6:28 2K

[chgoss]

change your cockamamie ideas about training.

My "cockamamie" suggestion is that you only get better by working on your weaknesses, because it is hard to do.

If you want to work on your weaknesses, you should start with this one: avoidance

[chgoss]

Well, I could probably sit down and do 1:26 or so right now, but what is the use of a slow 500m such as that?

It tells you how fast you can do a 500m piece today. Thats an extremely useful piece of information.

or, not

Sure, if you're an idiot, don't know anything about training, and don't care much about ever reaching your potential as a rower.

ranger

interesting response, I may have to update your list... the "I know you are but what am I"..
I used it very effectively years and years ago..

[mikvan52]

The proper conclusion is NOT to avoid racing for another seven years

??

This year, I am already registered for four races and will try to pick up a fifth.


For the next six weeks, I will be sharpening.

So: ranger's definition of racing is: registering for a race showing up and saying something like: "I decided to cruise along at AT give it a little bump at the end and wait until the next "race" to actually race"

Rich: You've broadly categorized all of last year's events as not racing.
Will you do that again once this indoor season is over?

No? Then tell us which 2010 event will be raced to the full extent of your capabilities, fully trained, fully sharpened...

My guess is that you don't want to be hampered by any such prediction.
Deadlines are a bitch aren't they.

[hjs]

The proper conclusion is NOT to avoid racing for another seven years

??

This year, I am already registered for four races and will try to pick up a fifth.


For the next six weeks, I will be sharpening.

So: ranger's definition of racing is: registering for a race showing up and saying something like: "I decided to cruise along at AT give it a little bump at the end and wait until the next "race" to actually race"

Rich: You've broadly categorized all of last year's events as not racing.
Will you do that again once this indoor season is over?

No? Then tell us which 2010 event will be raced to the full extent of your capabilities, fully trained, fully sharpened...

My guess is that you don't want to be hampered by any such prediction.
Deadlines are a bitch aren't they.

Maybe this year he will only "race" at UT1 pace , saving himself hahaha

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yz62eQ4foaw here an "easy" 2k row from the nutty pro, the sound at the end is nice heaving like this is non racing, that means most people never raced in their life

[mikvan52]

And just because it's a race doesn't make it good training.

If you want to do your best in rowing, you need to do good training.

To each his own.

If you want to f..k up your chances at succeeding, be my guest.

Some people want to deal with degrees of chance, others others with degrees of certainty.

Racing, by most people's understanding, includes time trails. (I'm not razzing here, nor for the rest of this post)
Time trials, even without complete sharpening, provide degrees of certainty.

But, as you say, to each his own.

I, for one (of very many), find it a psychological boost to time trial: It's led me to a recent World Championship on the erg and a National Championship on the water in a single scull (August 2009).

I considered it necessary, for instance, to "time trial" 1k races throughout last summer in order to win Masters Nationals in August. One race in May, Two races in June, four races in July, eleven races in August (if I remember correctly). The 11 races include all heats, semis and finals of Masters Nationals.

At Nationals I believe prevailed because of my time-trialing background over the course of the preceding months. I was a lightweight who was able to win both the heavyweight and the lightweight titles in the single: something that was not even attempted by anyone but me. I don't think I (messed)-up my chances by time trials earlier in the season.

BTW Rich:
How many 55-59 men did you face in your competitions in 2009?.. not in the c2 standings, but actually face: everyone present, starting together? How many of your peers did you race with or time trial ?
One-three men?
How about the prior year?
and 2007?

It seems to me that you mostly confine yourself to "competition" in cyberspace.

[chgoss]

The simple explanation for Rich's extreme aversion to:
- reporting the time it takes him to cover a particular distance at any effort level
- doing an "all out" effort on any particular distance (reporting it, or not reporting it, it doesnt matter)

is that he really just doesnt want to know (subconsciously). It has nothing to do with training effectiveness, he just invented the "it hurts your training to do that" to have a reason other than "I dont want to know".

[DUThomas]

For Mike VB, for instance, if he now does UT2 at 1:57 or so, max is pretty unshakably 1:32, that is, UT2 - 25. Then the other training bands array themselves in between: UT1 is 1:52, AT is 1:47, TR is 1:42, AN is 1:37.

Two sentences in a paragraph? Please don't let it be a habit!

[rjw]

...Deadlines are a bitch aren't they.

Setting a time and date and then performing (on that time and date) is where you an really tell the metal of an athlete. It is easier to say, today I feel good and then go off and give it a go. When you set the time and day, all sorts of other things come into play.

[mikvan52]

For Mike VB, for instance, if he now does UT2 at 1:57 or so, max is pretty unshakably 1:32, that is, UT2 - 25. Then the other training bands array themselves in between: UT1 is 1:52, AT is 1:47, TR is 1:42, AN is 1:37.

Two sentences in a paragraph? Please don't let it be a habit!

And:

I wish we could agree on what "training band" is:

Am I mistaken in considering it to be one's % of max HR based on where the individual actually hits AT... In other words: Not a specific pace or range of paces??

to be constructive: Let's get our collective act together so we can actually have a real discussion.

Many people don't really know exactly where this is for themselves and have acceptable other means to determine the AT band.... fundamentally based on pulse rate & ventilation not pace/500m.

It is a flaw to rely on pace as a measure of AT. For instance: If one is tired or sick: that person may reach AT at a Slower pace than he or she might when well or rested. Reliance on watching HR instead of pace guards against over-training.


All this is further complicated by HR drift during the course of a long session.
Let us remember that:
If a coach says: Quote: "Keep under 70% effort for the entire workout" He/she is saying in effect: "Put on your HR belt or resort to how you know you feel at "70%" and do not over-exert yourself by going beyond that level. I do not care about pace"

Personally, I've seen how hard-heads zero-in on pace and say to themselves something like... "I'm going to hold a 1:49 average... that's 70
percent of my max time per 500"
This often results in the athlete overworking.
What is max time per 500m anyway? One stroke?? A power of 10 strokes??? 300 meters??? See the problem? I can pull one stroke at a 1:16; 200m at 1:26.... What is 70% of each? Are they the same? Are such paces valuable to know??? Not when trying to establish aerobic or anaerobic bands which conceptually include the use of the cardio-pulmonary system. "Cardio-" as in HEART.

So:
If one hasn't had reliable testing on heart rate there is little way to be certain about what your training bands are.
For instance:
If someone believes his/her all out max HR is 190 bpm but cannot document that, how does he/she really know? Same with resting HR.
You have to have both of these real numbers in order to determine your bands.

Conclusion: It would be most generally helpful when talking about bands to be more precise and refer to personal percentages heart rate ranges.

\sorry to be boring, repetitive or pedantic about this.
ranger's quote at the top of this post got me going, along with some coffee

[chgoss]

mike, mike.. sigh..

you're missing a couple key things here:
- If I row 60 minutes: 300m at 1:44, 300m at 2:10, and repeat.. I can convince myself that I have rowed 60 minutes at 1:44.
- If my heart rate fluctuated between 130 and 150 while doing this, I can convince myself that my HR was 130 for at 60min row at 1:44
- If I believe that my max HR is 195, I can convince myself that a 60 min row at 1:44 where my HR was 130, is a UT effort for me.

at this point, I have established my 60 min UT band, and can extrapolate the other bands.

as long as I never actually time a piece or a distance, I never have to face the logic flaw that's apparent above. At least until race day... where the whole thing falls apart..

[Bob S.]

It is a flaw to rely on pace as a measure of AT. For instance: If one is tired or sick: that person may reach AT at lower pace than he or she might when well or rested. Reliance on watching HR instead of pace guards against over-training.

First, please excuse the pedantry. It is an old occupational hazard, as well as a bad habit of mine. (It wasn't until after I had decided to use this apology that I saw that you had done more or less the same thing at the tail end of your message - a weird coincidence.)

I am sure that you meant higher here, but it is an common and easy slip to make, since "pace," as defined for erging, is a peculiar beast. Pace in the non-erg world is usually more or less proportional to speed, but on the indoor rower it is the inverse of the hypothetical "speed." Yes, I know that you are aware of this, so, again, please pardon my pedantry. I am tossing it in here because I know that newbies often get tripped up by that peculiar use of the term. I try to get around it by using the expression "slower pace" to indicate that I am referring to a higher number of minutes and seconds per 500m. Come to think of it, lower could have been slower with a missing "s" typo.

Bob S.

[hjs]

Trainingsbands are build around bloodlactate levels.

Between 0.5/2 mmol are resting levels/ut3
up until 2mmol is ut2 work
between 2 and 4 mmol, the aerobic zone, lays ut1
between 4 and 6 mmol, this is the anaerobic zone AT, sometimes up until and in rare occasions even 10/12 mmol for periodes up to an hour.

Above this AT zone we go mostly anaerobe, pure speed, thats from 0 to 20 seconds at max. The an band, this one is the pure sprintband and mostly determenend on the amount of fast twitch fibers. To be good at this you have to be a real sprinter.

Between 20 seconds and 90 seconds. In this zone you get the highest lactate levels. The tr band

Hartrate is connected to this but the better one is trained the higher a hf you can get for a given band. The only way you can know this is by testing, and one test is not enough, you need more test.

Rowing with breaks falls into the AT categorie I think, it certainly is above the ut1 zone.

[NavigationHazard]

Training bands are build around bloodlactate levels.

Not quite. They're built around the idea that blood lactate levels are proxies for what's going on in the skeletal muscles. And because repeatedly testing blood lactate during exercise is only marginally less intrusive than doing repetitive muscle biopsies, HR gets used as a continuously monitorable, non-intrusive proxy for blood lactate.*

The lactate values HJS cites (2 mmol, 4 mmol, etc.) are arbitrary and not necessarily significant in any given individual.

* You can also look at the so-called respiratory exchange rate as a way of shedding light on the energy pathways you're using. But most people don't have access to the equipment/operator. Nor is it fun to breathe into a mask while you row....

[mikvan52]

Training bands are build around bloodlactate levels.

Not quite. They're built around the idea that blood lactate levels are proxies for what's going on in the skeletal muscles. And because repeatedly testing blood lactate during exercise is only marginally less intrusive than doing repetitive muscle biopsies, HR gets used as a continuously monitorable, non-intrusive proxy for blood lactate.*

The lactate values HJS cites (2 mmol, 4 mmol, etc.) are arbitrary and not necessarily significant in any given individual.

* You can also look at the so-called respiratory exchange rate as a way of shedding light on the energy pathways you're using. But most people don't have access to the equipment/operator. Nor is it fun to breathe into a mask while you row....

Thanks to both of you for these contributions and Bob's pedantry
I've corrected the lower/slower typo with an {edit}.

I would like to become more knowledgeable on many of these topics.

When I got tested (on the erg w/ a mask (2007) was subsequently given a sheet with a host of seemingly impenetrable data points (including respiratory exchange rate, RER.
I didn't follow up very far after that (on the educational front).

I'm going to dig it up again and take a look!

[hjs]

Training bands are build around bloodlactate levels.

Not quite. They're built around the idea that blood lactate levels are proxies for what's going on in the skeletal muscles. And because repeatedly testing blood lactate during exercise is only marginally less intrusive than doing repetitive muscle biopsies, HR gets used as a continuously monitorable, non-intrusive proxy for blood lactate.*

The lactate values HJS cites (2 mmol, 4 mmol, etc.) are arbitrary and not necessarily significant in any given individual.

* You can also look at the so-called respiratory exchange rate as a way of shedding light on the energy pathways you're using. But most people don't have access to the equipment/operator. Nor is it fun to breathe into a mask while you row....

Maybe, but those levels are widely spread used, and although there are individual differences, a man is a man and we all more or less function the same.

Therefore I consider (roughly)

100 meter sprint/20 seconds An pace
400/500m TR pace
20min 5k ish AT pace
between HM and fm time UT1 pace
pace you should be able to do for hours UT2 pace

The trouble with this is that you have to be able to row that long to use these I myself can,t even row a Fm without rest.


No doubt NaHa will come around and correct (slap me on the wrist) me