The Two Types of Training

Byron Drachman · Post by **Byron Drachman** » February 24th, 2010, 8:58 am

Ranger wrote:Theoretically, if you are lean, not just fat, you get a second over 2K for each kg. of weight.

As they would say on the other side of the pond, that is rubbish.

For a given physique, for anaerobic work the power is theoretically proportional to the muscle mass, which is proportional to the weight, and the speed will be proportional to the cube root of the weight for a short distance. For a longer distance, the speed will be proportional to the weight raised to the 2/9. For a mixture of the two types of efforts, the relationship is not linear. It is all explained very clearly here:

http://www.atm.ox.ac.uk/rowing/physics/weight.html

added later: The first sentence in original posting said aerobic, and our resident physics expert Nosmo caught the error. I added the second sentence.

johnlvs2run · Post by **johnlvs2run** » February 24th, 2010, 10:48 am

ranger wrote:In rowing, the two great technical challenges are training yourself to be (1) maximally effective and (2) maximally efficient, with the second of these challenges, perhaps, being the most difficult.

Agreed. Few are able to accomplish the second one, especially from the first.

ranger wrote:My goal for efficiency is to get back to rowing all of my distance meters from day to day at 30 spm, but now, rowing well (10 MPS).

Efficiency for a lightweight = 8 mps

efficiency (8mps) x ----------------------------------------------- 10mps (spi) --- effectiveness (spi)

mikvan52 · Post by **mikvan52** » February 24th, 2010, 11:46 am

John Rupp wrote:
ranger wrote:In rowing, the two great technical challenges are training yourself to be (1) maximally effective and (2) maximally efficient, with the second of these challenges, perhaps, being the most difficult.
Agreed. Few are able to accomplish the second one, especially from the first.

Could we drop the word "maximally" .
I feel the meaning of the statement would be unchanged.

What is sub-maximally efficient anyway

The word technical is also useless in the thought.

Perhaps the attempt here is to appear well versed in training theory by being wordy.

Come to think of it, how does this sound?

"The two great technical challenges in rowing are training yourself to be (1) effective and (2) efficient, with the second of these being more difficult."

Now we have successful isolated the trite.

Can we move on? Who needs to hear this? Maximal Man?
The thought is worthy of pewee T-ball.

ranger · Post by **ranger** » February 24th, 2010, 12:46 pm

To get a solid AT 2K by Detroit on March 6th, with my HR up to 180 bpm, I need to do (1) 8 x 500m @ 1:34, 4 x 1K @ 1:37, and 4 x 2K @ 1:41.

This is "trite"?

Nope.

Pretty substantial affair for a 60-year-old lightweight.

This is what I will be up to for the next 10 days or so.

If I can get this training done, and then the strong AT 2K that it predicts, then I will be ready for distance trials and hard sharpening over the next couple of months.

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » February 24th, 2010, 12:50 pm

mikvan52 wrote:What is sub-maximally efficient anyway

The way _you_ row?

"_Pretty_ efficient"?

"Not shit, but not good, either"?

"Looks like he has rowed before, but still needs a lot of work?"

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » February 24th, 2010, 12:52 pm

mikvan52 wrote:The word technical is also useless

Then why do you include it in your paraphrase?

So that you can be willfully redundant, against your own principles of concision?

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » February 24th, 2010, 12:57 pm

mikvan52 wrote:Now we have successful isolated the trite.

Sure.

In your quote, out of context, without explanation.

But I go on to define "effective" as low rate rowing of 13 SPI for lightweights, 16 SPI for heavyweights; and "efficient" as distance rowing of 1:40 @ 30 spm (11.7 SPI, 10 MPS) for lightweights, 1:34 @ 32 spm (13 SPI, 10 MPS) for heavyweights.

That's not "trite" at all.

That's substantial, and clear as a bell.

ranger

Byron Drachman · Post by **Byron Drachman** » February 24th, 2010, 12:58 pm

Hi Mike,
I don't think Ranger will ever get the point. I agree with you. It should be possible to talk about training goals without resorting to silly, pompous writing.
Byron

ranger · Post by **ranger** » February 24th, 2010, 12:59 pm

mikvan52 wrote:Can we move on?

Not sure who you are referencing with your royal "we."

Do you mean, "Can I, Mike Van Beuren, move on?"

Answer:

No.

Why?

Because you aren't within a country mile of rowing well.

ranger

snowleopard · Post by **snowleopard** » February 24th, 2010, 1:00 pm

ranger wrote:But I go on to define

Who are you to define? Your definitions are merely opinions. Your bell has no clapper.

JimR · Post by **JimR** » February 24th, 2010, 1:00 pm

ranger wrote:
mikvan52 wrote:What is sub-maximally efficient anyway
The way _you_ row?

"_Pretty_ efficient"?

"Not shit, but not good, either"?

"Looks like he has rowed before, but still needs a lot of work?"

ranger

Since Mike is a better rower than you by far could you describe your rowing in a similar fashion please?

JimR

snowleopard · Post by **snowleopard** » February 24th, 2010, 1:03 pm

JimR wrote:
ranger wrote:
mikvan52 wrote:What is sub-maximally efficient anyway
The way _you_ row?

"_Pretty_ efficient"?

"Not shit, but not good, either"?

"Looks like he has rowed before, but still needs a lot of work?"

ranger
Since Mike is a better rower than you by far could you describe your rowing in a similar fashion please?

JimR

From our hero's perspective. some editing is required:

"Not shit, but not good, either"?

"Looks like he has never rowed before. Needs a coach."

(Insert daffodil in ear and bray like donkey etc.)

JimR · Post by **JimR** » February 24th, 2010, 1:03 pm

snowleopard wrote:
ranger wrote:But I go on to define
Who are you to define? Your definitions are merely opinions. Your bell has no clapper.

I thought having the clapper was a bad thing ... making "no clapper" a good thing right?

Or is this the new english ... where bad is a good thing ... phat is good but fat is bad ... and so on.

My god! The whole world is declining in to ranger 'isms!!!

JimR

ranger · Post by **ranger** » February 24th, 2010, 1:04 pm

JimR wrote:Since Mike is a better rower than you

No evidence for that, Jim.

So far this year, we have this:

Rich Cureton 59 Ann Arbor MI USA 6:41.3
Michael van Beuren 57 Hartland VT USA 6:47.6

I have two more races and 10 weeks of hard sharpening to go in my indoor training season.

My 2k is still coming down by leaps and bounds.

I have done no distance trials or hard sharpening.

I will do both of these, daily, over the next 10 weeks.

Hard to say what my 2K time will be at the end of April.

Sky's the limit.

Mike's 2K started to decline a month ago.

What you have above is it for his 2K this year.

Sorry if this is a misjudgment.

I am happy to have Mike prove me wrong.

ranger

snowleopard · Post by **snowleopard** » February 24th, 2010, 1:10 pm

JimR wrote:I thought having the clapper was a bad thing ... making "no clapper" a good thing right?

ranger claims his explanations are as clear as a bell. A bell, unless of the struck type, needs a clapper to sound its pure tone. Without one it is dull and mute, i.e., not clear at all.

(For the avoidance of doubt, I was not referring to the scrotum deformity of the same name.)