Ranger's training thread

[ranger]

Well, that's just crap pacing, isn't it.

No, given that it was done on purpose, after rowing splits flat as a pancake on three previous rows, all WRs--6:30, 6:29, 6:28.

I was testing limits--and found them.

ranger

[ranger]

That just says at the times you did it perfectly, and didn't start like an idiot, you rowed to your potential.

Sure, given that I didn't know how to row, or train for rowing.

I rowed at max drag, barely using my legs, hauling anchor with my core, back, and arms.

Clearly, rowing this way, a lwt 6:28 is my limit.

This is a pretty ineffective and inefficient way to row, though.

Your legs are your biggest levers.

And given my size, rowing at a low drag is _much_ more effective and efficient than rowing at max drag, especially if you use your legs properly.

No?

So that's what I do now:

I row properly, with big legs, at low drag (123 df.).

So the quesiton is:

How much more effective and efficient is it to row well at low drag rather than rowing like shit at max drag?

Subtract this increment from 6:28 and you get _another_ potential.

That's my potential now.

ranger

[kini62]

I have three WR rows.


ranger

No you don't. You do NOT have any WR rows to your name.

And you've spent the last 5 years trying to set one in the 55-59 age group and despite training for 4 plus hour per day (according to you) you were unable to eclipse Roy's WR which he set while rowing part time.

So, in light of your failures at every attempt to set a WR at any distance and given the amount you train your erging is totally unremarkable as are your most recent results.

Gene

[ranger]

And you've spent the last 5 years trying to set one in the 55-59 age group

Nope.

I have spent the last five years training myself to pull 6:16.

When I was 55, I pulled 6:29.7 without even preparing for it, and even so, still struggling with all kinds of technical issues.

So why would my goal be to pull 6:38, fully trained?

The technical issues I have been struggling with are now resolved.

And this year I will race fully prepared.

ranger

[ranger]

To pull 6:16 for 2K, the sine qua non is the ability to pull 1:48 @ 25 spm at 75% HRR, steady state, for hours and hours.

So if your goal is to pull 6:16 for 2K, that makes what you need to do in training pretty simple and clear, no?

No need for conventional "training plans," etc.

You just need to pull 1:48 @ 25 spm.

All day long.

And then when that day is gone and the next day arrives.

You need to do it again.

ranger

[ranger]

So...

Onward.

ranger

[lancs]

What do you think you would pull for 2K just on the basis of low rate rowing (16-22 spm), that is, without even preparing for it--with no distance rowing (23-27 spm), threshold rowing (28-32 spm), or anaerobic intervals (33-38 spm) at all?

I did 6:29.7 in 2006, when I was 55.

I've no idea whatsoever what I'd pull, since I've never approached a 2k that way. Anyway, this is irrelevant as not one single person daft enough to read this thread believes one single word you say on this forum. The reason? You've had 6 years of very impressive 'ifs and whens' which have been backed up by not one single shred of credible evidence. Not even one.

And I should remind you that your 6:29 as a 55 yr old, whilst impressive was done as a hwt and so some way off WR pace. You'll have to remind me what your lwt effort was that year.... 7:04 or something I think?

As I say, I'll be impressed if you can pull a genuine lwt 6:40 ever again. You won't come anywhere near 6:30 again.

[ranger]

've no idea whatsoever what I'd pull, since I've never approached a 2k that way.

Unacceptable answer.

You do both low rate rowing and other sorts of rowing--distance rowing, threshold rowing, anaerobic intervals.

What if you just did low rate rowing--and then raced?

What do you think would happen?

If you held your normal 2K pace, where would you throw down the handle.

To not throw down the handle, how much would you have to slow down?

ranger

[lancs]

Well as I say, this is a moot point since I don't believe you just did low rate rowing. I don't belive anything you say actually. I'm looking forward to your latest no-show at WIRC excuse already..

[JohnBove]

Everyone gets about a dozen seconds over 2K from sharpening.Without sharpening, Rocket Roy and Mike VB would be a dozen seconds slower over 2K. I haven't sharpened since 2003.

That you continually fall back on this sort of shite is why everyone knows you're not for real. You have no idea what "everyone" gets from sharpening. You have no idea what you get from sharpening since you haven't, at least according to your very questionable claims, sharpened for years. Even in the year you supposedly did sharpen, you have no way of calculating what or was not attributable to sharpening. It's doubtful you could get agreement on this thread over what "sharpening" even is in a sense specific enough to make predictions off of. Certainly you can't, given your inability to use numbers in any way other than to misinterpret them.

And, you're a dishonorable welsher.

[ranger]

You have no idea what you get from sharpening since you haven't, at least according to your very questionable claims, sharpened for years.

No need to calculate at all. Everyone gets about the same benefit from sharpening--about a dozen seconds over 2K.

Even in the year you supposedly did sharpen, you have no way of calculating what or was not attributable to sharpening.

Sure you do. How? You do a 2K before you sharpen. Then you do a 2K after you have sharpened and your 2K times have reached a plateau. You can also do 2Ks in between to measure your progress as you go along. This is what I have done every time I have sharpened--and the results have always come out about the same. Back when I didn't know how to row, and therefore rowed like shit, before I sharpened, I would do a 2K at about 6:40-6:44. After I sharpened, I could get that down to 6:28-6:32. As sharpening went along, my 2K times would come down a couple of seconds a week, if I raced a 2K each weekend, e.g., at WIRC qualifiers. For instance, in 2003, I pulled a 6:42 at home at the start of January, then a 6:36 at Toronto, then a 6:33 at Elkhart, then a 6:30 at WIRC.

It's doubtful you could get agreement on this thread over what "sharpening" even is in a sense specific enough to make predictions off of

No need for a consensus. I'll just define it. Sharpening is rowing done above your anaerobic threshold, especially rowing that forces your heart rate up close to max. This happens at the ends of distance trials and in Level 2 and Level 1 workouts, organized sets of long and short intervals, done by the clock, with the intention of doing a maximal performance that you can both compare with other performances and use to predict a 2K score.

If workouts at levels 2 and 1 did nothing for your 2K, they would not be such a standard part of 2K preparation.

When they want to do their best 2K, all experienced rowers do a couple of months of sharpening.

This isn't accidental.

ranger

[ranger]

I don't believe you just did low rate rowing.

Well, before I started working on technique exclusively in 2004, trying to change the way I rowed, so that I could row OTW, too, without falling out of the boat, my standard workout was to row for an hour or two, starting at 25 spm or so and working up to 30 spm or so. Then, before I raced, I did two months of work on distance trials and anaerobic intervals, working with rates above 30 spm, with rates at high at 40 spm on 500s.

From 2004-2008, I did none of this. I just rowed at 16-22 spm and high stroking powers, working on technique (my rowing with breaks routines).

This last year, I have lightened my stroke to 11 SPI and returned to rowing at 23-30 spm, albeit without sharpening. I am now doing this at low drag with the intention of working up to distance trials.

Before BIRC 2010, I will sharpen hard at 30-40 spm for two or three months, starting at the beginning of September, as I did back in the fall of 2003 in anticipation of a USIRT trial at the end of October, and then BIRC 2003 at the end of November, and then EIRC 2003 at the beginning of December.

My work on technique is complete.

So I can now prepare to race without any damage to my long-standing project of correcting/changing my technique.

The experiment in training that I have been conducting is this:

To see what part of a 2K on the erg is due to technique.

That is, I am testing the difference in two different sorts of 2Ks--one rowed poorly at high drag vs. another rowed well at low drag.

Interesting experiment!

If I am right, the difference is four or five seconds per 500m, in and around 50 watts.

ranger

[ausrwr]

No need to calculate at all. Everyone gets about the same benefit from sharpening--about a dozen seconds over 2K.
part of 2K preparation.

SNIP

When they want to do their best 2K, all experienced rowers do a couple of months of sharpening.

This isn't accidental.

ranger

More of the same. If you're training to pull a sub 6:20 and you reckon you're going to gain about 12 seconds over 2k, how do you think you can do that if all you can do is a 6:41. That puts you at 6:29. That would be nice, but considering how much you hype yourself, not nearly enough.

And you are not "all experienced rowers". You have no idea what most people do - how many do you actually know/?

Tapering and race preparation does not consist of 2 or 3 months of nothing but rating 30 and 40. You might do 2 or 3 sessions a week of 10-12 session at those high ratings - maybe 3-4 submax * 1500s or something similar, but not every session.

Basically, this is to do with energy systems: most of the contribution for a 2k is still aerobic. But why bother trying to reason. Your 'objective analysis' consists of adopting which theory you've jumped on to most recently.

Give other people some credit Rich. I've trained with, and beaten on their bad days (and my best), people whose achievements you could only match in your wildest dreams (and believe me, you have some). I'm not that good, but the process of observation isn't that difficult. They don't sharpen like that.

All credit to you for taking the road less travelled. Sometimes it does, as Frost said, it makes all the difference. At other times, it's just pissing in the wind. Keep wearing those waterproofs.

[ranger]

Wow.

Can that 25 spm,

I am back to rowing at 27 spm.

1:45

Just over 11 SPI.

Perfect.

The goal is to get to a continuous 30K.

This is a bit faster than FM rowing, a little slower than HM rowing.

When I get to a HM I win my bet with Henry

This rowing is astonishing.

1:45 is he 60s lwt 5K WR.

I am doing my daily rowing at WR 5K pace.

I need to start building to 30K a day, followed by cross-training on my bike of a similar length.

In the WP, this is rowing at Level 3.

80% HRR

For me, high UT1.

My anaerobic threshold is 87% HRR.

Love the low drag.

123 df.

Long, and leggy, quick and snappy.

The wheel really sings!

A UT1 pace of 1:45 predicts a 6:20 2K.

ranger

[ranger]

BTW, the combination of pace, rate, and HR that I am doing now in this distance rowing (1:45 @ 28 spm with a HR in the 160s) is not at all unusual for those who row well at low drag.

For instance, Mike VB can do it easily.

It is just that his max HR is 163 bpm.

He is physiologically crippled from what he has lost of his youthful physical capacity with age.

My anaerobic threshold is 172 bpm.

My max HR is 190 bpm.

Mike is not at all unusual.

His max HR of 163 bpm is exactly the norm for someone 57 years old, given the formula, maxHR = (220 - age).

That's why the best 60s lwt this last year pulled 7:04 for 2K.

For most little old guys, physiologically, sustaining 1:46 pace on the erg drives their HR to the max.

ranger