Ranger's training thread

[mikvan52]

You have not gotten faster each year since 2003. You have gotten slower.

Nope.

How fast you are in rowing depends on ......

(let me help you)
(I'll fill in the facts)

The word fast is quantified by the time it takes to cover distance, also known as speed.

Someone who is faster arrives at the finish line first. The slower, second

A person's times for a specific distance as recorded by a timer can be compared.

A sentient human being notices that 6:41 for 2k is slower than 6:30.


<End of Lesson>

Test your skills
A 6:30 in 2003 is:

(A) faster
or
(B) slower
or
(C) (cannot be determined)

than a 6:41 in 2010?

Good luck with the rest of your adult remedial learning programs.

[ranger]

You are not any faster now than you were then

So, how does this claim change if I pull a FM at 1:48, which equals the 50s hwt WR, is six seconds per 500m faster than my FM pb from 2003, and is a full dozen seconds per 500m (16 _minutes_ ) faster than the 60s lwt FM WR?

If I do a FM, 1:48 @ 23 spm (12.5 SPI), at 119 df. in a 4.4-to-1 ratio, am I still slower than I was in 2003 in the 2K, when I rowed 10 SPI at max drag (200+ df.), pulling in a 2-to-1 ratio for a FM and going 8 minutes slower over the 42K than I do now?

The question is this, I suppose:

What is the relation between training and racing.

All of the talk around here is about racing.

But in the end, your racing is only as good as your training.

Racing just makes you worse and worse.

You only get better by training.

ranger

[mikvan52]

You are not any faster now than you were then

So, how does this claim change if I pull a FM at 1:48, which equals the 50s lwt WR and is six seconds per 500m faster than my pb from 2003?

Am I still slower than I was in 2003 in the 2K?

Sure.

But what are you going to do about the FM result, if I indeed achieve it?

Where did it come from and what does it imply?

ranger

Obstructive man!
lawson is speaking of the past, you of the future.
It is a given that if someone asks you a question about something you've done, it is inconsequential to speak of the future.

Please desist!

Thank you
your friend, Rational[Bot]

[ranger]

lawson is speaking of the past, you of the future.
It is a given that if someone asks you a question about something you've done, it is inconsequential to speak of the future

Sure, I did some fully prepared racing in the past. Lawson didn't ask me anything about that. What should he? It is just fact.

Sure, I am doing some great training now. Lawson didn't ask me anything about that. Why? Beats me. I assume it's because, like you, he has no interest in training. He is only interested in racing.

Sure, I am going to do a lot of fully prepared racing in the future. Lawson didn't ask me anything about that. Why? Beats me. I assume it's because he doesn't realize that all your future racing is just a reflex of your present training, and that, like you, he doesn't have any interest in training.

ranger

[mikvan52]

Oh, and Rich:

What did you do in your TRAINING session today?
I do not want to hear about your RACING (as abysmal as it might be).

Rational[Bot] can help, if needed.

I think he knows the functions on the PM4 as they pertain to:
length of workout in meters
time taken: minutes, seconds, fractions of seconds
avg. pace: pace per 500
intermediate splits
heart rate readings too only if you wore the belt you own & it was monitor recorded..
Note: We request complete details. Do not bother with a partial account.

Please try to help us with the TRAINING information...
Once again, please do not tell us about RACING.

Do you follow?

Thanks!

[mikvan52]

Rich:

Here's an idea:

You set a fixed workout with set distance, goal pace, rests (also fixed)... one that is programmable on the PM4.

I'll do it and post results... then you do it and post results.
Nothing longer that 60 minutes of work for now (I'm in comeback mode)

Do you want to include HR data too..

No Racing: Even pacing could be at goal. I'd like that.
As I row at extremely low drag, I would like these to be open rate and exclude any concern with watts/spm..


What do you think?
Then onlookers would get a better appreciation of what you call good training... and be able to compare what two upper percentile ergers actually do...

[Steve G]

Odd that you don't mention the average pace per 500m!

My "Steamroller" training is not a race.

It is just work on relaxation, habituation, etc., puttin' in the meters, rowing well (13 SPI) at low drag (119 df.) with a middlin' UT1 HR (155 HR) in a 4.4-to-1 ratio at 22 spm.

It isn't a race, and gains or loses nothing at all by being continuous or broken up, depending on what is done with the breaks.

I use the breaks to continue to work on technique, which has been my major focus of concern for some time.

This rowing has nothing to do with the kind of stressful AT/TR rowing that you are doing at 1:46, with your HR way up above your anaerobic threshold, pushing toward max.

During my "Steamroller" rowing, I am nowhere near my anaerobic threshold (of 172 bpm).

ranger

Rich
Did you not say you dont row with breaks now ?

Steve

[luckylindy]

Rich:

Here's an idea:

You set a fixed workout with set distance, goal pace, rests (also fixed)... one that is programmable on the PM4.

I'll do it and post results... then you do it and post results.
Nothing longer that 60 minutes of work for now (I'm in comeback mode)

Do you want to include HR data too..

No Racing: Even pacing could be at goal. I'd like that.
As I row at extremely low drag, I would like these to be open rate and exclude any concern with watts/spm..


What do you think?
Then onlookers would get a better appreciation of what you call good training... and be able to compare what two upper percentile ergers actually do...

As a noob rower, I'd love to see you and Rich do this. Ranger - you up for it?

[KevJGK]

You are not any faster now than you were then

So, how does this claim change if I pull a FM at 1:48,

That's a pretty poor response Rich. 

There was a time when your trolling was quite subtle - it's too blatant and transparent now. 

[PaulH]

Sure, I _wish_ this thread were about my training, but it appears that you folks are not interested in training.

Your wish is my command. Everyone please take this as notice that, from this point on, and to the best of my ability, this thread is about ranger's training, and ONLY about ranger's training. ANY post that contains ANYTHING that is even VAGUELY off-topic will be removed. I hope my excessive use of capitals has made that clear.

Cheers, Paul

[Gus]

Off-topic (and yes, I did say ANYONE)

[ranger]

Did you not say you dont row with breaks now ?

RWBs is rowing at high drag (max: 200+ df.), low rates (18-21 spm), high stroking powers (14-16 SPI), and high HRs (AT, etc.) over short many short intervals (250m-750m?), with short rest (15 seconds?), adding up to long distances.

I haven't been doing this for almost a year now.

I no longer row at high drag, low rates, high HRs, or high stroking powers.

I row well (13 SPI), at low drag (119 df.) and substantial rates (23-26 spm), at middlin' UT1 HRs.

So, I have no need to row short intervals.

I can row as long as I want.

Physiological and skeletal-motor stress is no issue.

Just the opposite.

I am learning row weil (13 SPI) at low drag (119 df.) in a relaxed and easy way--smoothly, consistently, unconsciously/automatically/habitually, etc.

ranger

[ranger]

off-topic

[ginster]

Did you not say you dont row with breaks now ?

RWBs is rowing at high drag (max: 200+ df.), low rates (18-21 spm), high stroking powers (14-16 SPI), and high HRs (AT, etc.) over short many short intervals (250m-750m?), with short rest (15 seconds?), adding up to long distances.

I haven't been doing this for almost a year now.

I no longer row at high drag, low rates, high HRs, or high stroking powers.

I row well (13 SPI), at low drag (119 df.) and substantial rates (23-26 spm), at middlin' UT1 HRs.

So, I have no need to row short intervals.

I can row as long as I want.

so basically you've changed from big anchor hauling with breaks, to little anchor hauling with breaks?

At the moment, I am just rowing 20K @ 23 spm, with perhaps five minutes rest in all, to reflect on my technique for brief periods (15 seconds?), now and again--

this is interesting, because it gives probably more information than you meant.... it means essentially you are having to have a break every 1k..... now pardon me, but if you are doing 1k intervals with 15 second breaks, there's no way that you can ever consider your heart rate as steady state for that... its no wonder you can't do 2k without handling down if you permanently train with breaks every 1k.

For those of us who are interested in your training, can you explain what physiological benefit to training these breaks give?

Also, how are y ou planning on transitioning from this stage to a FM trial... get the session up to 42k ( with 10 mins of rest in there) and then start reducing the breaks? how long do you think this will take you? maybe until "the fall"?

[ranger]

off-topic