brunsle wrote:You do realize we are asking for proof that your new "technique" is all you claim it is
Meaning what?
I am happy to show you my new technique, and sure enough, it is all that I say it is.
But that's probably not what you mean.
You probably mean that you want to see a 6:16 2K--or at least, a predictor of a 6:16 2K.
Sure.
But that is something that involves some training, no?
I am doing that now.
My first 2K predictor will be a FM @ 1:48.
That will predict all the other 2K predictors, and my 2K goal, a 6:16 2K.
Then, I suppose, we can lay this discussion to rest.
Again, though, in essence, you are demanding to see the _effect_ of the training, which has nothing to do with how that effect was produced, and therefore has nothing to do with training.
Doing a 2K precictor doesn't make you a better/good rower.
You do a good 2K predictor if you are _already_ a good rower.
The question for training is: How did you get so good?
In this case, there is no more explanation necessary.
I have documented, in minute detail, how I got better, here--in 11,000 posts.
ranger
Rich Cureton M 72 5'11" 165 lbs. 2K pbs: 6:27.5 (hwt), 6:28 (lwt)