds.

Listen up.

The key is to do what Mike Caviston advocates,

but without the part (Level 4) that has all the hard work in it and that you need to spend most of your time working at if you want to get better.

Yours,

Pete

P.S. Following this plan for years and years now, I have never gotten any better, and I am only 30 years old, still in my prime."



ranger

[NavigationHazard]

.....It would also suggest that at a certain point, 8x500 become largly useless.

Actually it doesn't. He does say:

For a period of intermittent exercise that approximates a max VO2 workload to overload the cardiovascular system effectively, it needs to be of at least 2 minutes duration

So if you want to approximate a max VO2 workload then more the 2 minutes is ideal, but if you want anaerobic training (which you do for a 2K race or less), then less then 2 minutes is important. He goes on to say:

Is there ever a place for the really short, fast stuff ?

Yes, if your event duration is in the 3-4 minute range (1000 meters for rowers), then ANAEROBIC CAPACITY will play a contributing role. Even in these short events, aerobic endurance is still the foundation of success, but your ability to tolerate very high lactic acid levels and maintain good technique (rowers, swimmers) is critical over the concluding moments of the race. In this case we employ Anaerobic Intervals ....In these sprint intervals, 30 seconds to 2 minutes in length, ...
.... These adaptations are also achieved much faster than aerobic adaptations, so sprint training need not be implemented before 4-6 weeks out from a specific competition.

Mike does recommend the 8x500 year round, so he does disagree with the last sentence quoted above. I will also point out that Greg Lemond recommends doing sprints year round, even in the off season and his big race was training for a 3 week 2000mile bike race! I think his reasoning was to maintain and build strength. (Sprints on the bike at typically less then 30 seconds and they are often required many times during most bike races, even very long ones.)

Both Steve Seiler and Mike Caviston, are definitely worth listening to, but as I've read and thought about what they both say, the differences between their thinking are not as big as they appear at first.

With great respect to Seiler, it is quite possible to get significant VO2max improvement from work intervals much shorter than 2 minutes. The trick is that you need to combine a lot of reps at the right intensity with rests sufficiently short that you consistently reach the appropriate HR. See Jan Helgerud et al., "Aerobic High-Intensity Intervals Improve VO2max More Than Moderate Training," Medicine And Science In Sports & Exercise, 2007 Apr ;39 (4):665-671.

Here's the abstract:

Med Sci Sports Exerc. 2007 Apr ;39 (4):665-671 17414804 (P,S,E,B,D) Recommended:1 Aerobic High-Intensity Intervals Improve V O2max More Than Moderate Training.

[My paper] Jan Helgerud, Kjetill Høydal, Eivind Wang, Trine Karlsen, Pålr Berg, Marius Bjerkaas, Thomas Simonsen, Cecilies Helgesen, Ninal Hjorth, Ragnhild Bach, Jan Hoff
1Department of Circulation and Imaging, Faculty of Medicine, Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, NORWAY; 2Hokksund Medical Rehabilitation Centre, Hokksund, NORWAY; 3Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, St. Olav's University Hospital, Trondheim, NORWAY.
PURPOSE:: The present study compared the effects of aerobic endurance training at different intensities and with different methods matched for total work and frequency. Responses in maximal oxygen uptake (V O2max), stroke volume of the heart (SV), blood volume, lactate threshold (LT), and running economy (CR) were examined. METHODS:: Forty healthy, nonsmoking, moderately trained male subjects were randomly assigned to one of four groups:1) long slow distance (70% maximal heart rate; HRmax); 2)lactate threshold (85% HRmax); 3) 15/15 interval running (15 s of running at 90-95% HRmax followed by 15 s of active resting at 70% HRmax); and 4) 4 x 4 min of interval running (4 min of running at 90-95% HRmax followed by 3 min of active resting at 70%HRmax). All four training protocols resulted in similar total oxygen consumption and were performed 3 d.wk for 8 wk. RESULTS:: High-intensity aerobic interval training resulted in significantly increased V O2max compared with long slow distance and lactate-threshold training intensities (P < 0.01). The percentage increases for the 15/15 and 4 x 4 min groups were 5.5 and 7.2%, respectively, reflecting increases in VO2max from 60.5 to 64.4 mL.kg.min and 55.5 to 60.4 mL.kg.min. SV increased significantly by approximately 10% after interval training (P < 0.05). CONCLUSIONS:: High-aerobic intensity endurance interval training is significantly more effective than performing the same total work at either lactate threshold or at 70% HRmax, in improving VO2max. The changes in VO2max correspond with changes in SV, indicating a close link between the two.

Note the positive results for the 15"/15" protocol (which involved 47 reps). True, in the body of the paper, the authors point out that it's "difficult to administer" that kind of short-interval on/off work and thus recommend the 4 x 4' protocol. From my own experience I would add that if you get the intensity, total work duration, and/or rest periods wrong, you may well undermine or even lose the effect on VO2max from short-interval aerobic work....

[ranger]

As Mike C. explains, the major purpose of low rate rowing is to work on maintaining a long, strong stroke, while you build aerobic capacity, endurance, strength, and other matters (psychological toughness).

In part, maintaining a long, strong stroke is a technical matter. As your technique improves, low rate rowing becomes easier and easier and you do it better and better. Things like full compression at the catch, quick legs, proper timing and sequencing, solid action at the footplate, good posture, quick recoveries, and good preparation for the next catch make an enormous difference in how easily you can hit targets in low rate rowing. Then, as you build up these technical improvements, they naturally work their way into your rowing at higher rates. Instead of just straining to row fast, even though you are rowing poorly, you row well, and because of that, you naturally row faster--faster and faster.

Perhaps it is just my own perspective, but it seems to me that technical proficiency really breaks down in the veteran divisions. _Very_ few veteran rowers still row well, no matter how well they rowed when they were younger, if they rowed when they were younger at all. Therefore, IMHO, a _huge_ part of the historical decline in times in the veteran ranks, relative to the younger divisions, is technical. By and large, the rowing is just bad. Therefore, the rowing is slow.

Since breaking the 50s lwt WR in 2003 (three times!), I have been working hard on these technical matters and this training has transformed my rowing, both OTW and off.

I now pull a nice 1:48 @ 20 spm (14 SPI), and I am training myself to try to hold this for a FM.

This is rowing _very_ well.

In fact, for a lightweight of any age, 15 SPI is ideal; so 14 SPI is just a bit off of perfect.

As it turns out, no lightweight of any age has ever rowed a FM @ 1:48, free rate.

Back in 2003, I would row long distances at something like 1:52 @ 25 spm (10 SPI).

My FM pb back then was 1:54/2:40.

This means that my stroke is now 40% stronger.

I used to row with about 80 kgs. of peak pressure.

I now get 110 kgs.

Rowing much of your training at low rates has other benefits, too.

Clearly, when you row well, it is more enjoyable.

Rowing is enormously elegant kinaesthetically when you do it well.

The flow is amazing!

If you row poorly, with a short, weak stroke, you miss the aesthetics of this kinaesthetic flow entirely, and (for most people) the sport becomes just a chore--"how much can I hurt myself, etc."

That's absurd.

Of course, getting into this flow OTW is even better yet.

Let the sun shine in!

Feel the spray!

Rowin' in the wind!

ranger

P.S. If you are interested in going fast, it is my experience that learning to row well is worth about 4 seconds per 500m.

[Yankeerunner]

P.S. If you are interested in going fast, it is my experience that learning to row well is worth about 4 seconds per 500m.

Well no, actually it isn't. It is your theory, yet to remain proven. Despite your reported Hurculean training and constant bragadoccio and dozens of predictions of an imminent 6:16 in the four and a half years since your glorious 2003 season, you have in fact done no such thing.

It is not in your experience.

[ranger]

It is not in your experience.

Yes, it is, every day when I row.

And I have already done some of the trials to prove it (e.g., 1Kr24 @ 1:38, 500r30 @ 1:30).

You just ignore these results.

No matter.

More to come.

ranger

[johnlvs2run]

If you are interested in going fast, it is my experience that learning to row well is worth about 4 seconds per 500m.

6:28 + learning to row well = 6:44

[whp4]

It is not in your experience.

Yes, it is, every day when I row.

And I have already done some of the trials to prove it (e.g., 1Kr24 @ 1:38, 500r30 @ 1:30).

You just ignore these results.

No matter.

More to come.

ranger

A couple of questions:

Which events or pieces, exactly, have you rowed demonstrating this 4s/500m improvement? You haven't ranked any new PBs in years. No conversion factors allowed, only an honest A/B comparison, such as I rowed a 5k @ 1:45 in 2003 and now I have rowed a 5k @ 1:41 on <date in 2008>. For the pieces you mentioned, kindly tell us when you did them before the big improvement, and what the results were.

And speaking of conversion factors, where DO you get these notions that such and such a restricted rate piece maps exactly into everyone's abilities at some wildly different distance and stroke rate? Some of us ignore them because in our experience we know that they do NOT have the universal applicability that you seem to believe. Even a relatively widely accepted one like 30'r20 to predict 2k performance is going to be a poor predictor if the person doing it never rows at r20!

Since breaking the 50s lwt WR in 2003 (three times!), I have been working hard on these technical matters and this training has transformed my rowing, both OTW and off.

I now pull a nice 1:48 @ 20 spm (14 SPI), and I am training myself to try to hold this for a FM.

So, can you do 10% of a FM at that pace yet? Call it 15'r20 @ 1:48, a nice stepping stone toward the trials you are planning for next month if memory serves (I misplaced my Ranger Epic Rows 2008 Edition commemorative program, darn it all to heck). How about a screenshot? You were talking about doing a FM trial, going after Slocum's WR, at the end of LAST month until those pesky papers you had to grade rolled in (wood and wood products are the bane of your existence, aren't they!) For a half-trained athlete (your words) training to do distance X @ pace Y in the next 3 weeks, I think it is a given that if you cannot yet do X/10 @ pace Y there's no way you'll go another 9 times as far, probably ever.

Still waiting to see evidence of any transformation other than getting 4s/500m slower! I guess that IS less of a slow-down than you want to attribute to your "competition" (all of whom devote fewer hours to erg training than you do, but still manage to go home with the hardware at the big events) but weren't you telling us you were going to go faster despite the years slipping by? Is this why you did English instead of engineering or baseball, you kept getting the signs mixed up?

[PaulS]

If you are interested in going fast, it is my experience that learning to row well is worth about 4 seconds per 500m.

6:28 + learning to row well = 6:44

Ah, now I see why Ranger always seems to be wrong, we just needed a translator.

Thanks John!

[Nosmo]

With great respect to Seiler, it is quite possible to get significant VO2max improvement from work intervals much shorter than 2 minutes. The trick is that you need to combine a lot of reps at the right intensity with rests sufficiently short that you consistently reach the appropriate HR.
...

I really doubt Steve Seiler would disagree with this. One does cannot always but all the caveats in to ones writing.

[Nosmo]

If you are interested in going fast, it is my experience that learning to row well is worth about 4 seconds per 500m.

If you row badly to begin with then this is entirely reasonable. It is actually a relatively meaningless statement out of context. However, it does sound very reasonable OTW.

I have seen my then 62 year old lightweight wife trounce a a 20 year old man who was in great shape in a boat. He had a body like Divinci's David and was going off to be a navy seal. I'm sure he would have been 20-30 seconds faster then her on the erg per 500, but he couldn't come close in a boat.

[ranger]

If you are interested in going fast, it is my experience that learning to row well is worth about 4 seconds per 500m.

If you row badly to begin with then this is entirely reasonable. It is actually a relatively meaningless statement out of context. However, it does sound very reasonable OTW.

I have seen my then 62 year old lightweight wife trounce a a 20 year old man who was in great shape in a boat. He had a body like Divinci's David and was going off to be a navy seal. I'm sure he would have been 20-30 seconds faster then her on the erg per 500, but he couldn't come close in a boat.

But if you take two people who are both built like da Vinci's David and are both going off to be navy seals, and one rows like shit and the other rows well, the one that rows well will trounce the one who rows like shit--on the erg, too.

On the erg, the difference will be about 4 seconds per 500m.

For example, the one who rows well might pull 6:00 for 2K on the erg, but the one who rows like shit will only pull 6:16.

That's a smear.

ranger