The Two Types of Training

[ranger]

Certainly 10,000 10K runs over the 30 or so years he claims to have been a runner would be pushing it, given that he lived in Michigan and Illinois, not somewhere more hospitable to year-round running, like California. That's a lot of running in snow for a guy who succumbs so easily to frozen feet

Sure, I ran outside all winter a few seasons, but most of the time I ran indoors in the winter. Working for Universities, I always have had cheap access to great indoor tracks and facilities. At the University of Illinois, I had a running partner and ran in the Armory. At the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and University of Michigan, I have run in the rec buildings, and at Michigan, the Track and Tennis building, which is a lot like the Illinois Armory. My standard run was 8 miles, which I did MWF. I did short intervals (fartleks) on Tuesday, long intervals (1/2 miles and miles) on Thursday, 10-15 miles on Saturday, and 20 miles on Sunday.

I also work out regularly when I travel.

My wife was also a marathon runner for quite a while.

As I metioned, odd as it might be, my whole (extended) family runs for entertainment.



Both of my parents are physical educators. So is my brother.

Running is a kind of family business.

So is swimming.

My father is in the swimming Hall of Fame.

ranger

[ranger]

It's axiomatic that you weren't fully trained then, since it's seven years later and you, somehow, still aren't fully trained.

My advance since 2003 has been technical, not physical.

How fast you go in rowing depends on both.

Back in 2003, I didn't know how to row and so rowed like shit (ineffectively and inefficiently).

I now row well (effectively and efficiently).

My physical capacities are just about the same, perhaps with a bit of a decline, which can't be avoided.

On the erg, rowing well, I think, is worth about five seconds per 500--across the board.

OTW, it is worth twice that.

ranger

[ranger]

1:40 @ 32 spm is now getting _very_ smooth and relaxed.

Right around 11 SPI.

_Very_ low heart rates.

Now, I just want to hold it there and stretch out the distance.

Dan Staite got to 30min @ 1:40.

I don't think that is out of reach at all.

We'll see.

At his best, Dan did around 6:16 for 2K.

A stable, anaerobic threshold heart rate, when you are pulling 1:40 @ 32 spm, predicts a 6:00 2K.

Do you think _that's_ what is going to happen?

Just rowing along, 1:40 @ 32 spm with my HR flat at 172 bpm?

Wouldn't that be something?



If that happens, my improvement, due to my better technique, will be _eight_ seconds per 500m, not _five_.

ranger

[lancs]

My advance since 2003 has been technical

Your 'advance' has been imaginary more like. In line with others your age, I should remind you that you've just got gradually *SLOWER* since 2003. Slower, not quicker..

[ranger]

My advance since 2003 has been technical

Your 'advance' has been imaginary more like. In line with others your age, I should remind you that you've just got gradually *SLOWER* since 2003. Slower, not quicker..

Since 2003, I have been training to get better--technically.

I haven't been training to race, or to get better physically.

This year and last, I pulled 6:41 without any AT rowing (e.g., distance trials) or anaerobic intervals (TR, AN).

I am not sure what a couple of months of AT, TR, and AN training are worth when you do a 2K, but I would guess about 20 seconds.

I realize that you are deaf and dumb, but I guess I just continue to hope that some vibrations in the floorboards might jostle your inner ear and get the point across.



I am now rowing at 32 spm, getting ready for distance trials.

And (perhaps) an AT 2K.

When I am done with distance trials, I will sharpen for a couple of months.

After I have sharpened, I will ready to row my best 2K, fully trained, and now rowing well.

As I have mentioned, my distance trials will tell us where I am with respect to my goals.

I think I will pb at all distances.

If I do, that will mean that I am better, not worse, no?

I will still not have done a better 2K, but that is irrelevant.

Your 2K is only as good as your 60min trial at 10 MPS.

What you gain from AT, TR, and AN rowing is predictable.

ranger

[ranger]

My advance since 2003 has been technical

Your 'advance' has been imaginary

Have I advanced technically?

Yep.

Just look at the videos of my rowing from 2003 and 2010 and compare.

The difference is not at all imaginary.

The technical improvement is enormous.

Recently, I have also dropped the drag, another indication that my technique has improved.

More legs.

I suspect it was only the max drag that prevented me from pulling sub-6:30 (without even preparing for it) this winter.

I am now rowing on setting five, 135 df.

Much better.

ranger

[bloomp]

Yep for 60 seconds at a time, you can hold together slightly better technique. I'd like to see a video of an entire 2k. Or even entire 500m. Once you get tired, you'll simply fall to pieces. If you can even finish without putting the handle down.

Nobody cares if you're rowing technically better if you show off the same ugly stroke. We've been over this time and time again (I still have the images), and you have not improved with respect to technique.

Can't teach an old dog new tricks, even if he's not lost any of his "youthful strength".

[ranger]

Yep for 60 seconds at a time, you can hold together slightly better technique. I'd like to see a video of an entire 2k. Or even entire 500m. Once you get tired, you'll simply fall to pieces. If you can even finish without putting the handle down.

Nobody cares if you're rowing technically better if you show off the same ugly stroke. We've been over this time and time again (I still have the images), and you have not improved with respect to technique.

Can't teach an old dog new tricks, even if he's not lost any of his "youthful strength".

Nothing wrong with my stroke at all anymore.

My technique is vastly improved.

Before the end of the month, I will pb in all of the distance events: FM, HM, 60min, 10K, 30min, 6K, 5K.

This will be unprecedented for a former veteran WR-holder.

The normal decline from 50 years old to 60 years old is just over four seconds per 500m, across the board, 17 seconds over 2K.

Given what I could do when I was 50, this predicts the following times for my distance rows over the next couple of weeks.

FM 1:56
HM 1:53
60min 1:52
10K 1:50
30min 1:49
6K 1:48
5K 1:47

And, indeed, give or take a bit, these are pretty close to the present standards for 60s lightweights.

I think I will best these standards by 7 seconds per 500m.

If I do, my training over the last seven years will have been the best in the history of the sport.

ranger

[lancs]

getting ready for distance trials.

Ah, I see. You're only getting ready for distance trials. Not actually doing them, as you said you would before the end of the month.

If I do, that will mean that I am better

Yes. IF you do you will be better. But we've heard only 'ifs' from you for the past 6 years and nothing to back it up. Nothing at all..

[ranger]

getting ready for distance trials.

But we've heard only 'ifs' from you for the past 6 years and nothing to back it up. Nothing at all..

KInd of a paradox, no?

You don't get better by racing (parading your strengths).

You only get better by training (working on your weaknesses).

But racing is the only way to prove that your training has made you better.

So what do most people do?

Race, and therefore get worse.

You're a case in point, even though you are only in your 30s.

I have resisted subordinating my training to my racing--for several years.

I have just worked on my weaknesses, rather than parading my strengths.

So I am now _much_ better.

My racing will prove it.



The question lurking here is this:

Why do you row like a 60s lightweight?



In the 30s lightweights, the standard is 6:06, not 6:28.

ranger

[jliddil]

[quote="Howard Stern "King of All Media""]
But racing is the only way to prove that your training has made you better.
My racing will prove it.
[/quote]

"Racing" is not the only way to prove that training makes you "better". If by better we mean faster times for a given distance or more distance covered in a given time then you can measure this using the PM3/PM4 in any setting without racing. You then provide the data via the C2 Log since it is as close to validated data as you can come. You could also use a witness. By providing the data via the C2 log you will then remove any suspicion or doubt that you accomplished what you said you did.

Or yes you can choose to "race". Either way the data should be provided via a validated method.

Best of luck.

[bloomp]

Yep for 60 seconds at a time, you can hold together slightly better technique. I'd like to see a video of an entire 2k. Or even entire 500m. Once you get tired, you'll simply fall to pieces. If you can even finish without putting the handle down.

Nobody cares if you're rowing technically better if you show off the same ugly stroke. We've been over this time and time again (I still have the images), and you have not improved with respect to technique.

Can't teach an old dog new tricks, even if he's not lost any of his "youthful strength".

Nothing wrong with my stroke at all anymore.

My technique is vastly improved.

Before the end of the month, I will pb in all of the distance events: FM, HM, 60min, 10K, 30min, 6K, 5K.

This will be unprecedented for a former veteran WR-holder.

When was the last time you posted a PB on any of those distances? Oh right, not since prehistory. The faster and better men in your category - Roy Brook and Mike vB - have posted several. In fact at the 5k, Roy went from a 17:56 in 2004, to 17:38 in 2005 to 17:32 in 2006. You haven't posted a verified 5k in 8 years. Nor 6k, nor 10k, nor HM... Also, I'd like to point out that you were beat at the HM in 2002 by 56 and 55-year olds.

So when you're saying a PB, you really don't have anything terribly impressive in stock to beat. And it's been EIGHT years since you've 'tried' for a PB.

No amount of technical fixings can make you faster than you set yourself up to be. You set yourself up to be a pretentious fool, and you row like a pretentious fool. Yet you will never admit that you can't do what you've said because you can't face the shame of not being as good as the next guy. Someday you'll just stop posting and we'll know you've slunk away with your tail in between your legs. And, really. Don't make me bust out the pictures of your erging stroke to prove you wrong

[ausrwr]

180 bpm is AT for me.

My anaerobic threshold is 172 bpm.

I see nothing wrong with this.

How shall I clarify my thoughts on this?

OK: John, you're a pretty smart guy. I'm sure in your life you've come across a concept known as 'abbreviation'. It's where a type of shorthand occurs, and letters take the place of words.

One of these abbreviations, reasonably well known in the athletic sphere, is that for Anaerobic Threshold. This is commonly abbreviated as AT.

To re-write Rich's sentences above without abbreviation, and illustrate why he is wrong, along with you, might be worthwhile. Viz:

"180 bpm is Anaerobic Threshold for me.

My anaerobic threshold is 172 bpm."

Does that not strike you as inconsistent? Perhaps the mark of a man who has no idea what his Anaerobic Threshold (AT) actually is?

[kini62]

My father is in the swimming Hall of Fame.

ranger

Sure is. But not as a swimmer but as an honorary member for his educational contributions. A great accomplishment though.

Must suck to be you what with all you father accomplished, and you having done nothing of significance despite all the advantages and tools your father provided you with.

[johnlvs2run]

To re-write Rich's sentences above without abbreviation, and illustrate why he is wrong, along with you, might be worthwhile. Viz:

"180 bpm is Anaerobic Threshold for me.

My anaerobic threshold is 172 bpm."

Does that not strike you as inconsistent? Perhaps the mark of a man who has no idea what his Anaerobic Threshold (AT) actually is?

It sounds fine to me.

If not, then what is his AT - is it 172, 180, or some other arbitrary number?