Ranger's training thread

[aharmer]

Ranger, I'd really like to see proof of you completing any of those workouts you suggested to Nav. The message infers you are capable of completing them, and showing proof would shut up every naysayer in the erging world, why not just snap a photo next time you do one of them and show us? Oh, that's right...your workouts are telling you 6:40 is going to be a real bitch. Wouldn't be very impressive to show those workout results after your lies would it? Too bad, because they are very impressive for a 59 yo almost lightweight. You should just drop the charade, admit you're going to have to pull your ass off to break the WR and get real. Real Talk as the kids say

Nay-sayers don't have any influence on anything or anybody. They just embarrass themselves. They are just lames who are envious of those who aren't. Those who are good at this sport do what needs to be done to be good. They don't listen to people like you. You're no good at all.

ranger

I know I'm no good at all. I'm vermin, I'm a naysayer, etc. The question still remains...have you done any of those workouts that you asked Nav to do? It sure sounded like you'd done them based on the tone of your message, but I've not seen any record here or in the rankings? If that's lame naysaying then I'm guilty as charged.

[KevJGK]

Thinking back to some of my more vitriolic posts Rich I think in the first order I owe you an apology. So please accept it.

Although there are contentious issues to be dealt with within your posts, I still believe that I am enough of a supporter to genuinely wish you well for BIRC, so I do hope that regardless of result, I congratulate you like I would others on performing & participating at BIRC, ALL the very Best and hope you DO as best you can on the day.

I still have you in for a 6:38.7........ don't disappoint...lol

Best for now.

ps.

For those not going to BIRC but will attend WIRC.... I extend the same courtesy and wish you all well when the time comes.

FFS Flipper get a grip.

He has ZERO chance of a 6:38.7

DNS DNF most likely, 06:40+ quite a lot is a certainty in the highly unlikely event that he shows.

Sorry ranger but you are completely transparent.

[ranger]

Nav--

So what is your drive time, and therefore ratio, when you are doing 1:34 @ 32 spm?

ranger

[ranger]

The question still remains...have you done any of those workouts that you asked Nav to do?

The issue has nothing to do with me.

It has to do with Nav.

You cannot use _just_ sprints to predict a 2K, especially if you train as Nav does.

A 2K balances complements: anaerobic capacity and aerobic capacity, power and skill, effectiveness and efficiency, guts and smarts, explosiveness and relaxation, strength and endurance, quads and hams, back and arms, calves and core, etc.

A good 2K predictor, for instance, is this: (500 + 10K)/2.

So, if Nav can do 500m in 1:24, to pull 1:34 for 2K, he needs to be able to do 10K in 1:44.

A 10K trail is skillful, relaxed threshold rowing that tests your aerobic capacity and endurance.

ranger

[ranger]

The question still remains...have you done any of those workouts that you asked Nav to do?

The things I listed were not "workouts."

They were trials, performances.

You should never confuse the two.

Workouts are training. They can make you better.

Performances are 2K predictors. They tell you whether your training has succeeded.

To be a great at 2K, you don't have to do any 2K predictors/trials at all, if you don't want.

It is just that most do, because they are curious about whether their training has succeeded.

Trials/performances don't _train_ you to do anything at all.

For those with weak training, trials/performances just tell you how badly your training has failed.

ranger

[luckylindy]

The question still remains...have you done any of those workouts that you asked Nav to do?

The issue has nothing to do with me.

It has to do with Nav.

You cannot use _just_ sprints to predict a 2K, especially if you train as Nav does.

A 2K balances complements: anaerobic capacity and aerobic capacity, power and skill, effectiveness and efficiency, guts and smarts, explosiveness and relaxation, strength and endurance, quads and hams, back and arms, calves and core, etc.

A good 2K predictor, for instance, is this: (500 + 10K)/2.

So, if Nav can do 500m in 1:24, to pull 1:34 for 2K, he needs to be able to do 10K in 1:44.

ranger

Wouldn't it be a much better predictor to just do a 2K at close to race pace? Or a distance just below 2K at race pace? This is how we always predicted our running times (I can't speak for rowing though). Had my coaches said "OK, we need to figure out if you're going to qualify for states in the mile ... go out and run 400m repeats then run a 10k", we'd think he was crazy. We'd simply go out and race the mile but leave a little on the table ... taking off 5 seconds or so almost always predicted our actual performance on race day.

Why get complicated?

[ranger]

Wouldn't it be a much better predictor to just do a 2K at close to race pace? Or a distance just below 2K at race pace? This is how we always predicted our running times (I can't speak for rowing though). Had my coaches said "OK, we need to figure out if you're going to qualify for states in the mile ... go out and run 400m repeats then run a 10k", we'd think he was crazy. We'd simply go out and race the mile but leave a little on the table ... taking off 5 seconds or so almost always predicted our actual performance on race day.

Why get complicated?

Rowing isn't running.

In rowing, the best at 500m is also the best at a FM.

To be the best at 2K, you have to be the best at both.

Actually, rowing is not _more_ complicated than running.

It's _less_ complicated, because less specialized.

By and large, Nav specializes in sprinting.

That's not enough to predict a 2K.

The predictor used is too specialized, especially when used to predict the 2K of a specialist.

The athletes that are closest to rowers in abilities and preparation are decathloners and triathletes, who have a blend of skills and abilities, many of them being complementary/contradictory.

There are also endurance specialists in rowing who are good at 10K but no good at 2K because they are no good at 500m.

ranger

[luckylindy]

Wouldn't it be a much better predictor to just do a 2K at close to race pace? Or a distance just below 2K at race pace? This is how we always predicted our running times (I can't speak for rowing though). Had my coaches said "OK, we need to figure out if you're going to qualify for states in the mile ... go out and run 400m repeats then run a 10k", we'd think he was crazy. We'd simply go out and race the mile but leave a little on the table ... taking off 5 seconds or so almost always predicted our actual performance on race day.

Why get complicated?

Rowing isn't running.

In rowing, the best at 500m is also the best at a FM.

To be the best at 2K, you have to be the best at both.

ranger

If the best 500m rowers are also the best at a FM, why not just train to decrease your 500m? 500m training seems a heck of a lot easier. Also, does that mean all the 250lb weightlifters (and strong cross fitters) who are out there doing 1:16-1:18 500s would excel at a 2000 or even a FM?

I understand there are many differences between the two activites (the impact of weight on performance probably being the biggest one), but it still doesn't change my point -- why not just predict a 2K performance with a 2K? It just seems bizarre to suggest that a 10K and some 500m repeats could predict your performance better than a 2K itself.

[ranger]

If the best 500m rowers are also the best at a FM, why not just train to decrease your 500m? 500m training seems a heck of a lot easier.

It is harder to improve your 500m time than it is to improve your 10K time.

The point of training is to get better.

ranger

[ranger]

why not just predict a 2K performance with a 2K

Flat out 2Ks are destructive and can hurt like hell.

As training, both things are bad.

The first is bad physically.

The second is bad mentally.

500s and 10Ks are easier and less destructive than 2Ks, but in combination, they can tell you what you want to know about your 2K, if you are curious and want to find out.

Neither shortened nor sub-maximal 2Ks tell you what you want to know about full, maximal 2Ks.

Zillions of rowers can do a good 1K, but can't do much at all over 2K.

Physically, rowers of this sort look just like Nav, and by and large, train just like Nav.

It is so familiar, it' a cliche in the sport, nothing special at all.

Happens all the time.

ranger

[ranger]

Given that the 2K blends complementary physical assets, you get better at it by using your training time to work on your weaknesses, not parade your strengths.

The favorite workout of someone like Eskild E., who naturally has _great_ power to weight ratios, is a hard 60min row.

In training, work on what you _can't_ do naturally, not what you always already can.

Using your training to parade your strengths is just a foolish waste of time.

I am naturally a distance specialist, but I have spent the last seven years working on my stroking power.

ranger

[NavigationHazard]

With the unique exception of the great Anna Bailey, the best 500m rowers are NOT the best at marathons. Roughly three seconds' examination of the world rankings will confirm this.

The issue isn't whether my training is balanced, according to some whack-a-doodle notion you have of what I actually do as opposed to your lunatic theories of what ought to be done. The proximate issue is your claim to be training "at the same pace and rate," and therefore capable of producing proof of the same training results this weekend, in this space.
More generally, the issue is that you are a bloviating fraud.

How are those 20 x 1' r32/1' in 1:33.3 coming? You still have 21 hours 21 minutes of today (Saturday) to avoid attempting them. That will leave you only Sunday to duck doing anything substantive, and then you're home free until you blow off next Thursday's 2k trial.

Fraud. You want to work on weaknesses, start with your own head. As a second order of business, grow a pair and actually attempt some workout you claim you're going to do.

[whp4]

In rowing, the best at 500m is also the best at a FM.

Only one (1) person holds a WR for both 500m and FM—Anna Bailey. So much for your theory.

To be the best at 2K, you have to be the best at both.

Besides Anna Bailey, only a few individuals (all of whom I'm sure you regard as irrelevant due to their age) hold both a 2k WR and a WR for 500m or FM. Dean Smith, Robert Spenger, and Luanne Mills hold a 2K WR and a WR for 500m (Smith) or FM (Spenger, Mills) although Smith's 500m WR is as a lightweight and his 2k WR is as a heavyweight. You have never been the best at 500m or FM, despite briefly holding the 2k WR.

As the guys on Mythbusters would say, this myth is busted!

[ranger]

Gorgeous sprinting now, 1:28 @ 40 spm (13 SPI).

I am delighted with how smooth and comforable I feel at the high rate.

Doesn't feel fast at all.

Butta.

A 500m, 1:28 @ 40 spm (13 SPI), predicts a 1:38/6:32 2K.

That's _waaaaaaay_ below the 55s lwt WR.

I'll do that today or tomorrow, rowing pretty easily.

For me, 46 spm is a top rate for a 500m trial, not 40 spm.

8 x 500m, 1:28 @ 40 spm (13 SPI), predicts a 1:31/6:04 2K.

I think I'll need to work on this fast rowing over the winter to get there.



But I should be ready to go by WIRC 2011.



This rowing at 40 spm should get my heart thumpin' and the lactic acid dumpin'!

It's hard to believe.

After all those years of training, I am finally sharpening to race.

ranger

[KevJGK]

I'll do that today or tomorrow.

Troll.