The Two Types of Training

[ranger]

Ah.

Here is another thing.

Rowing is massively skeletal-muscular.

It is not primarily aerobic, as everyone likes to think.

The best thing you can do for your rowing, I think, is to learn to make maximal use your core.

You need to learn to explode with your hips in the middle of your stroke, as you swing your back, point your toes, and drive with your calves.

I did 1000 sit ups a day for five years or so in order to strengthen my core.

Pull ups are also a good measure of upper body power relative to rate. I can still do 30 pull ups.

Jumping rope is also great for the skeletal-muscular system, as is running.

I jumped rope for an hour a day for 10 years or so, just before and during when I took up rowing.

As a substitute for this hour of jumping rope, I did 10-mile runs.

For five years or so, I did the hour of jumping rope (or 10-mile run) and the hour of sit ups _before_ I did my 20K on the erg.

Hey.

No one said that being great at rowing was easy.




ranger

[jliddil]

But again if we are to gain from this thread, some real data into what makes you different from the rest of us older adults would be great.

When I rowed my 60min pb when I was 52, I rowed with a HR flat at 172 spm for the hour.
ranger

Again you seem to have certain physiological parameters that are different from the rest of us who are under the bell curve. I would imagine you are 2 standard deviations from the norm. When I was in my 20s and had a full blown stress test I could only push to 180 bpm. You must have a number of things in your favor such as ability to clear lactate, large VO2 max and an ability to run up against your VO2 max for sustained periods. HR rate is not the whole picture. If it were we would have it all figured out. Select people who have high HRs and train them and they will be world champions. And efficiency is important but does not account for your ability to sustain maximum effort for long periods. You have said yourself that when you started you did not row well yet you set WRs. So again it would be really interesting to know what all the physiological differences are between you and other well trained older adults (say 55+) who can't come near your abilities and physiological parameters.

[ranger]

Again you seem to have certain physiological parameters that are different from the rest of us who are under the bell curve. I would imagine you are 2 standard deviations from the norm. When I was in my 20s and had a full blown stress test I could only push to 180 bpm. You must have a number of things in your favor such as ability to clear lactate, large VO2 max and an ability to run up against your VO2 max for sustained periods. HR rate is not the whole picture. If it were we would have it all figured out. Select people who have high HRs and train them and they will be world champions. And efficiency is important but does not account for your ability to sustain maximum effort for long periods. You have said yourself that when you started you did not row well yet you set WRs. So again it would be really interesting to know what all the physiological differences are between you and other well trained older adults (say 55+) who can't come near your abilities and physiological parameters.

Nope.

It's not just genetic.

I was also a (big, heavy) marathon runner for 30 years.

I have been on 10,000 10K runs.

What I said about skeletal-muscular abilities and technical abilities is also important.

You are not facing up to facts.

Sure, it would be great if things were just handed over to us.

They aren't.

Your physical habits make a difference.

If you do 20K on the erg and then cross-train as much, you do _three hours_ of physical work.

I have been doing this sort of thing now for a decade.

ranger

[ranger]

Clearly, my advantage, if I have one, is not genetic.

I participated in many sports when I was younger and was nothing special at all.

My advantage, if I have one, is this:

If you don't use it, you lose it.

I haven't lost it.

If I have a physical advantage now that I am 60, it is the result of a lifetime of physical habits.

Virtue is hard-earned.

It isn't given.

ranger

[mikvan52]

(I say that) My anaerobic threshold is still 172 bpm.

(I say that) My maxHR is 190 bpm.

(I say that) My resting HR is 40 bpm.



ranger

What is said and what is shown are often two different things

[ranger]

Here's the problem.

All of the major training plans for rowing assume that you can do your best in a 2K by just rowing hard for 20 weeks or so.

Ridiculous.

The composition of these training plans just reflects the real-world pressures on rowing coaches, who need to field a whole fleet of competent boats immediately and then continuously for 20 weeks, leading up to some major championship.

These constraints don't have anything to do with someone like me.

ranger

[snowleopard]

I have been on 10,000 10K runs.

No, you haven't. That would be 40,000K a week for 50 years. So, once again, you are lying.

[ausrwr]

Ah.

Here is another thing.

Rowing is massively skeletal-muscular.

It is not primarily aerobic, as everyone likes to think.

SNIP

Hey.

No one said that being great at rowing was easy.



ranger

Do you want to clarify that one?

'Primarily aerobic' in terms of what? If you look at Hagerman, or anyone who knows anything about the aerobic system, you'll find out that rowing over 2k is generally 70% aerobic / 30% anaerobic in terms of contribution from energy systems. This can vary - the last gas test I did on a 2k showed 75%/25% - but in terms of energy contributions, it's what there is.

You could prove yourself more abysmally and wilfully ignorant, but you'd have to try.

And it's not easy being great at rowing. You were bordering on it for ERGING, but for rowing, it's not like you or I will ever know though.

Great: Redgrave/Ginn/Lipa/Tufte/Ivanov/Karsten/Ebbesen/Gier brothers.
No mention of Cureton there. Never had it, never will.

[rjw]

180 bpm is AT for me.

My anaerobic threshold is 172 bpm.

I don't think that you know what it is. You use many terms and numbers like you actually know what you are talking about. But clearly, you don't. Get tested and remove all doubt which you are proliferating.

[kini62]

It is not primarily aerobic, as everyone likes to think.

ranger

WRONG! Yet again. Big surprise.

[jliddil]

So now, surprise, surprise I'm convinced I'm dealing with someone who has no sense.

[ranger]

So now, surprise, surprise I'm convinced I'm dealing with someone who has no sense.

Yes, talking to yourself must be frustrating.



ranger

[jliddil]

So now, surprise, surprise I'm convinced I'm dealing with someone who has no sense.

Yes, talking to yourself must be frustrating.



ranger

Yes it is.

[ranger]

Do you want to clarify that one?

For older rowers, the problem with rowing well is not primarily physiological but skeletal-muscular.

According to _Rowing Faster_, by the time they are 60, as I am, most people lose 50% of their youthful full-body power.

None of this loss is necessary, however, as loss in aerobic capacity, in many respects, is.

I haven't lost _any_ of my youthful full-body power--at all.

So, my message to older rowers is this:

Work on your full-body power.

You can retain it all.

That's a good place to start.

If you start with only half of your youthful full-body power, you are _massively_ handicapped as a rower.

You are defeated before you begin.

ranger

[ranger]

'Primarily aerobic' [vs.] what?

Skeletal-muscular strength, flexibility, quickness, agility, rhythmicity, fluidity, endurance, balance, timing, etc.

ranger