6:28 2K

Nosmo · Post by **Nosmo** » December 7th, 2009, 11:49 pm

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

I really hope most others on this board stopped caring a long time ago. If you meet a crazy person on the street that one clearly can't help then you avoid them. There is no point in any of this except for the spectacle.
Really what is the point of continually pointing out that Ranger is wrong?

aharmer wrote:....so I can get more enjoyment out of this wonderful argument! Thanks.

That is the right attitude. The only thing one will ever get out of Ranger's post is enjoyment.

ranger · Post by **ranger** » December 8th, 2009, 4:18 am

bloomp wrote: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?

Graham Benton has the 30s hwt HM WR.

Enough said.

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » December 8th, 2009, 4:41 am

bloomp wrote: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

Nothing special.

Same as everyone else, pretty much.

Intervals.

1', 500s, 1Ks, 2Ks.

I also like 5K, 4K, 3K, 2K, 1K, 500m.

5K/6K trials are also good sharpening, as are isolated, sub-maximal 2Ks (1K at 2K + 2, 500m at 2K + 1, all out to the finish).

ranger`

ranger · Post by **ranger** » December 8th, 2009, 4:43 am

I am _very_ happy with how the distance rowing is going.

I am now getting my HR up into the 160s.

It appears that I need to go to 1:44 @ 27 spm to do this.

Nice!

Still a bit to go to get my HR riding along, steady-state, at 172 bpm.

I am working on it.

Wow.

I wonder: Will I get all the way to 1:43 @ 29 spm (10 MPS, 11 SPI), steady state, below my anaerobic threshold?

That would be great, an improvement of 5 seconds per 500m over what I could do back in 2003, when I didn't know how to row.

Stroke feels great.

I now row well.

ranger

bloomp · Post by **bloomp** » December 8th, 2009, 5:16 am

Clearly, achieving a PhD in English requires a lot of scientific experience. In fact, why not make all conclusions with only one bit of evidence? It'd make criminal investigations a joke, it'd prove any hypothesis...

Ignorance. From someone with such an intelligent father it's a surprise you have no damn clue.

ranger · Post by **ranger** » December 8th, 2009, 5:33 am

bloomp wrote:you have no damn clue

I seem to be doing just fine with what "clues" I have picked up.

No?

The proof is in the pudding.

Training is coming along great this year.

I think I am right on schedule to break the 55s lwt WR this winter by 20 seconds, even though I will be 59.

That would break the 50s lwt WR, too, and threaten the 40s lwt WR to boot.

Nice!

ranger

KevJGK · Post by **KevJGK** » December 8th, 2009, 5:45 am

ranger wrote:I think I am right on schedule to break the 55s lwt WR this winter by 20 seconds, even though I will be 59.

That would break the 50s lwt WR, too, and threaten the 40s lwt WR to boot.

You are so clearly a troll you are actually quite sad.

ranger · Post by **ranger** » December 8th, 2009, 6:46 am

KevJGK wrote:
ranger wrote:I think I am right on schedule to break the 55s lwt WR this winter by 20 seconds, even though I will be 59.

That would break the 50s lwt WR, too, and threaten the 40s lwt WR to boot.
You are so clearly a troll you are actually quite sad.

Well, we'll see in a couple of weeks, when I do FM, HM, and 60min trials.

So not long to wait to see if I am in reach of my goals.

In the meantime, you can't be better than the best, no?

Last year, I was the best in my age and weight division by three seconds, just on the basis of foundational training.

Nice!

This year, I am adding distance rowing and hard sharpening.

I get about a dozen seconds over 2K from each.

So things are looking _very_ good.

I have been at weight since September.

Stroke feels great.

I am pulling around 11.5 SPI.

Effective.

Relaxed.

Efficient.

The goal this year will be to rate 36 spm in a 2K, as I did back in 2003, the last time I was fully trained.

At 11.5 SPI, that will hit my 2K target.

11.5 SPI is just what Stephansen pulls.

But he rates 42 spm!

40 years takes its toll on your aerobic capacity.

ranger

snowleopard · Post by **snowleopard** » December 8th, 2009, 10:13 am

ranger wrote:40 years takes its toll on your aerobic capacity.

And yet, despite this blinding realisation you think you can row a 2K time that would qualify you for national selection.

Has the penny dropped yet?

bloomp · Post by **bloomp** » December 8th, 2009, 10:33 am

You idiot I'm not talking about your training, I'm talking about how you have no knowledge of physiology.

ranger · Post by **ranger** » December 8th, 2009, 1:23 pm

snowleopard wrote:
ranger wrote:40 years takes its toll on your aerobic capacity.
And yet, despite this blinding realisation you think you can row a 2K time that would qualify you for national selection.

Has the penny dropped yet?

It has now been determined that the minimal decline in 2K times with age is .3 seconds per year.

.3 x 40 = 12

That means that a 60-year-old lwt might still have a chance of pulling 6:10.

I won't row 6:10 this winter.

I'll only row 6:16.

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » December 8th, 2009, 1:29 pm

philrow wrote: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"

Plenty close enough for practical purposes. All rows vary with conditions and a host of other issues.

It is nice to know that 6K is in and around 2K + 6.

For me, it is just this, too.

So (in trying to disprove it), you prove my point.

If you row a 1:40/6:40 2K, it is unlikely that you'll row a 1:40/6:40 6K.

Right?

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » December 8th, 2009, 1:39 pm

bloomp wrote: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.

Sure.

But the issue is: What's the balance?

In this training cycle, my balance will be six years of endurance, strength, and technical training at low rates and paces, and then two months of intervals at high rates and paces.

You row a 7:00 2K?

1:45 pace?

But what is someone builds up their aerobic capacity, technical effectiveness and efficiency, and endurance so that they can do a half-marathon at 1:45?

Will that person be unable to lower their split in a 2K because they have been doing too much endurance training?

Hardly.

I suspect that with a couple of months of sharpening, that rower will be able to pull a 6:16/1:34 2K.

We'll soon see.

ranger

ranger · Post by **ranger** » December 8th, 2009, 1:41 pm

bloomp wrote:Clearly, achieving a PhD in English requires a lot of scientific experience. In fact, why not make all conclusions with only one bit of evidence? It'd make criminal investigations a joke, it'd prove any hypothesis...

Ignorance. From someone with such an intelligent father it's a surprise you have no damn clue.

Yea, as an undergraduate, I was a pre-med student just like you.

Those guys are bone-heads.

They ain't go no culcha.

ranger

snowleopard · Post by **snowleopard** » December 8th, 2009, 2:59 pm

ranger wrote:
snowleopard wrote:
ranger wrote:40 years takes its toll on your aerobic capacity.
And yet, despite this blinding realisation you think you can row a 2K time that would qualify you for national selection.

Has the penny dropped yet?
It has now been determined that the minimal decline in 2K times with age is .3 seconds per year.

.3 x 40 = 12

By whom? Where is the peer reviewed study?