6:28 2K

[Steve G]

Rich
Why do you keep harping on about 60 year olds, you have over a year to go! Whats the betting you dont do those timed trials this month, heard it all many times!

Steve

[hjs]

Rich
Why do you keep harping on about 60 year olds, you have over a year to go! Whats the betting you dont do those timed trials this month, heard it all many times!

Steve

the odds are 1 one 1

[philrow]

Rich,

I'm interested in some clarifications. I know this has been raised before recently, but how can you account for genetic factors when analyzing the relationship between long distance and short distance pieces? Recall mention of a sprinter v a marathon runner. Athletes are essentially always predisposed to one or the other, and no amount of training can absolutely eliminate that discrepancy although it may not manifest so clearly on such 'near' distances as 2k and 6k. Ryan Shelton (hwt) in his USRowing trial pieces averaged ~1:30 and 1:37.4 per 500m for 2k and 6k respectively; Taylor Washburn (lwt) averaged 1:34.5 and 1:30.6. For Washburn, who is pretty well balanced, consider using a strictly linear model that his split for a 10k, let alone a HM or FM, would be increasingly potentially thrown off from the 'a xk time trial should be done at a 2k + ys pace' guideline. Thus this balanced top-notch lightweight rower could not precisely predict a FM from his 2k, nor a 2k from a FM.

Additionally, how can you account for the loss of strength that age invariably brings while endurance tends to be maintained or even increased? Your claim that OLD rowers decline at however many seconds per set time over 2k is first an average that doesn't take into account individual ability, and further it certainly cannot be extrapolated to take into account performance on endurance rows. If a 10k is ideally supposed to be 2k + 8s pace, then perhaps, in the well-aged, a 2k + 7, 6, or even 5s is much more likely. Perhaps, since I believe you claim to never have undertaken any real strength i.e. resistance training, you may even be at a particular disadvantage in terms of strength while your endurance may thus be comparatively much better developed.

Just some thoughts...

[eliotsmith]

I haven't lost the bet yet.

The bet has two parts.

One part is still being decided.

I will be happy to pay up, if and when I lose both parts of the bet.

But only then.

ranger

Where do you find the balls to say this? The terms were clear. You lost the bet and you were given a chance -- a second bet, not a second part of the first bet -- to recoup.

You owe the money. You're a welsher, a liar, and worthy of zero respect. There are people who, had you made the bet with them, would do you real harm for failing to pay up and they'd be right in doing so.

John,

It isn't balls but rather the showing of a true coward. It would take more courage than I think this man has ever had to exhibit integrity and honesty in this situation. In fact, I would say that it would take "manliness" but I fear insulting all the women who are leagues above this knave.

[ranger]

Rich,

I'm interested in some clarifications. I know this has been raised before recently, but how can you account for genetic factors when analyzing the relationship between long distance and short distance pieces? Recall mention of a sprinter v a marathon runner. Athletes are essentially always predisposed to one or the other, and no amount of training can absolutely eliminate that discrepancy although it may not manifest so clearly on such 'near' distances as 2k and 6k. Ryan Shelton (hwt) in his USRowing trial pieces averaged ~1:30 and 1:37.4 per 500m for 2k and 6k respectively; Taylor Washburn (lwt) averaged 1:34.5 and 1:30.6. For Washburn, who is pretty well balanced, consider using a strictly linear model that his split for a 10k, let alone a HM or FM, would be increasingly potentially thrown off from the 'a xk time trial should be done at a 2k + ys pace' guideline. Thus this balanced top-notch lightweight rower could not precisely predict a FM from his 2k, nor a 2k from a FM.

Additionally, how can you account for the loss of strength that age invariably brings while endurance tends to be maintained or even increased? Your claim that OLD rowers decline at however many seconds per set time over 2k is first an average that doesn't take into account individual ability, and further it certainly cannot be extrapolated to take into account performance on endurance rows. If a 10k is ideally supposed to be 2k + 8s pace, then perhaps, in the well-aged, a 2k + 7, 6, or even 5s is much more likely. Perhaps, since I believe you claim to never have undertaken any real strength i.e. resistance training, you may even be at a particular disadvantage in terms of strength while your endurance may thus be comparatively much better developed.

Just some thoughts...

Genetic factors?

Rowing isn't running.

In rowing, the best sprinter is also the best marathoner.

Slow twitch fibres predominate and there is no gravity.

I don't understand your numbers from Washburn. Please clarify. Which rows were done in what?

Strengsth doesn't necessarily decline with age like aerobic capacity. Strength declines because of neglect.

I am just as strong as I was when I was 20.

ranger

[ranger]

Whats the betting you dont do those timed trials this month

I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Since 2003, this is the first time I have given up foundational rowing.

I am just doing distance rowing in training.

Pretty different situation.

This is also the first time I have been at weight all fall and winter.

Pretty different situation.

2003 all over again.

ranger

[bloomp]

Wrong.

Please do some basic research on muscle physiology before you post again. Or is that too much work for your aging body and mind?

[eliotsmith]

Over the last five years, I have learned to row (and train) well.

This quote if from December 2007. You say in the same place that you rowed 6:28 2K when you were 50. That means 2000. I thought it was in 2003?

This winter I will be fully trained for the first time since 2003.

This quote if from Dec 7, 2009. And yet you are always claiming that your row in 2003 was without any preparation. What gives?

Because of my investment in foundational rowing over the last five years...The only way my immediate competition can catch up is to me is by replicating my five-year commitment to foundational rowing.

And to drive the point home, this post is from Dec. 6, 2009. Referring to the top quote, which 5 year period was your foundational training?

I think I may have finally figured it out. Ranger did pull a 6:28 2K at some point in the past 10 years. He did do it without any real preparation. He pulled so hard that he damaged his brain and hasn't said anything that makes sense since that time. Maybe you should give up rowing and undertake a 5 year training plan in foundational thinking. Return in 5 years and let us know how it went.

[bloomp]

No matter what you train for, muscle fibers will develop the same. Sprinting on the erg is to sprinting in the pool is to sprinting on a track.

"There are two principal ways to categorize muscle fibers: the type of myosin (fast or slow) present, and the degree of oxidative phosphorylation that the fiber undergoes. Skeletal muscle can thus be broken down into two broad categories: Type I and Type II. Type I fibers appear red due to the presence of the oxygen binding protein myoglobin. These fibers are suited for endurance and are slow to fatigue because they use oxidative metabolism to generate ATP. Type II fibers are white due to the absence of myoglobin and a reliance on glycolytic enzymes. These fibers are efficient for short bursts of speed and power and use both oxidative metabolism and anaerobic metabolism depending on the particular sub-type. These fibers are quicker to fatigue."

To summarize: fast twitch is for sprinting, slow twitch is for endurance. As you train over great distance you only utilize slow twitch fibers. True, you will always have both fibers, but especially in rowing it is necessary for both types to be somewhat equally trained. An ultrarunner may have a composition of 80% slow and 20% fast, Usain Bolt probably approaches the opposite of that with 20/80. With rowing, your race distance is just long enough to require serious aerobic work, but strenuous enough to utilize fast twitch fibers.

[ausrwr]

Genetic factors?

Rowing isn't running.

In rowing, the best sprinter is also the best marathoner.

Slow twitch fibres predominate and there is no gravity.ranger

Wrong as usual.

I submit for your consideration Rob Smith. 1:13 or so for a 500. 6:teens for a 2k.
Marathon? No.

One of my 20 year old mates. 1:17s for 500. 5:47 for 2k.
And as strong as when you were 20? How do you know that? Objectively?

[JohnBove]

Nay-sayers are fools; and being exclusively negative, rather than positive, knaves.

They are always wrong; therefore, dumb.

They are always ill-intentioned.

Therefore unethical/evil.

They are against some our most signficant assets: practical ingenuity, effort, willpower, and creativity.

Nay-sayers are the ultimate sad-sacks.

I feel sorry for them.

ranger

Aside from the fact that much, most, of the above is false and illogical, is the additional fact that you're not addressing naysayers. I can't think of a single person who posts here who fits your--granted, inane--definition. But without getting into semantic arguments (and one would, given your C.V., expect far more coherence than you present), I ask that you consider that you find naysayers wherever you go: hundreds in the UK and many more here in the US, where you post because you were so insufferable to the Brits that they chucked you off the site. What you encounter is not naysaying but the predictable response of normal people to someone who is dishonest, self-aggrandizing( to a degree that many of us find pathological), and destructive of the purposes that these forums seek to address. (Personally, I think you're a very sick personality. But the symptoms of your sickness are so offensive that they fail to mitigate loathing.)

Your nearest, although more accomplished, peer is Rocky Roy. Most everyone on these boards roots for him and hopes he succeeds in his goals. I think most of the people who correspond with you would like, differently, to see you fail, although I think almost all would (with a sportsmanship and decency you utterly lack) congratulate your success, were that, improbably to occur.

In short, you are not the recipient of naysaying. You are the recipient of an entirely normal disgust with someone who is, in every measurable way, a very poor sportsman and an even poorer example of a human being.

And, unlike, I think, most others on this board, I dearly hope you fail and I will not congratulate you if you succeed.

[aharmer]

I am a new rower with no beef in this conversation...I just want to know what a couple terms mean. SPI? MPS? How do these terms relate to Watts and SPM if at all? Please get me up to speed so I can get more enjoyment out of this wonderful argument! Thanks.

[philrow]

Wow, the meanies are out in force today. Such senseless word-violence everywhere.

From what Rich tells me, SPI = watts (as per a given split) / stroke rate... or something like that... stroking power index? Hm. It's a fun number to play with, but it hasn't personally been a part of my approach to rowing so far. I suggest to you as a new rower that you don't worry about it either. MPS = Meters covered Per Stroke.

Phil

[philrow]

Genetic factors?

Rowing isn't running.

In rowing, the best sprinter is also the best marathoner.

Slow twitch fibres predominate and there is no gravity.

I don't understand your numbers from Washburn. Please clarify. Which rows were done in what?

Strengsth doesn't necessarily decline with age like aerobic capacity. Strength declines because of neglect.

I am just as strong as I was when I was 20.

ranger

Indeed, rowing isn't running. So? There isn't a rowing gene nor a running gene, but there are plenty of genes that determine physiological traits and thus athletic performance. As Paul quotes and as you mention, muscle fiber types play a huge role in rowing performance. One genetic factor that I am referring to is of course that % of slow twitch fibers out of overall fiber composition.

I apologize - I totally bastardized the numbers. Last January or thereabouts Washburn pulled a 6:18.1 (1:34.5/500m) 2k and a 20:07.8 (1:40.7/500m) 6k, and thus his 6k time was at 2k + 6.2" pace as opposed to the guideline of + 6.0". Thus to extrapolate his 10k performance from his 2k performance while adhering to the guideline pace of 2k + 8.0" would likely be inaccurate, as the similar yet less drastic extrapolation from 2k to 6k using the + 6.0" pacing would already be inaccurate. The precision issue would of course be exacerbated with any increase in distance to 60', HM, FM, etc.

I suppose I've never read that strength necessarily declines with age per se. However, I have read plenty of studies indicating that age invariably leads to loss of lean/muscle mass at least in part because of a hormonal inability to maintain it. While a loss in muscle mass wouldn't necessarily mean a reduction in strength, it is strongly implied, especially when lots of mass is lost. Some older men choose to try to preserve strength or even make strength gains through weight training; you say you don't do weight resistance training (more and more, I'm starting to think abstaining from free-weight in general is the way to go).

[bloomp]

Genetic factors?

Rowing isn't running.

In rowing, the best sprinter is also the best marathoner.

Slow twitch fibres predominate and there is no gravity.

I don't understand your numbers from Washburn. Please clarify. Which rows were done in what?

Strengsth doesn't necessarily decline with age like aerobic capacity. Strength declines because of neglect.

I am just as strong as I was when I was 20.

ranger

Indeed, rowing isn't running. So? There isn't a rowing gene nor a running gene, but there are plenty of genes that determine physiological traits and thus athletic performance. As Paul quotes and as you mention, muscle fiber types play a huge role in rowing performance. One genetic factor that I am referring to is of course that % of slow twitch fibers out of overall fiber composition.

I apologize - I totally bastardized the numbers. Last January or thereabouts Washburn pulled a 6:18.1 (1:34.5/500m) 2k and a 20:07.8 (1:40.7/500m) 6k, and thus his 6k time was at 2k + 6.2" pace as opposed to the guideline of + 6.0". Thus to extrapolate his 10k performance from his 2k performance while adhering to the guideline pace of 2k + 8.0" would likely be inaccurate, as the similar yet less drastic extrapolation from 2k to 6k using the + 6.0" pacing would already be inaccurate. The precision issue would of course be exacerbated with any increase in distance to 60', HM, FM, etc.

I suppose I've never read that strength necessarily declines with age per se. However, I have read plenty of studies indicating that age invariably leads to loss of lean/muscle mass at least in part because of a hormonal inability to maintain it. While a loss in muscle mass wouldn't necessarily mean a reduction in strength, it is strongly implied, especially when lots of mass is lost. Some older men choose to try to preserve strength or even make strength gains through weight training; you say you don't do weight resistance training (more and more, I'm starting to think abstaining from free-weight in general is the way to go).

Right, and the fact that Rich is clearly gifted aerobically is the reason he was able to set a WR in 2003. His gift probably comes from a higher natural percentage of slow twitch fibers, OR just that his mitochondria are more efficient in general, his enzymes work better, or one of thousands of biochemical factors enhanced by a certain mutation (in a positive way).

But to say that slow twitch fibers are the reason for speed across a sprint whether 100m, 500m or 1000m, is completely wrong. In a rower, you'd probably find a distribution of 60% slow to 40% fast. The fact that rowing is comparable to weight lifting in the way that you move a lever across a certain distance supports the idea that the faster you move that lever in one stroke (more fast twitch) the faster you can be overall. A rower trained to a high level of endurance will not be able to lower his split to the same level as someone with more balanced training. Distance and speed work is necessary at most points in the year, unless you are simply trying to improve your endurance due to poor performance.

Rich, you claim that a month of sharpening will prepare you fully for your 2k. What do you think you will do that month? I'd like to hear what constitutes sharpening for you, and IF all you have done for the past 5 years is foundational rowing, and just now you are doing 'hard distance rowing', you will probably find yourself to be slower than someone who has included a variety of work (and weight lifting) in their training. At least slower on the same pieces you sharpen on.