Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

When I hauled anchor at max drag, diving at the catch, not using my legs, throwing in a big layback at the finish, and pulling with all of my levers simultaneously at the catch, sure, my drive duration was long, perhaps _twice_ as long as it is now, .8 seconds rather than .4 seconds, but pretty much _all_ of the drive was spent at 90 kgF. or below and, overall, the stroke was 20%-30% weaker.

10 SPI rather than 12 SPI-13 SPI.

At 36 spm, this long drive put me in a 1-to-1 ratio.

No rest.

I now row 36 spm with a stroke that is 20%-30% stronger in a 3-to-1 ratio.

_Lots_ of rest.

I can eat lunch between drives.

ranger

[mikvan52]

I think I might lose _all_ of my available body fat before BIRC.

If I get down to 5% body fat, I'll be 155 lbs.

I have about 148 lbs. of non-fat body mass.

ranger

And what, pray tell, makes ranger's body fat "available"?

If ranger gets down to 5% body fat his best time for 2k by April 30, 2011 will be 6:4x and no better...
I guarantee this!

It's a shame that there's all this focus on a "non-starter" type issue..

Just row a 2k Rich... show us what you've got for your training at this stage... Do it at UT... or... Do it at AT... or... do it at 90% HR ... or do it MAX...

JFDI.

What did they used to call you on the UK forum... oh, that's right, " a busted flush "

I believe you could restore some credibility with one modest time trial... (as stated above) It doesn't have to be full effort..
Just post the details... You are the best after all.

Are you really going to spend a grand to go to England just to say afterwards... " I wasn't fully trained. My long term goal is....."

[DUThomas]

I can eat lunch between drives.

ranger

And you probably do.

Either that or you write a few more posts.

[mikvan52]

Mike--

At BIRC 2010, I'll race (OTErg) at 36 spm.

3-to-1 ratio.

118 df.

12 SPI

ranger

Will you set a metronome next to your erg to make sure?

[ranger]

My present stroke (118 df., 13 SPI):

160xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
140xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxOOOOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
120xxOxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxOxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
100xOxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxOxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
80xOxxxxxxxxxxx0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
60OxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
40xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
20xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx





My old stroke (200+ df., 10 SPI):

160xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
140xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
120xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
100xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxOOOOOOOOOOOOOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
80xxxxxxxxxx0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
60xxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
40xxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
20xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

ranger

[NavigationHazard]

Muppet. You're not sustaining force, you're contracting the horizontal (durational) dimension of the force curve in order to try to hold up the amplitude (height). That's just silly at high rates: you rob Peter to try to pay Paul.

The reason you're doing it is that at higher rates, the whole stroke cycle contracts. If you try to keep drive duration constant and shorten the recovery duration, shrinking the ratio, perforce you'll give the flywheel less time in which to decelerate. This reduced deceleration is good from the point of view of calculating instantaneous watts during the recovery (they get factored into the stroke-cycle average). But it's potentially counterproductive in terms of the muscle-contraction speed necessary to accelerate the handle sufficiently to engage the ratchet at the catch. The faster that flywheel remains spinning as you come up to the catch, the harder it is to catch up with it and then accelerate the handle so that you're adding propulsive force during the drive.. Your muscles fairly quickly will reach the real-world limits of their ability to contract repeatedly hard enough to do it. Well before then, you'll have been better off reducing the peak-force requirement and trying to achieve a fuller, less-tall force curve that's going to be more sustainable biomechanically.

Moreover, the faster the handle has to be moving to engage the ratchet, the quicker you're going to pull it through your normal range of motion to the finish. Even if drive length (chain pulled) remains constant, if DF stays constant duration will tend to shrink as rate rises. As yours no doubt does.

[ranger]

In my present stroke, I have added about thirty "x"s (units of area under the curve) at 100 kg.F or above.

In my old stroke, there are _no_ "x"s at 100 kgF. and above.

ranger

[ranger]

Muppet. You're not sustaining force, you're contracting the horizontal (durational) dimension of the force curve in order to try to hold up the amplitude (height).

Not sustaining force?

How so?

160xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
140xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxOOOOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
120xxOxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxOxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
100xOxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxOxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
80xOxxxxxxxxxxx0xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
60OxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
40xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
20xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxOxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In this curve, only a quarter of the duration of the drive is spent at a force of 80 kgF and below.

50% of the duration of the drive is spent at 100 kgF and above.

A third of the duration of the drive is spent at 120 kgF and above.

20% of the duration of the drive is spent at 130 kgF.

Then, contracting the horizontal dimension of the force curve adds rest time to the stroke cycle as a whole, that is, increases the ratio, in this case, radically so, from 1-to-1 to 3-to-1.

Double mint gum.

Two, two, two mints in one!



ranger

[mikvan52]

Muppet. You're not sustaining force, you're contracting the horizontal (durational) dimension of the force curve in order to try to hold up the amplitude (height).

How so?


In th(e) curve, only a quarter or so of the duration of the drive is spent at a force of 80 kgF and below.

50% of the duration of the drive is spent at 100 kgF and above.

A third of the duration of the drive is spent at 120 kgF and above.

20% of the duration of the drive is spent at 130 kgF.

Contracting the horizontal dimension adds rest time, that is, increases the ratio, in this case, radically so, from 1-to-1 to 3-to-1.

Don't forget the effect quarks will have? and don't neglect Brownian motion either!

"radically so"! tally-ho..

Rich: Isn't all this blather just a smoke screen ....?.... attempting to hide the fact that, for you, 6:16 and 6:28 are totally out of the question ?

[ranger]

Muppet. You're not sustaining force, you're contracting the horizontal (durational) dimension of the force curve in order to try to hold up the amplitude (height). That's just silly at high rates: you rob Peter to try to pay Paul.

The reason you're doing it is that at higher rates, the whole stroke cycle contracts. If you try to keep drive duration constant and shorten the recovery duration, shrinking the ratio, perforce you'll give the flywheel less time in which to decelerate. This reduced deceleration is good from the point of view of calculating instantaneous watts during the recovery (they get factored into the stroke-cycle average). But it's potentially counterproductive in terms of the muscle-contraction speed necessary to accelerate the handle sufficiently to engage the ratchet at the catch. The faster that flywheel remains spinning as you come up to the catch, the harder it is to catch up with it and then accelerate the handle so that you're adding propulsive force during the drive.. Your muscles fairly quickly will reach the real-world limits of their ability to contract repeatedly hard enough to do it. Well before then, you'll have been better off reducing the peak-force requirement and trying to achieve a fuller, less-tall force curve that's going to be more sustainable biomechanically.

Moreover, the faster the handle has to be moving to engage the ratchet, the quicker you're going to pull it through your normal range of motion to the finish. Even if drive length (chain pulled) remains constant, if DF stays constant duration will tend to shrink as rate rises. As yours no doubt does.

Yes, duration of the drive does indeed shrink, as I said, for .55 seconds at 23 spm to .42 seconds at 36 spm, given the same effort and result (13 SPI).

The rest of your blather here is just drivel.

ranger

[ranger]

Well before then, you'll have been better off reducing the peak-force requirement and trying to achieve a fuller, less-tall force curve that's going to be more sustainable biomechanically

Bah.

You just need to train yourself to be quick.

I took my time learning to be quick.

Eight years.

20K a day.

50 million meters.

You could do the same, but you can't be arsed.

It would be a social gaffe ( ) to stop sharpening and work on what you need to do to get better.

ranger

[mikvan52]

ranger sees "a shape".. the Golden mean force curve.....

"?My God... My force curve looks (for one stroke) looks like the Taj Mahal!! WOW!!
This proves I can erg 220 strokes at 1:39 pace"

No, I don't think you can conclude as such!
We will conclude that you are a forceful competitor when you post any results/training that supports your claims...

It doesn't matter how many meters you row...
Row 2000 at max and post it... That's what we're waiting for...

[ranger]

In rowing, no one ever learned quick leverage by sharpening.

In sharpening, you raise the rate and lighten the stroking power.

That is, you ease up on your quickness and use a somewhat more sluggish leverage.

You learn quick leverage by rowing at high stroking power and low rates, preferable against low drag over long distances, concentrating on good mechanics, making every stroke perfect.

As I sharpen over the next six months, every other day, I'll row 20K OTErg, 1:48 @ 21 spm (13 SPI) at 118 df.

Every day, I'll also row at low rates, concentrating on technique, for 10K-20K OTW.

ranger.

[NavigationHazard]

Muppet. Look up the meaning of "sustain." The stroke cycle is zero sum. If you're increasing the rest time, you're decreasing the time available for applying force productively to the handle. There is no third choice after "drive time" and "recovery."* Your stroke has grown thinner (less wide) at the same time it's grown taller. Guess what. The monitor doesn't care much about the shape. It's interested in total area. Your body however DOES care about the shape. And if it's too tall in relation to width you're not going to be able to reproduce it for as long as you could a less biomechanically taxing force curve. I've had this discussion before on this Forum, most recently with Tinus. Empirical data collected by various people including Kleshnev suggests that at the elite level average handle force for male scullers tends to be something like 55-60% of peak force. I contend there's a reason, and that it's because you run into physiological constraints if you try to ramp it up much higher for very long.

Let's try this one. Take a 2 x 4. Lay it down on the ground. That's your old force curve.** Now stand the 2 x 4 up on end. That's your new force curve. Hey, whadda ya know. It's still a 2 x 4.

* Actually there's 'catch slip' waiting for the sprocket to engage, but that's nearly instantaneous....

** Actually, more like a very thin pencil....

[ranger]

If you're increasing the rest time, you're decreasing the time available for applying force productively to the handle.

With my short legs and powerful torso, and a light chain (118 df.), I don't need any more available time to generate 13 SPI.

.4 seconds is just fine.

Legs-back-arms.

That's the way to do it.

Sure, your case is pretty different.

You are a big, slow oaf, with huge legs and a huge torso, and no substantial training pulling at low drag with quick legs at high stroking powers over long distances.

So you lack both the capacities and the training you need to do what I am doing.

Happy to have you talk about yourself, Nav.

But in doing so, it has no relevance to me.

ranger