Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

You can't trust EXIF data

Or anything else that is said here, I am afraid.

Oh well.

Some of us are interested in rowing.

And some of us aren't.

ranger

[Carl Watts]

The whole body fat thing here is quite interesting if nothing else.

Thankfully I'm a HWT and so I don't need to worry too much about my total weight, the logic being that even if I lost ALL of my body fat I couldn't make LWT anyway so no point worrying about it and there is more to life than Erging !

As Ranger stated what I also find is my body naturally stabilises at a body fat level it is most happy with and although I can change it with diet and exercise it would require constant work to keep it "Artificially low".

According to my scales, the ones that have the body fat measurement built in mine is currently 25% down from 28% from when I started more serious rowing 8 months ago. Not sure how much I trust them in terms of absolute accuracy but it does provide a relative measurement to track loss or gain.

Has anyone out there had experience in what is the most accurate form of measurement ? I'm thinking Hydrostatic is the only way to go.

[leadville]

You should also be aware that the Tanita scale you put so much emphasis on is about as worthless as tits on a bull. Do you really think a gimmick like that can accuarately measure a person's bodyfat?

Yes, it does very nicely.

ranger

The tanita scale is notoriously inaccurate especially when the subject is dehydrated. Then again, that's going to be rangerboy's usual state. Alcohol also screws up the measurement.

Be careful to not have too many toddies prior to hopping on the scale rangerboy.

[aharmer]

You should also be aware that the Tanita scale you put so much emphasis on is about as worthless as tits on a bull. Do you really think a gimmick like that can accuarately measure a person's bodyfat?

Yes, it does very nicely.

ranger

Well then you are clearly even more foolish than I thought possible. Don't you claim to know a thing or two about exercise physiology? Don't know why I'm surprised. Why don't you take Carl's advice and go hit the dunk tank at your local college for a hydrostatic weighing? Then you'll know for sure. Unfortunately we'll never know the truth because you'd just say the Tanita was perfect regardless what you really learned.

[Citroen]

You can't trust EXIF data

Or anything else that I've said here, I am afraid.

You are so technically incompetent that you couldn't possibly edit the EXIF data for your images. It may reflect the date/time when the photo was really taken (if TinyPic doesn't damage that data for you). The data appears to clearly show you're using a SONY camera which was new back in about 2005 and a PM4 which wasn't available before August 2006. So there's no way it's a screenshot of any stroke taken in 2003.

My guess is that you rowed 309m, got a stroke that looked plausible for your anchor hauling, took a shot, dropped the drag, rowed another couple of hundred metres and took a second shot. Loaded both onto the internet and claimed they were taken seven years apart to demonstrate that your stroke has "improved" and is now perfect.

Whatever the EXIF data tells us, we know that you're a lying fraudster, as usual.

[Carl Watts]

Why even bother posting a screen shot of anything that doesn't include the IND_V code ?

Seriously can you not even row a set piece and then push the required button twice to get it ?

[ranger]

[removed]

[ranger]

The tanita scale is notoriously inaccurate especially when the subject is dehydrated

I also got a body composition test over at the University of Michigan by a kinesiologist.

The two readings, UM's and my Tanita scale's, were the same.

I have 148.5 lbs. of non-fat body mass.

Fat levels fluctuate with how much I stuff in my pie hole!



ranger

[ranger]

Why even bother posting a screen shot of anything that doesn't include the IND_V code ?

Seriously can you not even row a set piece and then push the required button twice to get it ?

No need, when you are at the a race venue.

The race officials do it for you, and then submit the times to the rankings, too.

Last year, no one my age and weight came within 20 seconds of my 2K time.

ranger

[ranger]

Why even bother posting a screen shot of anything that doesn't include the IND_V code ?

Seriously can you not even row a set piece and then push the required button twice to get it ?

Nothing is more important than your force contour.

As time goes on, if you are rowing naturally and have similar fitness and experience, everyone the same age and weight rows at right about the same rate when they do a trial at a certain distance, including 2K.

The rower with the bigger stroke wins.

So, in the end, effectiveness and efficiency are the be-all and end-all in rowing.

The rower with the highest natural SPI wins.

No need to row fast to know your natural stroking power.

You can get a reading of your natural SPI by rowing for 20K or so at UT2/75% HRR and 22 spm.

Or just do a FM trial at 22 spm.

ranger

[ranger]

According to PaulS, at 10MPS and 118 df., your ratio is still as high as 2.3.

That means that if I can race at 13 SPI, I can do 1:34 with a 2.3 ratio.

1:34 @ 32 spm is 10MPS.

Nice.

That's a lot of rest between strokes.

ranger

[ranger]

Why don't you take Carl's advice and go hit the dunk tank at your local college for a hydrostatic weighing? Then you'll know for sure.

I did it long ago.

ranger

[ranger]

My guess is that you rowed 309m, got a stroke that looked plausible for your anchor hauling, took a shot, dropped the drag, rowed another couple of hundred metres and took a second shot. Loaded both onto the internet and claimed they were taken seven years apart to demonstrate that your stroke has "improved" and is now perfect.

Yes, exactly.

No, I didn't claim the pictures were taken seven years apart.

I claimed that the first contour was how I rowed in 2003 and that the second is how I row now.

ranger

[ranger]

As Ranger stated what I also find is my body naturally stabilises at a body fat level it is most happy with and although I can change it with diet and exercise it would require constant work to keep it "Artificially low".

"Artificially" low?

Depends what you mean by "artificial"?

You mean "artificial" for someone who sits around all day watching TV, eating potato chips and drinking coke?

Or "artificial" for someone who is physically active for a good part of the day (say, three to four hours?).

Carl,

It's not "artificial" to be physically active.

Historically, and therefore biologically, there is nothing more natural than being physically active.

What is "artificial" is being inactive, sitting around all day watching TV, eating potato chips and drinking coke.

Being active for an hour a day on the erg and then being inactive for the other 23 hours of the day is not being physically active.

If you were physically active for a good part of the day, your body fat would come down naturally--quite a bit.

As I mentioned, when I am physically active, my body fat comes down to about 15%, and then if I restrict my eating a bit, 10%.

On the average, a young, elite rower is 9% body fat.

ranger

[hjs]

I have a serious question about this weight business. Last winter you apparently made weight at every race. Now, about 6 months later you're between 10-15 pounds overweight. How is this possible? What in the world do you eat (and more likely drink) to do this? You should also be aware that the Tanita scale you put so much emphasis on is about as worthless as tits on a bull. Do you really think a gimmick like that can accuarately measure a person's bodyfat?

And shows how serious he is in trying to improve, not at all, and I also think it's almost not possible to train 2/3 hours a day and gain weight. He simply does not train that much. It's far less