Ranger's training thread

[ginster]

hang on... you constantly claim that your fitness is maximal, and hasn't declined, and that your full body strength is as it was 30 years ago, so you can't now pull out the " normal decline with age" line to differentiate between unrealistic FM targets 5 years ago, and now...

which is it? natural decline, and 6.16 has passed you by, or no nartural decline, and an admission that you were lying previously?

[ranger]

Given even minimal decline with age (e.g., a second over 2K per year), a 6:16 at 60 is 23 seconds better than a 6:16 at, say, 37.

ranger

[ranger]

hang on... you constantly claim that your fitness is maximal, and hasn't declined, and that your full body strength is as it was 30 years ago, so you can't now pull out the " normal decline with age" line to differentiate between unrealistic FM targets 5 years ago, and now...

which is it? natural decline, and 6.16 has passed you by, or no nartural decline, and an admission that you were lying previously?

If your fitness is maximal, it just means that you can't improve it.

It doesn't mean that it isn't declining with age.

Sure, my aerobic capacity has probably declined some over the last 10 years, albeit at a rate that is considerably below the average.

If I pull 6:16 at 60, my decline with age will have been only .5 seconds per year over 2K since 20.

At a that rate of decline, a comparable 60s hwt row would be 5:55, which is under the present 40s hwt WR.

ranger

[Citroen]

Given even minimal decline with age (e.g., a second over 2K per year), a 6:16 at 60 is 23 seconds better than a 6:16 at, say, 37.

ranger

Do you ever read the complete total bullshit that you write on here? A 6:16 means it's taken 376 seconds to get from 2000 down to 0. It doesn't matter a f**k how old you are.

[PaulH]

Sure, my aerobic capacity has probably declined some over the last 10 years, albeit at a rate that is considerably below the average.

I suspect that my aerobic capacity is pretty much what it was five years ago

So your fitness declined a fair amount between 10 and 5 years ago, and then plateaued? Why do you think that was?

[peterhowd]

Given even minimal decline with age (e.g., a second over 2K per year), a 6:16 at 60 is 23 seconds better than a 6:16 at, say, 37.

ranger

This one has to be #1 on the all-time Ranger list. Is there anything better? Byron, you are our historian, what do you think?

[JimR]

Sure, my aerobic capacity has probably declined some over the last 10 years, albeit at a rate that is considerably below the average.

I suspect that my aerobic capacity is pretty much what it was five years ago

So your fitness declined a fair amount between 10 and 5 years ago, and then plateaued? Why do you think that was?

I was wondering if it was the same reason that ranger could work for millions of meters and then one day ... shazam ... his HR drops 20 bpm ... or ... his pace improves 3 seconds per 500 ... or ... his spi goes up 2???

I'm thinking it is either the ann arbor tobacco or the drinking ...

JimR

[ginster]

hang on... you constantly claim that your fitness is maximal, and hasn't declined, and that your full body strength is as it was 30 years ago, so you can't now pull out the " normal decline with age" line to differentiate between unrealistic FM targets 5 years ago, and now...

which is it? natural decline, and 6.16 has passed you by, or no nartural decline, and an admission that you were lying previously?

If your fitness is maximal, it just means that you can't improve it.

It doesn't mean that it isn't declining with age.

Sure, my aerobic capacity has probably declined some over the last 10 years, albeit at a rate that is considerably below the average.

If I pull 6:16 at 60, my decline with age will have been only .5 seconds per year over 2K since 20.

At a that rate of decline, a comparable 60s hwt row would be 5:55, which is under the present 40s hwt WR.

ranger

no no no no no..

you have been claiming for about he last 5 years, that with a 13spi base pace, then 6.16 is your max potential... given that you have 13spi as a "rowing well" fixed point, then how can the potential 6.16 still be the same, 5 years on... if it was 6.16 5 years ago, then it is now 6.26.... if it is 6.16 now, it was 6.06 5 years ago... which one of these fantasies is it?

[ginster]

seriously, do you read the shit that you post on here. I mean, Byron tends to document it, but have you no clue, how much bollocks you actually commit to the ether...

I have too much time on my hands, so it does kind of interest me, from a kind of rubbbernecking car crash point of view, but I do wonder what you get out of it...

[mikvan52]

I do wonder what you get out of it...

our replies....

ranger has no intention of ever attempting a sub 6:40 2k again.
Pretending to is supposedly fun for all of us: ranger & his detractors (there are no proponents)
Kind of pathetic, don't you think?

[ranger]

A decline of .5 seconds over 2K per year would put me now at 6:32.5, rowing badly at max drag, given that I pulled 6:27.5, rowing badly at max drag ten years ago when I was 51 and 6:29.7 five years ago when I was 55.

But now I row well at low drag.

Big difference!

How much is this technical advance worth?

About four seconds per 500m over 2K, I think.

So that would put me now at 6:16 for 2K, rowing well at low drag.

ranger

[MRapp]

So how close were you to the FM trial back when you took the profile picture of you standing next to the truck? You know, the one where a creepy 55 year old man is standing shirtless, flexing his entire body so hard that it looks like he's about to shit his pants? You should bring that one back, maybe EE would start posting it on his website every day claiming to row like "this guy".

[ranger]

Given even minimal decline with age (e.g., a second over 2K per year), a 6:16 at 60 is 23 seconds better than a 6:16 at, say, 37.

ranger

This guy rows 6:16 on the erg.

He's 37.




ranger

[bellboy]

hang on... you constantly claim that your fitness is maximal, and hasn't declined, and that your full body strength is as it was 30 years ago, so you can't now pull out the " normal decline with age" line to differentiate between unrealistic FM targets 5 years ago, and now...

which is it? natural decline, and 6.16 has passed you by, or no nartural decline, and an admission that you were lying previously?

If your fitness is maximal, it just means that you can't improve it.

It doesn't mean that it isn't declining with age.

Sure, my aerobic capacity has probably declined some over the last 10 years, albeit at a rate that is considerably below the average.

If I pull 6:16 at 60, my decline with age will have been only .5 seconds per year over 2K since 20.

At a that rate of decline, a comparable 60s hwt row would be 5:55, which is under the present 40s hwt WR.

ranger

BINGO- get in there!! Got another one. The timeless "If i pull 6.16 at 60". Im on a roll kids and there is no stopping me!!

[ranger]

So how close were you to the FM trial back when you took the profile picture of you standing next to the truck?

I wasn't 55.

I was 52.

That's when I pulled 1:54/2:40 for a FM.

I'll now pull 1:48/2:32 for a FM.

ranger