Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

This guy makes it look easy!

Impressive demonstration of full-body power by an older man.

This guy would certainly have no trouble with the skeletal-muscular demands of rowing well at 60.

On the other hand, I don't know, but I would guess that this guy is about 5'7", 135 lbs.

This might detract more than a bit from what he could train himself to row for 2K.

As you get taller and your levers lengthen and your body weight increases, the "hard" push-ups that this guy illustrates get quite a bit harder to do.

Could he do what he just illustrated if he were 6'0", 165 lbs.?

Perhaps.

But it would be a more significant challenge.

On the other hand, if it turns out that this guy is 6'0", 165 lbs.

Then, sure.

All things equal, a guy of this sort would have _enormous_ potential as an older rower.

ranger

[stroke]

What happened to the oft stated goal of smashing Rocket Roy's soft world record? It may indeed be soft but it proved too hard for you.

If I pull a lwt 6:16 2K at 60, I won't care that someone five years younger pulled a 2K 22 seconds slower.

ranger

Mate if the Queen had balls she would be King. You are the one who stated frequently on this forum that the Rockets record was soft and you would smash it to bits but you know what, you didnt

[ranger]

What happened to the oft stated goal of smashing Rocket Roy's soft world record? It may indeed be soft but it proved too hard for you.

If I pull a lwt 6:16 2K at 60, I won't care that someone five years younger pulled a 2K 22 seconds slower.

ranger

Mate if the Queen had balls she would be King. You are the one who stated frequently on this forum that the Rockets record was soft and you would smash it to bits but you know what, you didnt

If I pull a lwt 6:16 at 60, I won't care that someone five years younger pulled a 2K 22 seconds slower.

Roy's record will soon be gone.

It is indeed soft.

It is 13 seconds from the 50s lwt WR but only 4 seconds from the 60s lwt WR.

In the coming years, Paul Siebach will beat it easily, as will Mike Caviston, if he chooses to. Graham Watt could also beat it easily, if he chose to.

If he returns to racing OTErg, now, as he approaches 60, Roy will have a hard time pulling 6:50.

He won't be anywhere near the 60s lwt WR of 6:42, just as he was never anywhere near the 50s lwt WR of 6:25.

The same year that Roy pulled 6:38, I pulled 6:29.7, at max drag, without even preparing for it, just on the basis of low rate rowing, working on technique.

ranger

[stroke]

What happened to the oft stated goal of smashing Rocket Roy's soft world record? It may indeed be soft but it proved too hard for you.

If I pull a lwt 6:16 2K at 60, I won't care that someone five years younger pulled a 2K 22 seconds slower.

If I pull a lwt 6:16 at 60, I won't care that someone five years younger pulled a 2K 22 seconds slower.

Roy's record will soon be gone.

It is indeed soft.

The same year that Roy pulled 6:38, I pulled 6:29.7, at max drag, without even preparing for it, just on the basis of low rate rowing, working on technique.

ranger

And your weight and age at the time you pulled 6:29.7 was?

[ranger]

I am really moving into the final stages of my FM training now.

With no encouragement, my HR floats right up to 155 bpm (middlin' UT1) and hangs there, pushing up to 165 bpm is I do surges, etc.

My technique in entirely together.

I am amazed, but at low drag (119 df.) pulling 12 SPI, because of the high ratio (3-to-1), rates as high as 30 spm feel just fine for distance rowing.

.5 seconds for the drive, 1.5 seconds for the recovery.

When I just relax and row, my rates now _start_ at 27 spm and slowly creep up to 30 spm, usually at 10 MPS (1:40 @ 30 spm, 11.7 SPI) or thereabouts.

Now, all I have to do is row a lot with my HR dead flat at 155 bpm, adjusting my pace to the constant effort, putting in the meters.

I should now try to push the meters OTErg in each of my sessions to FM length (42K) just to get used to the distance.

I should also do all of my bike riding on the Kurt Kinetic with my HR flat at 155 bpm.

The other day, my hour OTBike at 165 bpm was a mistake, especially for a cross-training routine.

I felt the effects the next day. I couldn't row. My legs were tired.

Steady as she goes!

By and large, at the same rate, I am now pulling 10 seconds per 500m faster than I did in 2002-2003.

I used to row long distances at 9 SPI.

I am now rowing them at 12 SPI, with a third more power per stroke.

ranger

[ranger]

nd your weight and age at the time you pulled 6:29.7 was?

Weight is irrelevant for me, as it is for Roy.

We both have a _very_ hard time making weight, but if we work at it, we row the same, regardless of weight.

On the erg, fat doesn't make you row faster or slower.

It just hangs there.

Roy did his 2K pb as a lightweight.

My lightweight and heavyweight pbs are indisinguishable: 6:27.5 (hwt)/6:28 (lwt).

If I pull 6:16 at 60 as a heavyweight, at some point, I'll pull 6:16 at 60 as a lightweight, too.

ranger

[ranger]

If you are a young, elite athlete with a maxHR of 220 spm and a resting HR of 40 spm, 70% HRR, a challenging level of effort for a FM, is 165 bpm.

I am pretty comfortable at 165 bpm.

165 bpm is still well below my anaerobic threshold.

In fact, if I worked at it, I might indeed be able to run a HR of 165 bpm for the 2.5 hours needed to complete a FM.

We'll soon see.

ranger

[ranger]

It will indeed predict a 6:16 2k.

Happy to hear you agree.

So why don't we leave it there?

A FM is done at 2K + 14.

I am happy to accept what a FM trial says about my potential for 2K, although I will certainly still have a lot of work to do (with distance trials and sharpening) to deliver that 2K.

There is nothing that I can do to improve my rowing beyond such a FM test.

So the test is entirely fair.

If your rowing is balanced between power and endurance, as mine is, a FM is a great 2K predictor.

I'll do a FM trial soon.

I am working on it as hard as I can.

I am an experienced marathoner, both running and rowing (not to mention biking, stepping, skipping, swimming, skating, canoeing, etc.).

For me, a FM is no big deal.

ranger

[ranger]

A FM @ 1:48 would best the 60s lwt FM WR by _12_ seconds per 500m.

16 _minutes_

It would equal Rob Slocum's long-standing _50s_ _heavyweight_WR, which hasn't been touched for a decade.

Over 2k, the difference is pace between 50s hwts and 60s lwts is 9 seconds per 500m.

ranger

[stroke]

nd your weight and age at the time you pulled 6:29.7 was?

Weight is irrelevant for me, as it is for Roy.

We both have a _very_ hard time making weight, but if we work at it, we row the same, regardless of weight.

On the erg, fat doesn't make you row faster or slower.

It just hangs there.

Roy did his 2K pb as a lightweight.

My lightweight and heavyweight pbs are indisinguishable: 6:27.5 (hwt)/6:28 (lwt).

If I pull 6:16 at 60 as a heavyweight, at some point, I'll pull 6:16 at 60 as a lightweight, too.

ranger

I see what a long winded way of saying you were a heavyweight when you pulled the 6:29.7. Fact remains you couldn't, wouldn't, didn't break Roy's record, a record you repeatedly belittled as soft. Seems to me the only soft thing here is you.

[ranger]

Honestly, I don't think that people like Mike VB have a clue how they might train to improve their FM, and therefore 2K, score OTErg.

Right now, I suspect that 1:58 would be a limit for Mike in a FM OTErg.

By the time Mike is 60, that might slip to 2:00, right around the present 60s lwt FM WR.

There is nothing in standard training plans for rowing that address this issue.

Standard training plans for rowing are just guides to race preparation.

But race preparation never made anyone any better at rowing.

ranger

[PaulH]

you're staggeringly ignorant of what you're doing

I would have been delighted to have been more informed, and therefore systematic, about my training over the last eight years.

But given our present understanding of training for rowing, it is difficult to see how this would have been possible.

The 60s lwt 2K American record is 1:44/6:56.

So, to reduce things to heart rate training, the project has been how to train so that I can beat that historical national standard by two training bands, 10 seconds per 500m:

AN becomes AT

TR becomes UT1

AT becomes UT2

Any suggestions?

Could you recommend some literature that I might have read to help me with this project?

ranger

You've often said that what you're attempting is unprecedented. Your ramble above seems to enforce that. So, given that it is unprecedented, why are you still making claims that you're about to achieve something, despite having been wrong for over 2,000 days? And do you have an estimate of how many more days you're going to be wrong before you agree that you are, in fact, wrong?

[ranger]

Fact remains you couldn't, wouldn't, didn't break Roy's record, a record you repeatedly belittled as soft.

Facts are not "belittling."

That Roy's WR is soft has nothing to do with me, especially now.

It has to do with Paul Siebach.

If he chooses to, Paul will row much better than 6:38 when he is 55.

In fact, if he prepares maximally, Paul _should_ be able to row 6:30 at 55, given that he pulled 6:25 at 50.

If Roy's 55s lwt WR were a good one, then Roy should now be able to best, or at least threaten, Brian Bailey's 60s lwt WR of 6:42.5.

But I suspect that, at 60, Roy will have a hard time pulling 6:50.

Even at 55, in competition, Roy only rowed better than 6:42.5 once.

And the standard decline with age among veterans who just train to race, as Roy does, especially if they take off time from rowing, is 1.7 seconds per year over 2K, 8.5 seconds over five years.

In his training OTErg to this point, Roy has done nothing at all to overcome his weaknesses.

I suspect that the future holds the same.

ranger

[ranger]

Given that I am approaching retirement, my investment company has assigned me a team of financial advisors, which I am going to meet with at the end of the month.

To prepare for the interview, I have been sent a multiple-choice questionnaire to fill out, which has questions such as this:

Check which option you prefer:

(1) Low risk investments that make nothing.

(2) High risk investments that lose everything.



The only problem with the questionnaire is that it omits the third option:

(3) Financial advice that is productive, makes sense, is not bone-headed, and, hey, even makes money, etc.



Choosing between the various standard training plans for rowing is a similar exercise.

ranger

[stroke]

Fact remains you couldn't, wouldn't, didn't break Roy's record, a record you repeatedly belittled as soft.

Facts are not "belittling."

That Roy's WR is soft has nothing to do with me, especially now.

It has to do with Paul Siebach.

If he chooses to, Paul will row much better than 6:38 when he is 55.

In fact, if he prepares maximally, Paul _should_ be able to row 6:30 at 55, given that he pulled 6:25 at 50.

If Roy's 55s lwt WR were a good one, then Roy should now be able to best, or at least threaten, Brian Bailey's 60s lwt WR of 6:42.5.

But I suspect that, at 60, Roy will have a hard time pulling 6:50.

Even at 55, in competition, Roy only rowed better than 6:42.5 once.

And the standard decline with age among veterans who just train to race, as Roy does, especially if they take off time from rowing, is 1.7 seconds per year over 2K, 8.5 seconds over five years.

In his training OTErg to this point, Roy has done nothing at all to overcome his weaknesses.

I suspect that the future holds the same.

ranger

A fact, by definition, is something that actually exists. When and if Paul Siebach breaks Roy's record it will become a fact, at the moment it is just another diversion you are using because you cannot explain(without admitting failure) why you did not break Roy's record. You failed and thats a FACT. Roy's record still stands thats another fact.
If you ever show us some screen shots they may be facts but until you do they are not facts just a dream or a goal.
As young people say today on the internet "picture or it didn't happen".C'mon Rich cut to the chase show us a shot of the PM4 of some of your training sessions.