The Two Types of Training

[lancs]

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

He's got no idea whatsoever as a) he's never had it tested and b) he doesn't know what it means.

[ranger]

[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.

"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.[/quote]

Sure.

That's racing, parading your strengths.

But what does parading your strengths have to with training, overcoming your weaknesses?

It has been demonstrated, over and over, and really without signficant exception, that if you just parade your strengths, after a _very_ short period, you just get worse.

The only way to get better is to overcome your weaknesses.

Overcoming your weaknesses doesn't have anything to do with racing.

For instance, if you have a weak stroke, you need to work on making it stronger.

Or if you can't get the rate up, you need to work at higher rates.

Or if you are tense, you need to learn to relax.

Or if you have poor endurance, you need to work on your endurance.

Or if you overall fitness is poor, you need to get in better shape.

Etc.

None of these things has anything to do with racing.

Racing just comes after the fact, as a "test" of your improvement.

But "tests" themselves just parade strengths and therefore are not good training at all.

ranger

[ranger]

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?

I take AT to be a training band that extends somewhat beyond your anaerobic threshold.

If it didn't, then you could row at AT for an hour.

Sorry if I am wrong in that.

I take my anaerobic threshold to be the highest heart rate I can row at, steady state, for an hour or so.

5K/6K is done at AT.

I would guess that lots of people do a good portion of a 5K trial with a HR above their anaerobic threshold.

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.

"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.

Sure.

That's racing, parading your strengths.

But what does it have it to with training, overcoming your weaknesses?

It has been demonstrated, over and over, and really without signficant exception, that if you just parade your strengths, after a _very_ short period, you just get worse.

The only way to get better is to overcome your weaknesses.

That doesn't have anything to do with racing.

For instance, if you have a weak stroke, you need to work on making it stronger.

Or if you can't get the rate up, you need to work at higher rates.

Or if you are tense, you need to learn to relax.

Or if you have poor endurance, you need to work on your endurance.

Or if you overall fitness is poor, you need to get in better shape.

Etc.

None of these things has anything to do with racing.

Racing just comes after the fact, as a "test" of your improvement.

But "tests" themselves just parade strengths and therefore are not good training at all.

ranger[/quote]
But with out quantifiable measurements this means nothing. You continue to state that you can perform to a certain standard. I don't care if it is racing or in your basement. Call it a time trial. Provide the data to support your statements. Quit the tit for tat language play. "I know what you are but what am I".

And yes I erg in a poor unskilled fashion.

[ranger]

Provide the data to support your statements.

I will, when I do my distance trials.

At the moment, I am reporting what my HR has been on distance trials in the past.

That's all I have to show until I do these trials again and record my HR again.

I don't have any problem with distance rowing at my anaerobic threshold.

So when I train, I work on other things.

I try to overcome my weaknesses.

My weaknesses don't have anything to do with heart rate.

ranger

[ranger]

But with out quantifiable measurements this means nothing

You don't seem to get the picture.

All of the measuring is a waste of time, if you don't train well and therefore don't have anything significant to measure.

When you overcome one of your weaknesses, it doesn't necessarily bear upon your times at all.

If you can't serve and have no backhand, your scores against an opponent might not improve at all if you got a backhand.

That you can't serve might still be ruinous.

ranger

[ranger]

Learning to row is something like this, I think.

You learn it one piece at a time.

Tennis and golf are similar.

http://www.google.com/search?client=saf ... 8&oe=UTF-8

ranger

[ranger]

And yes I erg in a poor unskilled fashion.

But you keep measuring your performance with trials so that you know exactly how bad you are when you row badly as hard as you can (instead of working on your weaknesses and getting better)?

Go figure.

ranger

[chgoss]

But with out quantifiable measurements this means nothing

...
All of the measuring is a waste of time, if you don't train well and therefore don't have anything significant to measure....

stated another way: if you have feel that you have nothing to measure, your training has been a waste of time...

I would agree with that...

[jliddil]

And yes I erg in a poor unskilled fashion.

But you keep measuring your performance with trials so that you know exactly how bad you are when you row badly as hard as you can (instead of working on your weaknesses and getting better)?

Go figure.

ranger

I prefer to suck, go figure

[chgoss]

And yes I erg in a poor unskilled fashion.

But you keep measuring your performance with trials so that you know exactly how bad you are when you row badly as hard as you can (instead of working on your weaknesses and getting better)?
...

IF your training is working, the trials you do "row(ing) badly as hard as you can" will show improvement over time.

That's the entire point of trials, to measure the effectiveness of your training, and give you an objective, quantifiable data point for estimating capability.

[mikvan52]

Hey, Rich:

Have you ordered that boat from Fluid yet? What color is it going to be this week ?

It's been mighty nice out there lately. Have you crossed the street from your house to do any sculling?
At last count you'd done a whopping 38k this spring season.

Here's what I did this morning after coaching:

Click HERE


I was doing fartlek without breaks, pyramid style... In other words no breaks! I draw you attention to this particular interval: 4' - 1:52/pace - 107 strokes - 27 spm - 1071m. I was wondering:
Does that well honed erg stroke of yours ever get you to 1:52/500m pace at 27 spm on the water?



When I was driving home this afternoon I thought of a new term.
You might remember spi.
You might also remember that you accused the sculling community as being haughty (or some such thing).
Well... What do you think of this new term?
Sculling spi
I like to call it Water-spi or WASP-I for short!

My WASP-I for 1:52/27 is: 9.23
As the link above shows, I can hold 9.23 WASP-I for 1k OTW.

What does your erg spi of 11 get you in WASP-I ???

regards,

"wasp-i Mike"

[ranger]

Have you ordered that boat from Fluid yet?

Yep.

I ordered it yesterday.

I will drive up to London, Ontario, to pick it up in four weeks.

So, May 17th?

It's blue, with "Windhover" on the bow.

ranger

[ranger]

My WASP-I for 1:52/27 is: 9.23
As the link above shows, I can hold 9.23 WASP-I for 1k OTW.

Nice.

Sure, OTW SPI, I would think, is _very_ important.

So is getting the rate up for sustained distances.

And then combining the two.

At 36 spm, you could do the same 1:52 with a WASP of 6.9.

ranger

[mikvan52]

My WASP-I for 1:52/27 is: 9.23
As the link above shows, I can hold 9.23 WASP-I for 1k OTW.

Nice.

Sure, OTW SPI, I would think, is _very_ important.

So is getting the rate up for sustained distances.

And then combining the two.

At 36 spm, you could do the same 1:52 with a WASP of 6.9.

ranger

Thanks.
But please explain the last sentence.
Why would I expend extra energy to get the same boat speed?
Is that what you do when you are "frothing" - as you say?